- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
Video: Atheist John Wolff Files Complaint Against Restaurant’s Church-Goer Discount
John Wolff, an atheist in Manheim Township, Pennsylvania, has filed a complaint against Prudhomme’s Lost Cajun Kitchen for offering a 10 percent discount to diners who bring in a church bulletin on Sunday (video below).
Wolff told the Intelligencer Journal that he filed the complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission because the restaurant discriminated against him for not attending church services.
Wolff said: “I did this not out of spite, but out of a feeling against the prevailing self-righteousness that stems from religion, particularly in Lancaster County. It’s not a big deal in itself and I have no animosity toward Prudhomme’s, but I do bear a grudge against the religious right that seems to intrude on our civil rights, right and left, getting laws passed that favor religion. And this was one more nail and I wanted to do something about it.”
Restaurant co-owner Sharon Prudhomme said that she planned to ignore the complaint: “I did check with all churches that I know of and ministers and they have said anyone can grab and go."
"Come on in grab a bulletin, you don’t have to stay at church, you can take it in and still have a nice dining discount. So, everybody’s covered... this is America, I’m an American, I have a business and I can advertise when and where I like to."
The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which is helping Wolff with his complaint, claims that discounts based on religion are illegal under the federal Civil Rights Act: “As a place of ‘public accommodation,’ it is illegal for restaurants, grocery stores or other businesses to discriminate, or show favoritism, on the basis of religion."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
This is a pretty clear
This is a pretty clear violation of the public accommodations section of the 1964 civil rights act. Open and shut case... the restaurant owner will lose this case.
Not at all. There is no
Not at all. There is no religious discrimination. *Anyone* - Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Muslim, Bahai, Scientoligist, Atheist - is free to pick up a coupon and use it. The policy makes no religious demands on the coupon bearer whatsoever.
Ah, but it does. Have you
Ah, but it does. Have you ever walked into a church foyer? It's like a freakin used car dealership. All of a sudden you have a flock of people crowding you, asking if you are saved, etc. It's really obnoxious and I don't think anyone should have to deal with that for a discount. It is a violation.
"How do you know so much about everything?'" was asked of a very wise and intelligent man; and the answer was "By never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant." - John Abbott (1821-1893)
You must be going to the
You must be going to the wrong churches. I have never had this happen to me. Honestly, you could literally go into the lobby, grab a flyer from one of the attendants, and walk out. There is no law being broken here. A business is free to have a discount to people who bring objects in, regardless of religious affiliation. Much like a teacher in school may offer extra credit for bringing something to class
Hmmm... have you actually
Hmmm... have you actually seen the case law around the public accommodations clause? Go do a little homework. This will lose in court.
I agree. The smartest thing
I agree. The smartest thing for her to do would've been to apologise, and then give a discount on Saturdays to the rest of the public. If the restaurant has a bar - make it $10.00 night ..or whatever. In this way she would increase her business greatly, and appease everyone. But her pious answer of "I will do whatever I want with my restaurant"..did her in. Because, no, you can't just violate the civil rights of any group of people based on age, race, creed, colour, sexual orientation, nor RELIGION...or lack thereof according to the Treaty of Tripoli article 11.
Say good-bye Pudhomme. :)
E A Salierno
He could have gotten up off
He could have gotten up off his lazy tail and walked into a church and picked up a bulletin.....
@Fn Oh: How do you know he's
@Fn Oh: How do you know he's lazy? Why do you support law breakers?(restaurant) and are you a criminal?
Chuck
because the path was simple
because the path was simple and the village id_iot made it difficult... as to the rest of your post... do you support village id_iots and why are you a village id_iot ???
-
FnOh,
@Fn Oh: So Law breaking is
@Fn Oh: So Law breaking is okay, is that your position? or is it who reports the violation of the law that's important?
Chuck
Please define how this
Please define how this restaurant "breaks the law" lol. It may be breaking social norms but fortunately we do not live in a country where our government is dictated by society's wants. That is why we have scholastic societies that give scholarships to which only Hispanic or African Americans can qualify.
@ Jacob Kreusch: I have no
@ Jacob Kreusch: I have no clue to what your referring to, in the part about scholarships.
Where you trying to make some type of point about our society or our government?
Chuck
@Jacob Kreusch: Have you
@Jacob Kreusch: Have you ever heard of the "Civil Rights Act"? Evidently you haven't. It has a clause in it called "The public Accommodations act". This is the law the restaurant breaking.
Also it is the duty of every citizen to stay informed, you obviously have been asleep for 30 years or just don't give a shit.
Chuck
It would be 48 years ;-)
It would be 48 years ;-)
That would not have been
That would not have been honest, but it would be very "christian"; at least in the sense that most modern Christians seem to practice Christianity.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
The guys sniveling because he
The guys sniveling because he doesn't meet the requirements for the meal issue... So, what... As if what he's doing now is honorable ??? and the correct answer is "NO".
@Raptorcat: You said: "most
@Raptorcat: You said: "most modern Christians seem to practice Christianity."
