Minichan

Topic: Wow, fuck off CiCi's pizza, going to discriminate? I'm not going to buy from you again.

Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #6,981

Externally hosted imageThis is illegal.

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

Yes !4et0YaTXO. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later[^] [v] #122,030

WHat is illegal?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,032

@previous (Yes !4et0YaTXO.)
They are giving discounts to people who go to church, thus discriminating against those that don't. The page I linked to explains more.

I've reported the violation. Hopefully whenever this happens someone will take action to stop it.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,035

that pizz is an illegal clone!

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,036

@122,032 (A)
I fail to see how that's discrimination. It would be like saying if they gave discounts to Ford owners, they would be discriminating against those who drive Citroëns. :D

If they said "Christians gets a FREE DRINK" or "Atheists get a FREE DRINK", I could understanding someone claiming it was discriminatory.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,037

@previous (D)
Citroëns. Fag.

Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,038

@previous (E)
IT'S THE ONLY FOREIGN CAR MAKE I KNOW.

GO

AWAY

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,039

@OP
I would like to complain about that as well. Which location would that be? Just give a city or state if you do not feel comfortable with giving a city name.

Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,040

@122,038 (D)

> IT'S THE ONLY FOREIGN CAR MAKE I KNOW.
>
> GO
>
> AWAY

Honda, Toyota, Bavarian Motor Works, Herp, Derp.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,041

@122,036 (D)

> I fail to see how that's discrimination.
What don't you get? They are giving a free drink to religious, and excluding atheists (and possibly Jews and Muslims?)
> It would be like saying if they gave discounts to Ford owners, they would be discriminating against those who drive Citroëns. :D
It's not a crime to discriminate based on the car you drive. It is a crime to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and a few others.
> If they said "Christians gets a FREE DRINK" or "Atheists get a FREE DRINK", I could understanding someone claiming it was discriminatory.
Not sure if trolling or just stupid... Church is a Christian (or religious) place. By giving people who attend church a free drink, they are leaving out atheists.

It would still be discrimination if the Nazis had persecuted people who attended Temple. No one would say "They aren't persecuting Jews, just people who go to a Jewish place of worship!". Obviously people who go to temple are Jews, and people who go to church are Christians. Giving preference to people who attend mosque is giving preference to Muslims, discriminating against mosque-goers is discriminating against Muslims. This is not a difficult concept.

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,042

@122,040 (E)
THEY CAN'T DO THIS, FGT.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,043

@122,041 (A)
This. Also I would like to reiterate that anon D used citroën as an example and for that is a massive fay worthy of face raep.

Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,052

@122,041 (A)
Eh, I guess you're right.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,053

@previous (D)
Ahem. I believe you have something to say to me that is word for word the same as you said to OP.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,055

Antidiscrimination laws are a terrible restriction of liberty.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,057

@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
You think businesses should be able to keep blacks out?

(Edited 36 seconds later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,059

@122,053 (E)
Never. Citroën FTW.

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,060

@OP
Stop being such a bitch. You're like those people who try to sue over coffe that's too hot.

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,064

@122,055 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
I agree. If I want to start s church that bases its main idea on the fact that Jesus got divine powers by licking the veins of a black man's cock until he came and then Jesus took the black man cum and used it to lube the black cock to fuck his Jesus-ass until he went into a coughing fit that induced massive, violent diarreah that was then used to fill a condom worn by the black cock which then furiously face fucked Jesus until he died, then I should not have to fear discrimination. Thank you for supporting my ideas.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,065

You say business to make is sound impersonal. I believe one does not have the right to anothers services.

Rejecting customers is economically retarded. And I would certainly boycott racist businesses. @122,057 (A)

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,066

@122,060 (G)

> Stop being such a bitch. Tigre like those people who try to sue over coffe that's too hot.

Tigre. Fucking Tigre. You must be some kinda Mexican jew.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,067

you seem confused... @122,064 (E)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,068

@122,060 (G)
Coffee comes made hot. It's expected, and there is implied risk of getting burnt. It is not illegal to serve hot coffee.

It is illegal to discriminate.

Comparing religious discrimination to getting hot coffee is ridiculous, and you should be ashamed.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #122,070

@122,067 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
No I understand your commitment to my liberty to worship the notion that Jesus butt fucked dwarves on a daily basis.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,072

I do but I actually gave myself the right to discriminate against you... @previous (E)

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,073

@122,066 (E)
The fuck? My auto-correct borked.

@122,068 (A)
The point was that you are whiny as fuck.

"BAWWWWW THIS SUCH A HUGE DEAL

I'M GOING TO BITCH INCESSANTLY OVER A TRIVIAL PROMOTIONAL OFFER"

Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,074

Image went missingLol, I can see a way to sell this as a membership rebate and keep it afloat long enough for the other side to give up, even though the argument is… thin. ;D

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,077

@122,073 (G)
Look Mr. Tigre that sign to an atheist is like a sign that says "no niggers" to a nigger.

Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,079

@previous (E)
Oh boy, here we go~

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,080

@122,077 (E)
I doubt that the average atheist gives a fuck that they're missing out on a free drink.

