Public Prayer Discount

A North Carolina restaurant gives a 15% discount to patrons who pray in the restaurant.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/01/337110193/restaurants-prayer-disc...

The owner said it is less about religion and more about gratitude. So any prayer (Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc.) should be acceptable, I guess. How is Matthew 6:5 supposed to be understood if not as prohibiting public demonstrations of faith — those "hey, everyone, look how religious I am" displays. Is it possible to show gratitude by smiling, sincerely thanking the server and leaving a generous tip?

I suppose a silent saying of Grace would be acceptable to me but no way would I eat there if people were making a public issue of their faith at the next table.

Worshipping their god or mammon?

Eh. PDRs (public displays of religiousness) don't bug me. Living in the American South, I'm probably inoculated. And businesses give discounts for all sorts of things. The only potential for trouble I saw in that article was that the discount was awarded "at the server's discretion." So presumably if the server didn't think a Hindu prayer "counted" the patron wouldn't get a discount. But that seems pretty unlikely.

Is this religious discrimination in a place of public accommodation?

Do religions other than Christianity make a big deal about praying over their food? Just curious since I've never personally observed it, or maybe they're just more discreet.

It might be if they only accept certain kinds of praying. It's probably borderline though. It would be one thing if there were time limits on it, but granting special privileges for religious practices as an ongoing policy is iffy.

3>

There are a few issues here.

Not all religions will have "saying grace" as a normal practice, so you're already biasing things toward those that do. Giving discretion to the server is, I think, a much bigger problem than you're making it out to be - in the American South I'm pretty sure that an obviously non-Christian prayer would be more likely to have the patron be asked to leave than given a discount. (I don't think either is a very likely scenario, but I think the idea of a server choosing to give a discount to someone obviously and publicly practicing a non-Christian faith is very slim.)

>7 lorax: It would have to be put to the test, though. And believe it or not, not everyone in the South is prejudiced. I think it may well be likely that if someone offered, say, a Zen Buddhist "prayer" it would be honored. A Satanic prayer might not be.

I think the fact that it is an ongoing policy is more of an issue than the fact that it rewards "prayer" -- whatever that means. Businesses give discounts for all sorts of reasons and not all of them are equally available to all people. The bookstore I used to work at gave teachers a discount for anything they were going to use in their classrooms. In April they used to give a discount to anyone who would recite a poem at the cash register as part of their poetry month promotions. Lots of stores give veterans and military families a special discount.

Ultimately this sort of thing is not a black-and-white situation to me. If the policy was coercive, rather than expressive, I would have more of an issue with it.

8>

I don't think everyone in the South is prejudiced. I think an establishment that deliberately chooses to single out public prayer for better treatment is more likely to be prejudiced than another one. But the main point, again, is that not all religions will have the practice of praying before or after meals, so it can't help but give preferential treatment to those who do.

It's the discretionary part that bothers me. If there was an explicit policy of "Anyone who stops before their meal to be grateful in some way, to a deity or to the people who prepared the food or to the people who harvested it, gets a 15% discount", I'd be fine with it. (Thinking of this classic here.) The discretionary aspect means people whose methods of expressing gratitude are more in line with religious community norms are more likely to get the discount.

I'm really not sure what your examples have to do with anything. Occupations and poets or non-poets aren't legally protected classes. Your bookstore would have pretty quickly been slapped with a lawsuit if they'd given discounts based on race, or on religion - the key question is whether this one amounts to giving a discount based on religion.

If the policy was coercive, rather than expressive, I would have more of an issue with it.

What do you mean by that? Saying "Pray, or you aren't welcome here?" That's pretty obviously illegal.

I pray a Lexus dealership offers the same deal.

>9 lorax: If there was an explicit policy of "Anyone who stops before their meal to be grateful in some way, to a deity or to the people who prepared the food or to the people who harvested it, gets a 15% discount"

Well, I think that could well be the policy, and I'm not inclined to come down too hard on people for not being lawyers about it. It would have to be shown to be prejudicial in practice for me to worry about it. And going on the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Here in the South it's common to have Bible verses printed on the menus. It is what it is. And it's as much a cultural thing as a religious thing.

