Atheist files complaint over restaurant's Sunday promotion

[markomalley]

From the York ¶ Daily Record:
A Manheim Township, Lancaster County man has filed a discrimination complaint against a Columbia restaurant that offers a 10 percent discount for diners who present a church bulletin on Sundays.

John Wolff, who is an atheist, filed the complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission against Prudhomme’s Lost Cajun Kitchen in Columbia.

Wolff said the practice discriminates against him because he does not attend church.
Perhaps Mr. Wolff would prefer a 10% surcharge on people who present a church bulletin.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Atheism is the most intolerant religion there is.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pathetic

 

[Armyvet007]

“Wolff said he was disturbed when he found the offer on Prudhomme’s website. He said was considering eating there, but never did.”

“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,” said Wolff, a retired electrical engineer."

The above two statements somehow don’t seem to go together.

Wolff said, “I have no intention or desire to go into a church and pick up a bulletin.”

Someone please inform Mr. Wolff that churchs routinely post their bulletins online. I assume he doesn’t believe he’ll “catch religion” by simply going to a website.

What a [censored].

 

[Crescentinus]

How pathetic.
Also, lawsuits like that are a waste of taxpayers’ money!

 

[empacae]

Atheism is the most intolerant religion there is.

Respectfully, I disagree. There are plenty of atheists that are fine people. In this generation, the intolerant ones are the militant atheists or anti-theists. And boy, are the annoying!

 

[Salvatore123]

As one who has practiced Constitutional Law, this man, unfortunately MAY be able to prevail in his suit. The key will be in the “law” that he is alleging the restaurant violated by giving discounts to those who believe in God vs. those who do not.

The governing federal statute would likely be Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), which prohibits discrimination by certain establishments such as restaurants and hotels, against protected classes of citizens based on race, religion, ethnicity, age, etc.

Using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the reach of the above statute, the US Supreme Court held that a restaurant in a southern state violated the Civil Rights Act, even though it did not accept federal funds of any kind, because it affected “interstate commerce” based on the fact that it was located near an Interstate highway.

The case is Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), and is a United States Supreme Court case that held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce. The restaurant was a family-owned bar-b-que restaurant named Ollie’s located in Alabama. It closed in 2001.

In the recent matter, the atheist will have to argue that “atheism” should be afforded the same protection as that given to minorities when it comes to accomodations in restaurants and hotels.

 

[scipio337]

As one who has practiced Constitutional Law, this man, unfortunately MAY be able to prevail in his suit. The key will be in the “law” that he is alleging the restaurant violated by giving discounts to those who believe in God vs. those who do not.

The governing federal statute would likely be Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), which prohibits discrimination by certain establishments such as restaurants and hotels, against protected classes of citizens based on race, religion, ethnicity, age, etc.

Using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the reach of the above statute, the US Supreme Court held that a restaurant in a southern state violated the Civil Rights Act, even though it did not accept federal funds of any kind, because it affected “interstate commerce” based on the fact that it was located near an Interstate highway.

The case is Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), and is a United States Supreme Court case that held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce. The restaurant was a family-owned bar-b-que restaurant named Ollie’s located in Alabama. It closed in 2001.

In the recent matter, the atheist will have to argue that “atheism” should be afforded the same protection as that given to minorities when it comes to accomodations in restaurants and hotels.

Unfortunately, I agree. The large issue is “public accomodation”, and because this is a public restaraunt, it would probably apply.

Perhaps the restaraunt would be protected because one doesn’t have to actually attend the service, but could print a bulletin from the intertubes.

 

[aicirt]

People have little to do with their time.

Reminds me of a lawsuit some guy brought against a restaurant offering 50% off to women during Happy Hour. He felt he was discriminated against.

Of course, the owner’s plan was to offer women the discount, they’d come, men would come because there’s lots of women and everyone would have a good time.

But idiot boy focused on his wallet which immediately made him suspect as a good catch by the girls and an absolute jerk by the guys.

 

[ChrissyB364]

There’s a restaurant here in my town that offers this same discount and I’ve wondered how they get by with it. It doesn’t seem fair but at the same time, of all the causes out there to be championing is “10% off hasbrowns and bacon for all!!!” really the one you wanna take up?

 

[SamH]

“Wolff said he was disturbed when he found the offer on Prudhomme’s website. He said was considering eating there, but never did.”

“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,” said Wolff, a retired electrical engineer."
.

So the man is sueing even though he has suffered no loss.

