I thought this thread was based on an actual restaurant that offered an actual church flier discount, and how illegal that actual restaurant was.
If we have to add hypothetical extra illegality to the actual incident to make a hypothetical illegal incident, how is that fair? We could discuss how it would be illegal that Denny’s refused service to Negroes, which would be pretty illegal of them. Except it turns out that in real life Denny’s doesn’t refuse service to Negroes. So what’s the point of discussing a hypothetical illegal situation that doesn’t actually exist?
As the OP, I would like to point out that I never said it was illegal (or as you say, how illegal it was). I ASKED if it was illegal.
And just for the record, no one has said anything about suing, other than the people who said it would be stupid to sue! <sigh>
Furthermore, we do not know if my particular IHOP would refuse a discount without a bulletin. I sent an email to ask (a very polite one, before anyone accuses me of bullying) but haven’t heard. StG, feel free to stop by. I have lost my taste for pancakes.
OK, so there is a debate about the legality and I’m not off my rocker.
and by the second statement, I mean a case where the IHOP fails to provide a reasonable accommodation to those failing to present their own church bulletin (e.g., having a stack of qualifying bulletins available at the point of sale is ok).
Yep. Here’s one for a local church around here – not my church. (And no, I don’t go to church anymore, but I still think of it as “my church”).
Note – it’s a PDF file.
Whoa, they’re having a Casino Night and it’s at NIGHT AT THE RACES!!! HORSE RACING!!! (Well, you know how us Catholics like to gamble!) Dude, anyone wanna go?
To my mind, the baseball case discussed in the Baltimore Sun supported Bearflag70’s statement #2.
Can we also agree to stop saying that even bringing up this question is “whining” or threatening to sue? Sheesh. And can we agree that the next person who compares this to having a coupon from a newspaper be tarred and feathered?
On a more serious note, I would include:
Statement #3: Intention (as in IHOP is just tryin’ to sell pancakes) is irrelevant to the legal argument of discrimination.
Quote: Under the state’s “public accommodations” law, any promotion that discriminates based on religion – or lack of it – is illegal.
“The ruling is essentially that a business can advertise a church bulletin discount as long as it doesn’t really have one in effect,” said Mike Berman, an attorney for the ACLU in Baltimore. “In short, you can have a church bulletin discount in name only.”
and: But the judge said that Maryland’s public accommodation law is violated only when there is a discriminatory effect. Because Silverman was offered a discounted admission regardless of whether he presented a bulletin, there was no violation of law, Brady found.
She wrote: “Maryland law does not prohibit the [Suns] from running its church bulletin promotion as long as the promotion is implemented as it was in Silverman’s case – without regard to creed and with an offer of reasonable accommodation to those who are unable to produce a bulletin because of their beliefs.”
Underlining mine
Therefore, Statement #2 (If this IHOP extends the church bulletin discount only to those bearing their own church bulletin, then it’s illegal) would seem to me to be supported.
Tell y’all what, Brynda, if you want to PM me with the address for that specific IHOP you mention in the OP I will go in there with a custom made Atheist Bulletin for God-Hating Atheists on a Friday during my road trip this summer and see if they give me the discount.
You don’t have to dirty yourself by even saying the word “church”. Hell, I’ll print up a new ABfGHA every Sunday and hit a different restaurant with one of these discounts. If anyone should ask me about my religious beliefs, I’ll say I am an atheist and refuse to use the C word, but demand the discount for my atheist bulletin all the same. I figure I can hit a different one every Friday all summer long, all over the south. I doubt I’ll find one that so much as questions me or asks my religion, but if I am ever denied the discount I’ll be sure to let you know.
Maryland Statutes
State Government
Human Relations
§ 20-304. Prohibited act.
An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of the owner or operator may not refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the place of public accommodation because of the person’s race, sex, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability.
Different jurisdictions may differ on the law. However, as I mentioned before, the reasoning in the Maryland decision is persuasive authority … more persuasive on the state of the law than anything anyone else has offered in this thread.
Here. Give them one of these. If a business still refuses to honor the church bulletin discount, then you’ve got a good reason to complain; there is is likely a discriminatory or malicious intent behind the promotion.
TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Based upon the language of the two statutes, I don’t see any reason a federal court would hold differently than the Maryland court.
Well, it definitely supports statement #1, that having a “church flier discount” that is really available to anyone is absolutely legal.
But legal decisions don’t apply to hypotheticals. You’d have to show a case where a restaurant had a church flier discount, and then refused the discount to someone who they felt didn’t have a valid church flier, and was sued, and lost the lawsuit. Since that didn’t happen, we don’t know for sure that #2 is true, although given the language of the judge it probably is, and if I were a lawyer for a restaurant owner I’d advise against policy #2.
However, because in fact any real life restaurant is going to follow policy #1, and give a discount to anyone who asks for it, it’s going to be a long time before we have a test case. So start a campaign. Go in to that pancake house of iniquity and demand a discount while loudly proclaiming that you’re not a Christian and don’t have a flier. I’ll bet you 25 LemurPoints that you get the discount. If they refuse to give you this discount, and you sue them, and win, then I’ll give you 25 LemurPoints. Deal?