Remember, most people aren't whiny fucks who go mad over small promotional offers.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,081

@122,073 (G)
You don't think it's a big deal? No, maybe not at first, but if you let it go, people discriminate further.

Best to stop it now, and set a precedent, to show people that it won't be accepted.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,084

@122,080 (G)
You really think it's about the free drink? You really are thick.

If it said "Whites, get a free drink!" there would be a lot of anger. Why? Because a few blacks couldn't get a free drink? No. it's symbolic, and if you can't understand the significance, you need to think a little harder.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,086

@122,080 (G)

> I doubt that the average atheist gives a fuck that they're missing out on a free drink.
The average atheist cares about this shit just like the average Jew cares about Nazi sympathizers.

> Remember, most people aren't whiny fucks who go mad over small promotional offers.
Google Lester Maddox and his restaurant policies.

It starts with small shit like this and ends with people being forced to live in ways they do not want to live. People who give a fuck take action over shit like this.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,102

Actually, only antidiscrimination laws force anyone to do anything.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,106

@122,081 (A)
"Today a free drink, tomorrow the world!"

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,110

@previous (G)
So you would be okay with a restaurant giving whites free drinks? That wouldn't both you?

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,116

@previous (A)
Asian restaurants do this all the time I hope you realize

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,117

@122,110 (A)
> limited-time offer to church-goers is the same as racism
lol. No.

Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,136

ITT: Anonymous A bawws over a $1.50 soda.

Man the fuck up and grow a pair, seriously.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,140

@previous (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
If it was Faygo you would be crying.

Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,142

@122,117 (G)

> > limited-time offer to church-goers is the same as racism
> lol. No.

Lol we will see about that.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,147

@previous (E)
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you saying that this is going to lead to widespread business discrimination against atheists? Bullshit.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,152

@previous (G)

> What the fuck does that even mean? Are you saying that this is going to lead to widespread business discrimination against atheists? Bullshit.

> implying atheists aren't already discriminated against by businesses.

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,154

ITT; mad as hell christians trying to argue with OP. You buttfrustrated christfags?

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,157

@previous (J)
But... OP is buttmad LOL

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,158

@122,154 (J)
This. There are no catholics because they are too busy with the ritualistic rape of children abd oppressing the rights of women.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,159

@122,157 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
Buttfrustrated pedo christfag detected.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,165

@122,152 (E)
Some businesses discriminate against religious people. Just because a few people do something doesn't mean that it'll inevitably become the norm.

@122,154 (J)
I'm an atheist. Inb4 shitty comeback.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,171

@previous (G)
It's a sin to lie. Inb4 butthurt christfag remark.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,173

@122,117 (G)
Both are discrimination.

discriminating based on religion is not "better" than discriminating based on race.

If someone complained about the "limited time offer benefiting whites" you wouldn't go up to them and say "Who cares? It's just a soda", would you? No, because anyone with common sense can see that it is discrimination.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,174

@122,171 (J)
I knew it. That was a shit retort and you know it.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,176

@previous (G)
buttmad

vocalon !!jdS+H4VgV joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,177

My neighbor runs the Macon County branch of Cici's.
Es a pretty cool guy, eh partys hard and doesn't a fraid of lawasuits.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #122,179

@122,173 (A)
> racism is the same as offering church-goers a free drink.
What about all of those promotions that offer discounts for, say, small businesses? Why aren't you out bitching about those? It's the same as racism, according to you.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,182

@122,165 (G)

> Some businesses discriminate against religious people.

Example?

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,183

@122,176 (J)
It's okay, you don't need to try any more. I'll ignore you now so that you don't feel like you need to think up another shitty retort.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,187

@122,179 (G)
> religious persecution is the same as offering whites a free drink.

> What about all of those promotions that offer discounts for, say, small businesses? Why aren't you out bitching about those? It's the same as racism, according to you.
Nice strawman! However I said religious discrimination was as bad as racial discrimination. That has nothing to do with religious discrimination.

CiCi's is comitting a crime. Discounting a small business is not a crime.

(Edited 36 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,188

@122,179 (G)
A small business is not mentioned in the Civil Rights Act. Religious beliefs (to include a lack of said beliefs) is.

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,189

OP is one big faggot.

No one cares.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,190

@previous (L)

> OP is one big faggot.
>
> No one cares.

I care. You are wrong.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,191

@122,182 (E)
Here.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,193

@122,183 (G)
can't handle your mad? U buttfrustrated.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,196

@122,187 (A)
> can't think of a retort
> play the strawman card
lol

@122,188 (E)
My point was that the OP is a hypocrite for not also bitching about other groups in society recieving discounts simply for being in that group. The small business thing was just an example.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,200

@122,191 (G)
Not the same.

CiCis is giving Religious a benefit, and excluding atheists.

Tesco bans all hoods. Doesn't matter what religion, or lack of, you belong to.