What do you mean by that?

The Hobby Lobby decision was coercive because it forces women to abide by the owners' religious practices. Requiring people to recite the Lord's prayer before the start of the workday is coercive (public accommodation or not) because not everyone is a Christian. Setting two-tiered pricing on the menu -- one for people who pray, one for people who don't -- is discriminatory and might be coercive, depending on how it was worded -- because it is visible statement that people are treated differently based on their religious practices.

Having a non-posted policy that rewards praying might be discriminatory, but it's not coercive, because no one knows about the possible discount until it is given -- "at the server's discretion."

And yeah, someone could come in and make a big deal about it and take it to court and might even win, forcing the restaurant to discontinue the policy altogether. But there are better targets, frankly. And squashing one mom and pop restaurant's basically generous impulse to make a point seems a little like overkill.

>11 southernbooklady: It would have to be shown to be prejudicial in practice for me to worry about it. And going on the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

There's practically no doubt in my mind that it's prejudicial in practice but I don't know that it's worth suing over. Perhaps if every restaurant in town did the same thing it might be worth it. I wonder though, would you feel the same way if their practice was to add 15% to the bill if the party didn't say grace? Isn't that the same thing?

>12 jjwilson61: I wonder though, would you feel the same way if their practice was to add 15% to the bill if the party didn't say grace? Isn't that the same thing?

Is it? To add 15% to the posted price of a meal? As opposed to knocking 15% off? Does that sound like the same thing?

I agree that there's a point where a suit might be worth the trouble...especially if it became "official policy" for some larger entity, like a town ordinance or something. But until it reaches that point, I'm for letting people wave their own flags as they will.

11>

What I'm getting from you is that religiously-based discrimination is okay with you as long as the establishment doesn't openly advertise it, so it comes as a "nice surprise" for those who benefit from it. Is that a fair reading of your position?

If that's the case, given that this case has now received national attention, do you think that the benefit of "nice surprise" is gone, and it may be worth the restaurant's while to clarify the parameters of their policy?

If everyone else in the restaurant got 15% off and you didn't, wouldn't you feel that you were paying 15% more than the "standard" price?

I guess it comes down to how many people get the discount and how widely known it is. I have my doubts that "no one knows about the possible discount until it is given." What would be the point? If they wanted to encourage gratitude then what good is it unless people know about it?

Prayer as a coupon?

>14 lorax: what you're getting from me is an acknowledgment that people are different and do different things. So do I. And on the whole I prefer that communities compromise with each other rather than become polarized around issues -- especially when it is clear the intent was meant well. And maybe the national attention will be enough for the restaurant to reconsider its policy in more depth. That's a good thing.

>15 jjwilson61: As for how well the policy was posted in the first place, I actually have no idea. I drew that conclusion based on the fact that it was a surprise to the woman who received it. So it seems likely there wasn't a big sign above the cash register that said "15% off if you pray before your meal."

I often engage in pre-prandial meditation on the Mystery of Metabolism. But I think the extrinsic inducement of a discount sort of undermines what the restauranteur was claiming as the basis for the practice.

>17 southernbooklady: According to the article, Smith was on a business trip, so the discount could be well-known in the community without Smith knowing about.

I'm not sensing "generosity" as motivation behind this, or any benevolent impulse at all.

If it's not coercion, it's implied judgement of people who DON'T pray. Fuck that with a pointy stick.

>20 LolaWalser: If they start kicking out the gay couples that come to eat, I'll get my own pointy stick, Lola. But if I poked every judgmental person in the eye with a stick we'd all be blind. (Assuming I poked myself last).

If needs be - I don't have much money - I might possibly be willing to go through the motions to get a meal. But sheesh... This is pretty sick.

