Honestly curious
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:12 am
I was meandering the Interwebz and found this: Diner owner ends 'praying in public' discount after scrutiny
Short version if you don't want to read the article: " A local diner that received attention from around the world for giving a discount to those who took a moment to pray, meditate or simply say "thank you" before their meal will stop offering the discount due to the threat of a lawsuit.
A group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Wisconsin stirred the pot Tuesday by releasing a letter accusing Mary's Gourmet Diner owner Mary Haglund of violating the Civil Rights Act by denying "customers who do not pray and nonbelievers the right to 'full and equal' enjoyment of Mary's Gourmet Diner."
Now, believe it or not, I'm less interested in any potential religious aspect of this, e.g., religion in a public place, or religious people getting an "advantage," or whatever. What I'm curious about is if the group that threatened to sue has any legal foundation.
What if the diner owners gave a discount for some other, arbitrary set of conditions? Say, maybe the owner thought red-headed women were prettier and discounted their meals? Would they still be in "violation" as is alleged?
I'm honestly curious about the legal aspects.
Short version if you don't want to read the article: " A local diner that received attention from around the world for giving a discount to those who took a moment to pray, meditate or simply say "thank you" before their meal will stop offering the discount due to the threat of a lawsuit.
A group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Wisconsin stirred the pot Tuesday by releasing a letter accusing Mary's Gourmet Diner owner Mary Haglund of violating the Civil Rights Act by denying "customers who do not pray and nonbelievers the right to 'full and equal' enjoyment of Mary's Gourmet Diner."
Now, believe it or not, I'm less interested in any potential religious aspect of this, e.g., religion in a public place, or religious people getting an "advantage," or whatever. What I'm curious about is if the group that threatened to sue has any legal foundation.
What if the diner owners gave a discount for some other, arbitrary set of conditions? Say, maybe the owner thought red-headed women were prettier and discounted their meals? Would they still be in "violation" as is alleged?
I'm honestly curious about the legal aspects.