WTF does that mean, they kill their neighbors for working on the Sabbath.
Chuck
It means cherry-picking which
It means cherry-picking which rules they want to follow, for the sake of personal convenience and using "I will be forgiven" as the excuse.
Also, the adherence to the "add-ons" rather than the core teachings of the lessons in the Christ myth, that their religion is SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING.
Following a belief system is not easy when that belief demands treating people fairly (example - do unto others as you wold have them do unto you) and equally, which also explains why there is so much hypocrisy in the modern (since about 1800 years ago) practice of Christianity.
Are you not paying enough attention to history, as well as current events, or what the religion CLAIMS to teach to notice that?
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
The question of whether a
The question of whether a Christian should follow the interpretation of the Law as developed by the Rabbis of the post-secondary temple period, then it should be obvious that Christians are not subject to any authority that rejects the True King of Israel. (I.e. Yeshua the Mashiach).
This situation of a guy feeling discriminated on when looked at from a realistic view is nothing more than an opinion. He could have gone anywhere to pick up a church bulletin. The argument that Christians flock around someone and make them uncomfortable is baloney. Our church gives out food and feeds the poor. We do not try to get them "saved" or into our church. The food is freely given as Christ said do, in His name. They know it is a church, they come anyway, if they want to talk about the Lord then we talk, if not we don't broach the subject.
Sigh, unfortunately such is
Sigh, unfortunately such is the stereotype on Christians. A few imbeciles ruin the appearance for the rest of us. I have never had trouble treating somebody fairly and without prejudice.
@ Jacob Kreusch: You may not
@ Jacob Kreusch: You may not have a problem with not discriminating against people different than yourself.
But the organization "Church" you belong to and support does advocate discrimination.
Chuck
The guys sniveling because he
The guys sniveling because he doesn't meet the requirements for the meal issue... So, what... As if what he's doing now is honorable ??? and the correct answer is "NO".
@Fn Oh: Your a fool, you
@Fn Oh: Your a fool, you support the criminal actions by the restaurant owners and disparage an honest man who brought the law breakers to justice.
You're a fucking weasel.
Chuck
Oh Chucki... why you such
Oh Chucki... why you such the village id_iot ??? and why you going around fu-ck-ing weasels ??? You nasty boy... what, you no have girl friend ??? Your reasons are showing, little one.
@Fn Oh: Is it your style of
@Fn Oh: Is it your style of debate, to not respond to the points made in a person's post. But to launch "Ad Honomien" attacks. Why are you not defending your position.
Chuck
What ever happened to 'live
What ever happened to 'live and let live' and all the old bromides - including 'mind your own business'. Talk about a country of chronic malcontents, we're it.
@smogdew: Law breakers are
@smogdew: Law breakers are every citizens business.
Chuck
Whatever happened to me
Whatever happened to me sticking a gun in your face, demanding your money and saying "Hey, I am just living, man, now give me your money. Let live, k?"
It's called THE LAW. And it's been broken.
E A Salierno
Please define how this
Please define how this restaurant is breaking the "law" I guarantee you that you will have quite a problem doing so.
@ Jacob Kreusch: The "US
@ Jacob Kreusch: The "US Attorney" will not have a difficult time providing evidence for the violation of the "Public Accommodations Act".
I hope the restaurant keeps doing what it's doing. That way the punishment by the Judge will be that much greater.
Chuck
When I was in Basic training,
When I was in Basic training, those of us who were not church-goers/Christians were given a choice; KP/other duties or go to church. You get your Sunday off if you go to church or you don't get the time off at all.
This situation is not really any different. Go to church or suffer a "penalty", in this case, refusal to be treated to the same discounts that a church member would get.
Some may see that as a bit extreme, but when you have been the victim of that sort of prejudice, you start to understand where he is coming from.
Sounds a lot like Christians getting special privileges, if you ask me; and it sure doesn't sound any more right than giving someone special privilege because of their skin color.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
I think you are looking at it
I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It isn't a penalty for not going to church. In the military setting that you are describing it is simply because they need to allow church goers to practice their religion. It is not a practice of "giving you a day off because you go to church." It is simply allowing you too if you want to. They don't give the nonreligious group the day off because there is no reason to. That would simply be giving someone a day off. I feel like I'm not explaining this as concisely as it is in my head. Hopefully you get what I mean anyways.
You understand that
You understand that incorrectly. While those of us NOT churchgoing or Christian had to work all day, they went to church and had the rest of the day off. They didn't do that on Saturday for the Jewish soldiers, so it was, quite factually, Christian privilege, nothing less.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
My God another whiner
My God another whiner
Flagman, If you can't
Flagman, If you can't contribute, then you should at least not be ignorant in your responses.
Maybe you would like to be treated less than equal because of your religion, non-religion or philosophy.
Or perhaps because of skin color, hair color or heritage? It's all the same; prejudice.
It isn't whining, it is pointing out an injustice, but then your little retort was unthinking, which indicates other problems that you are clearly not interested in fixing in yourself.