17>

People are different and do different things, yes. Some of these differences are protected by law, as they should be. That means that we don't get to single out those differences for special treatment. One of those protected differences is religion. Some people pray, some don't. That's great. But saying "if you pray, we will treat you differently" is not, in fact, legal. You seem to see that prohibition as polarizing - I see it as quite the opposite, as a way to compromise with each other. Some people pray in restaurants, some don't, nobody gets kicked out because of it, nobody gets charged more, nobody gets a discount. That's how compromising with people of different beliefs ought to work - not saying "Well, some people are discriminatory, that's okay, we can all get along." No. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" when what we're disagreeing about is whether it's okay to discriminate.

I don't place quite as much primacy on intent as you do. There's a commonplace saying that "intent isn't magic" (There's usually an additional adjective before the word "magic" that I'm omitting here out of deference to possible sensitivities. You can probably guess what it is.) If your actions have the effect of hurting people, the fact that you meant well may be a mitigating factor; it's not a get-out-of-jail free card. Likewise, if your actions have the effect of being discriminatory, the fact that you didn't explicitly sit down and say "We're going to charge Christians a lower price" doesn't really matter all that much. I'm willing to reserve judgement on whether or not they "meant well" in this case - I will say that, at best, the policy was poorly thought-through and poorly-defined. I think the crux of it is whether or not the policy as implemented would have rewarded explicitly non-religious expressions of gratitude equally to religious expressions of gratitude. And since the implementation was by design not explicit, nobody really knows. I certainly have my suspicions.

>21 southernbooklady:

It's a metaphorical stick, so let's not belabour it too much. These people are telling me I'm not as worthy, good etc. as their praying customers--giving them a mental finger in return is a well-deserved gesture. More than that, I'd say it's necessary--that protest is necessary, and well before they started kicking people out or not.

A North Carolina restaurant gives a 15% discount to patrons who pray in the restaurant.

One is almost tempted to grab some chalk and candles and a redhead, drive to North Carolina, and draw a pentagram on their floor and conduct a prayer-session: "We each worship in our own way", and all.

>23 lorax: I don't place quite as much primacy on intent as you do.

You're right that "intent" is important to me, although I think when it deserves "primacy" is a depends on the context. I suspect that if this case was taken to court, the restaurant would lose, eventually, (although with the current Supreme Court, who knows?) for the same reason that the photographer in New Mexico lost when she discriminated against the gay couple who wanted wedding pictures. Or that baker in Utah who wouldn't make a cake for a gay wedding. Offering a special discount for people from a specific religious tradition is a little more diffuse, but it probably tips the scales.

But I just can't muster the sense of anger that things "going viral" on the Internet is likely to engender. I see the situation as an opportunity for discussion, or an opportunity for division. And I prefer the former to the latter.

>25 AsYouKnow_Bob:

That reminds me of my uncle who was dining at a friend's home. The parents asked him to say grace and he said his favorite grace was in Spanish (a language they did not know). The family said that would be fine and he said a short "prayer". He later told his family that he had actually recited some phrases he had seen on a cigar box.

The situation does bring up the question how do you know the other diners didn't say grace silently or what they may really have said. What happens if the server doesn't see you say grace? Maybe they could have separate seating: do you want praying or non-praying?

I would feel utterly strange saying a blessing in a restaurant. We used to say the blessing over the candles in Hebrew on Friday nights--pretty much the extent of our home practice--but it's a thing you do at home.

My family of origin was one of those that faithfully held hands and asked a blessing (that was how we termed it: something we asked, in prayer, and not a recitation) before every meal. In a restaurant, however, we would bow our heads quickly and my father would say "We're thankful, aren't we?" and we would murmur "yes." I never knew for sure if this truncated ritual was to avoid ostentation, as the Bible commanded, or to spare us embarrassment.

I don't think anyone ever told me how to handle this once I began having lunches at school. So I skipped it and just ate my sandwich.