**Originally Posted by Salvatore123 **
As one who has practiced Constitutional Law, this man, unfortunately MAY be able to prevail in his suit. The key will be in the “law” that he is alleging the restaurant violated by giving discounts to those who believe in God vs. those who do not.

How does the possession of a church bulletin determine a person’s belief in God? It might indicate a belief - or it might indicate that a peson can navigate the world wide web and have a printer.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Wolff said the practice discriminates against him …

So?

 

[maltmom]

:whacky: Oh please, I want to sue everyone who gives senior citizen discounts. I’m discriminated against b/c my AARP card said I was entitled to a discount and now they only want to give it to people over 55. I’m not there yet.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Ridiculous, seems anyone can bring up any lawsuit for anything nowadays. I suppose Chick fil A is also discriminating against him for being closed on Sunday. He doesn’t have to attend church nor does he have to eat at the restaurant. Unfortunately he may be able to find someone to argue on his behalf.

 

[garn9173]

Unfortunately, I agree. The large issue is “public accomodation”, and because this is a public restaraunt, it would probably apply.

Perhaps the restaraunt would be protected because one doesn’t have to actually attend the service, but could print a bulletin from the intertubes.

Agreed as well. Now if the restaurant advertised in the bulletin and said present this ad and receive a discount, that’s one thing, but to advertise in the resaurant saying bring your bulletin from church to receive a discount, that’s opening a can of worms.

 

[SamH]

Agreed as well. Now if the restaurant advertised in the bulletin and said present this ad and receive a discount, that’s one thing, but to advertise in the resaurant saying bring your bulletin from church to receive a discount, that’s opening a can of worms.

Actually if the restaurant advertised in the bulletin and said present this ad it would be a violation. Most likely you can’t get the ad without attending church - and a specific church at that.

 

[sedonaman]

He’s not being discriminated against because he was treated the same as anyone else without a church bulletin. :yup:

Meanwhile, UC Irvine is lobbying the state for funding for a new law school.

---

“There is a society of men * among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves.” – Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels, AD 1726*

 

[Corki]

Unfortunately, I agree. The large issue is “public accomodation”, and because this is a public restaraunt, it would probably apply.

Perhaps the restaraunt would be protected because one doesn’t have to actually attend the service, but could print a bulletin from the intertubes.

I am no lawyer but I think the defense could be that the athiest is only coincidentally affected. The atheist (who may be in a protected class in terms of religion) is in the exact same situation as someone who is Christian but non-practicing or someone who just didn’t happen to go to church that particular weekend (not a protected group). Discrimination on the grounds of religion is usually based on class, not activity.

 

[He_Man]

As one who has practiced Constitutional Law, this man, unfortunately MAY be able to prevail in his suit. The key will be in the “law” that he is alleging the restaurant violated by giving discounts to those who believe in God vs. those who do not.

The governing federal statute would likely be Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), which prohibits discrimination by certain establishments such as restaurants and hotels, against protected classes of citizens based on race, religion, ethnicity, age, etc.

Using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the reach of the above statute, the US Supreme Court held that a restaurant in a southern state violated the Civil Rights Act, even though it did not accept federal funds of any kind, because it affected “interstate commerce” based on the fact that it was located near an Interstate highway.

The case is Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), and is a United States Supreme Court case that held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce. The restaurant was a family-owned bar-b-que restaurant named Ollie’s located in Alabama. It closed in 2001.

In the recent matter, the atheist will have to argue that “atheism” should be afforded the same protection as that given to minorities when it comes to accomodations in restaurants and hotels.

Yeah, good luck proving who believes in God and who doesn’t. All a bulletin proves is that you believe in paper.

 

[He_Man]

There’s a restaurant here in my town that offers this same discount and I’ve wondered how they get by with it. It doesn’t seem fair but at the same time, of all the causes out there to be championing is “10% off hasbrowns and bacon for all!!!” really the one you wanna take up?

Fair schmair. Is it fair “kids eat free?” What about the discounts I get for military service? Senior discounts? Hey - if they can afford to retire, they can afford to pay full price for grits…

No discount is “fair”, but who cares. This big baby was crying about a religious discount, which wasn’t even what it was.

Any judge with an IQ above 26 would be able to calmly state that carrying a bulletin does not favor religious people. It favors people with hands.

Nor does it imply you are religious, since they are free for anyone of any faith or non-faith to come by.

I hope this guy is single - no wife and children deserve a colossal cry baby who whines about fairness for man.