I am willing to bet that when it happens to you on a continuous basis, then you may decide to act; unless you are not bright enough to recognize it, even when it happens to you.
In some states, it is still legal to fire someone for not being Christian.....I suppose that's whining too; at least to you, but then if you aren't affected by that, perhaps the problem is that you are just another of those Christo-fascists that believes in forced conversion.
No matter what, name-calling on your part was completely uncalled for.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
...said the Christians,
...said the Christians, Muslim and Jew against the atheist.
E A Salierno
Bigotry can be found in every
Bigotry can be found in every religion, every culture, all over the world. The courts have already established the illegality of church attendance discounts. Many years ago.
Actually, while you are
Actually, while you are partly right, bigotry is MOST predominant in orthodoxic religions.
You get a lot less in orthopraxic religions as we tend to weed out the worst of those.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Then you must be insane
Then you must be insane
@ Raptorcat: DON'T FEED THE
@ Raptorcat: DON'T FEED THE TROLL. i.e. Flagman.
Chuck
No, just smarter and more
No, just smarter and more honest than you are.
We don't "protect our own" from their mistakes/crimes; we hold them accountable and expect them to be held accountable, but those who practice orthodoxic religion, almost always close ranks in order to "protect" or "cover up" the failings of one of their own, so which one is really the one who's insane; the ones that protect the criminals or the ones that expect the criminals to pay for their mistakes?
Think before you respond to that: the answer will tell us a lot more about you than you may want us to know.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
They should throw the case
They should throw the case out of court. He can easily get a church-going friend to pick up a church bulletin for him. He could even get one from a radical commie atheist church, like the Unitarians.
@ fsilber : The subject is
@ fsilber : The subject is not the bulletin, it's the violation of the "Public Accommodations Act".
Try to keep on the subject.
Chuck
"Commie atheist church?"
"Commie atheist church?" Very good. Three contradictory words in the same sentence and even nect to one another. Even for you, that's a new low in expressing ignorance.
Actually if you look at
Actually if you look at Chinese and russian demographics you will see that atheism tends to run in the majority in these countries. Atheist and church are contradictory but That first one doesn't seem to be.
If he wins this it will be
If he wins this it will be great news. Then I can sue ihop for offering free meals to kids. That'll teach them to discriminate against adults.
J. L.
In the observations below I
In the observations below I am using the ethics of an 'ideal society' as a base because that is what we are discussing, what would be acceptable in said 'ethically ideal society'
Age would still provide disadvantages and advantages, mental and physical, that result in changes of behaviour towards certain age groups, such as medicare for elderly, and kindness towards children. Good ethics don't change this. It is the same for mentally or physically ill people, whether from birth or later in their life.
Race would provide no discernible significant differences (remember, an ethically ideal society), and so all races would deserve no less and no more than to be treated equally.
Religion would also provide no discernible advantages in a society where theists and atheists alike don't cover up the mistakes of like-minded people, sticking to a basic rule of treating people fairly. As a result, like with races, all religions deserve no less and no more than to be treated equally.
Thus, that old man is given medicare because he is more possible to require it. It's not discrimination because his age makes him have special circumstances. Giving people a discount for religion is not special circumstances, and so is not exactly justified or 'OK'.
Now, that old man who complained is sort of sweating over a smallish thing, but you can see that if someone else thinks this is good and it spreads all over the place, action needs to be taken.
How about if he got up his 'lazy ass' and got a bulletin, you may ask? Well, if I told you (I mean this for theists, because this entire letter is addressed to a more theistic point of view) to go to a church/mosque/other place of worship whose ideas you completely disagree with, what would you do? Honestly, would you get a bulletin? I don't think so, because it's disgraceful to your religion. No Catholic would go to a mosque to get a discount, and no Muslim would go to a church for the same reasons.
Please ponder this, and read it completely.
Judge Dredd, the evidence is against you.
Apples and oranges. But
Apples and oranges. But thank you for showing that you have no clue about the Civil Rights of your own country. Just another stupid American. You people are laughable...and everyone DOES laugh at you.
E A Salierno
The law says its wrong, yes
The law says its wrong, yes but my point was that there are special discounts for various things all over the place. Special treatment for people who belong to certain groups or participate in certain evwnts. Have you ever hear of an establishment doing a "bring this in and get this in return"? Same thing.
On another note, i didn't personally attack you so why are you insulting me? What did i ever do to you?
J. L.
@ koolkatsevenfold: You said:
@ koolkatsevenfold: You said: " Special treatment for people who belong to certain groups" , I believe you are not understanding "the Civil Rights Act".
It is special treatment of certain peoples.
This is because of violations of the US Constitution by State Governments, which enacted laws in violation of the "Bill of Rights" and left the people noway to redress this.
Voting rights, segregation, equal protection under the law, are some examples.
These are the extreme injustices the people so discriminated against had to live with.
The system was so pervasive that the US Congress had to pass legislation to address it.
So getting a Church bulletin is not the point, the point is the mindset that would need to be present to discriminate against another person so casually.
This shows an arrogance that demands a push back.
Chuck