It’s cute that you think we have “sides” in this. Super cute.
I thought of a new hypothetical if you’re up for it.
I’ve been skimming through this thread and I have to wonder about how churches would feel about the suggestion to just step in, grab a bulletin, and leave. They spend money to print those bulletins for the churchgoers. I can’t imagine they’d appreciate a bunch of people grabbing them and leaving (and putting nothing in the collection plate).
As to the main question, technically it does seem like it’s discrimination against a protected class.
That said, I am not particularly offended by the practice, and I wouldn’t expend much effort tilting against this particular windmill.
Unless so many bulletins are taken that there’s a real shortage for the congregation, it’s simply not an issue. The cost of printing has already been incurred, and as previously mentioned there’s the hope that a bulletin-nabber, or someone who sees the bulletin, will attend a service or somesuch.
Bearflag and treis, allow me to publicly thank you for finding cites and explaining things so well in this thread. I really appreciate having a place like this with members like you who are willing to research and discuss issues.
…And it’s not like they scrape the ink off the old ones so they can print new stuff on 'em for next week, either. If you come in during or after a service to snatch one you’re saving them the trouble of disposing of it.
No problem. Good debate.
Where precisely did you get that information, Guin? We have no idea if the IHOP would extend the discount to all who ask for it or not.
And Bearflag is too gracious to tell you this: but he is an attorney in California. And frankly, he’s been mopping the floor with you.
Hey! You blew my cover! Seriously, I wanted to debate on the merits and not claim some kind of inherent authority just because of a credential.
Since the debate has died down, I’ll throw out my new hypo just for kicks. I haven’t thought this through, but it was a quick thought I had about how someone could possibly accidentally get themselves into a legal shitstorm … maybe not…
Anyway… here goes …
Assume the IHOP is in a small town and the manager is Baptist*. His church is putting on an Easter breakfast. The manager is a generous chap and decides to volunteer his IHOP to cater an Easter breakfast for his church, at cost.
He thinks it’s no big deal until the Catholics* in town discover the Baptist’s catered Rooty Tooty Easter breakfast. The Catholics demand a catered IHOP breakfast, at cost, for Easter the following year. Assume the Catholic and Baptist congregations are identical in size and equal in every way.
The manager doesn’t want to do it because he doesn’t belong to the Catholic church and he believes he should be able to do his own church a simple favor without being obligated to cater to every other church in town with a huge catered meal at cost.
What result?
*I’m not picking any particular religion for any reason, it’s just random.
Well you couldn’t have picked a better pairing for an example. The Baptists I am familiar with believe whole-heartedly that every catholic goes straight to hell, with the possible exception of those children who perish before being confirmed.
Of course, I’m kind of biased. One of my uncles was a Baptist minister was full of himself. Or something.
Well, if you’re looking for WAGs, I’d say it depends on whether the IHOP runs an actual catering business or not. If it does, it shouldn’t be offering a discount to one customer based on religious affiliation.
OTOH, if the owner is creating this catering event as a charitable contribution to this particular church, and catering is not on ongoing business, that would be acceptable in the eyes of the law.
IANALawyer, and this would also be assuming that he paid his staff regular wages and overtime if necessary to perform additional duties. He can’t be forcing them to make their own “contributions” to the church of his choice.
Can I amend the question just a little? …
What if the IHOP is getting some consideration in return for “enforcing” the discount.
Say for example the “Church Leader*” specifically mentions the discount and that only this church qualifies for it.
What would be the case then?
- Yes I’m being vague because I don’t care what denomition or religion the “church”, so long as it’s a pplacce of worship
Answering my own question -
I would be fine with it, because the Church is giving the restaurant more visibility or something they wouldn’t otherwise get in return for a benefit for their members.
So long as the Church leader is talking out his ass, and what he says isn’t true, that’s fine. IHOP has no control over what he says, and can’t be responsible for his misstatement of the facts. But IHOP can’t be offering a discount on regular services to members of one particular religious group.
I think WAGs are all we can hope for on that question.
Okay, what if the discount was only for the employees of the church? My employer has preferred accounts with lots of companies (just saved $138 at the Apple Store today, I get $15 off AT&T every month, and so on).
Would it be illegally discriminatory for IHOP to not offer discount programs to church employees just because they’re employed by a church?
And what if the employer practices illegal hiring practices? Does IHOP then share the liability? 
This is fine because IHOP is not operating it’s business as a public accommodation. It was a one off thing for a church that he has a specific relationship with. If he starts doing catering for anyone off the street that happens to be Baptist then he is going to get into trouble because his business then becomes a public accommodation.
Ah, yes. I’ll buy that answer for a dollar. I’ll even give you a church bulletin so I can buy it for $.80.
I was thinking the public accommodation angle too. But then I thought, what if instead of catering it, he just gave his Baptist church a great deal on renting the IHOP ballroom—a deal that he doesn’t extend to any other church or other group, secular or sectarian. This would clearly implicate a PoPA.
If I were defending the manager, I would argue: “Your Honor, this deal wasn’t extended to First Baptist because it is a Baptist church. It was extended to First Baptist because that’s where he’s a member. If Main Street Baptist wanted this deal, they wouldn’t get it either.” This I think would at least shift the burden to the plaintiff.