This was long, long before displays of devout religiosity became fashionable and indeed aggressive.

I can't help thinking of the words of the American Zen teacher who said, "Do nothing for the eyes of others."

When I was nine my mother said we should start saying grace (we hadn't before that so it seemed awkward to start then). I suspect she was having doubts herself but still thought she should be instilling some sort of religious training. My brother and I took weekly turns but it was only at dinner. Does anyone say grace at breakfast or lunch and if not, why not? It never even occurred to me to say grace at school.

I have seen families saying grace in restaurants. It is always the father speaking in a rather loud voice and yes, it does seem ostentatious. There is an whiff of we are better than you.

I like the Zen quotation. Thank you for that.

>29 Meredy: Is that Do nothing and make sure that others see you doing nothing (seems very Zen to me) or Don't do anything for the purpose of being seen by others?

I was at boarding school for seven years and Grace was said before and after every meal but I have never said it since. It seemed like a meaningless ritual at the time and no-one seemed to take it very seriously; it was just what we did before we sat down or after we all stood up to leave the dining room.

I'd be tempted to ask if they sell live goats, or allow a 'bring your own' policy ...

A North Carolina restaurant gives a 15% discount to patrons who pray in the restaurant.

Yep! I've felt the need to pray in some of the restaurants I've visited.

>32 pinkozcat: Hilarious. We also mumbled thanks to order before meals in our school dining hall. From somewhere in the hall a deep booming voice would often answer “YOU'RE WELCOME”. Teachers never found out who was responsible. (I don't think it was divine.)

#34
I love it. Being a girls' school, in a climate where the erroneous belief was that god was of the male persuasion, we would never have got away with that. I wish ... !

And on a similar note...

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/24/%E2%80%98all-are-loved-welcome%E2%80%99-piz...

>36 Jesse_wiedinmyer: I feel a little bit better about this one then the prayer one. There's at least a business motivation for offering effectively a coupon to a certain group to try and get them in the restaurant, unlike trying to compel certain religious behavior for a discount.

I dunno. The argument that was used in the thread where I first picked up on this was that this didn't discriminate against atheists because atheists can go to church to grab a bulletin just as easily as Christians.

Giving a discount based on who a person is or what a person does is discriminatory by nature. It's just that some kinds of discrimination is not legal. No one is going to fuss if an office supply shop or arts and crafts store gives teachers a standing 10% discount on their school supplies. But offering a discount to people who show evidence of having gone to church is an issue since religion is a protected class and you can't discriminate on the basis of it. So you are in effect treating a religious person differently than other people. A no-no in the commerce sector.

The better approach, as a business, would be to announce a 10% donation to some church charity for anyone who brings in a church bulletin. The store still makes the same amount of money, and no one is getting under- or over-charged because they do or don't go to church.

Of course if the primary aim is to attract customers with lower prices, rather than to support church-going, then the store is out of luck. But then their original motives weren't all that pure in the first place.

>39 southernbooklady: Of course if the primary aim is to attract customers with lower prices, rather than to support church-going, then the store is out of luck. But then their original motives weren't all that pure in the first place.

From my perspective, the motives are more pure; a businessman bringing in more business by attracting whatever groups may come to his store is pure capitalism. A business owner trying to give a discount to his group isn't.

How about ladies' night?

Reverse sexism! Crime against huMANity!

Let's not discount the fact that the restaurant was serving them 20% less food as the gullible-ones were clearly demonstrating a lack of judgement.

>35 pinkozcat: It has just occurred to me that, as a family we DID say grace at almost every meal.

We were a big family in London during the blitz. The meals those mothers invented out of the food rationing was a miracle in itself. As we started each meal my mother would say (not as a prayer) “Brave people died getting this food across the Atlantic and we will not be wasting a crumb of it.”

We never did, and we still don't. Strange how it stays with you for life. Not wasting food is the nearest thing we have to a religion.

"Rub a dub dub."
Thanks for the grub.
Go God, go."

Works for me.