If CiCi's didn't give any free drinks away, I would not complain. If they gave everyone free drinks I would not complain. but they chose a specific group to discriminate against, and that is what the problem is.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,210

@122,196 (G)

> > can't think of a retort
> > play the strawman card
> lol
Don't make strawmen if you don't want to be called out on them.

Giving small businesses a discount is not a crime. It is not relgious discrimination. CiCi's discount is.

Stop with the false analogies.

> My point was that the OP is a hypocrite for not also bitching about other groups in society recieving discounts simply for being in that group. The small business thing was just an example.
You are a hypocrite. You are not okay with racial discrimination, even if it's just a free drink? But it is okay if it is religious discrimination? That makes you a hypocrite.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,211

@122,200 (A)
Now you're just trolling. Tesco are clearly discriminating against that man for his belief in the force. They're obviously Sith scum.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,214

@122,191 (G)
I do not know the laws of the UK Abd to what extent you are granted religious freedom but in America any right is constrained when it jeopardizes the safety of others (this is used MOST not ALL of the time). This is why shouting fire in a crowded room is not covered under free speech. In the case of the Jedi wearing a hood, if one were to apply the American standard (I use that loosely due to the fact that it is not applied ALL THE TIME in blanket form) the supermarket can make the argument that such clothing could possibly be used as an aid to robbery or some related crime. Having said that, it would be the decision of the court(s) that would settle the argument and possibly set precedent for future occurrences. I don't know how The UK would do it.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,215

@122,211 (G)
Fuck off troll.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,244

@previous (A)
> Fail to debunk my argument
> Brand me as a troll
Much easier than actually thinking of a counter-point, amrite?

@122,214 (E)
How does the "jeopardizes the safety of others" point tie into the OP's argument?

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,249

@previous (G)
It ties into the fact that a person's religious belief cannot be used to hurt others (human sacrifice, etc). I was illustrating that in the case you presented to me, in America, it may not be interpreted by the court as religious discrimination.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,254

@previous (E)
But this isn't a case of religion harming non-believers at all. It's the case of Church-goers recieving a free drink in a one-day promotional offer. Doesn't harm non-church-goers at all.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,270

@previous (G)
I agree that nobody is harmed physically. I was commenting on your article and that the guy not wearing his hood probably wasn't discrimination. In the case of CiCi's, they are offering something to church goers that is not extended to non-church goers. Replace church goers/non church goers with mexicans/british, men/women, white/black. Race, religion, national origin, all protected civil liberties by law in the US. People have been sentenced to prison for depriving others their civil rights decades after the offense was committed. Others have had to pay large settlements/fines for deprivation of civil rights.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,307

@122,254 (G)
> But this isn't a case of race harming non-whites at all. It's the case of whites recieving a free drink in a one-day promotional offer. Doesn't harm non-whites at all.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,312

@previous (A)
You already tried that argument. You failed to debunk my points.

@122,270 (E)
It's not deprivation. Non-church-goers and losing anything. Nothing is being taken away from them.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,315

@previous (G)
Civil liberties are being deprived as a result of discrimination based on a lack of religious views.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,316

@previous (E)
A free drink on a sunday is not a civil liberty.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,318

@122,312 (G)

> You already tried that argument. You failed to debunk my points.
You can't have it both ways. Either giving a free drink to a particular group is wrong (in this case, and race cases) or it is not (in cases of race and religion).
> It's not deprivation. Non-church-goers and losing anything. Nothing is being taken away from them.
Al right! Then there would be nothing with the similar, whites-only discount. it doesn't take anything awy from everyone else, just like you said, so blacks have no right to complain.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,319

@122,316 (G)
Equal treatment at public restaurants is.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,323

@122,316 (G)
But the right to not be discriminated against based on race, religion (or lack of), gender, national origin is and that is what is happening with CiCi's.

Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,325

Cry more.

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,334

@122,318 (A)
It's really not the same, we've been over that. As I've said, the average person won't give a shit about this. It won't somehow lead to open discrimination against people who don't go to church. A normal business in a developed country offering a free drink to a given race is not a realistic scenario.

@122,319 (A)
Once again: so why aren't you bitching about other groups getting discounts? By your own logic, giving a free drink or a dicount to, for example, surfers at a beach-side cafe is as bad as racism, or even giving a friend a free drink/discount.

Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,340

@122,323 (E)
A minor promotional offer is hardly discimination. Only a naive, humourless idiot like the OP would actually care about it enough to whine about to the authorities.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,342

@previous (G)
And The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II is in his favor as is the prevailing opinions of the United States Supreme Court. The naive ones are the people who made this error at CiCi's.

Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,344

@previous (E)
And yet they call this shithole the "land of the free". Pffffffffthahaha

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,346

@122,342 (E)
I doubt that they would be brough to court over this. Even if some whiner like the OP managed to drag them into court, I doubt that they'll get into trouble for offer church-goers a free drink one sunday.

Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,348

@122,344 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Depends on what you call freedom. Is freedom the ability to discriminate, or the right not to be discriminated against?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,350

@122,334 (G)

> As I've said, the average person won't give a shit about this.
Obviously many people do. Not only is their a streamlined way to report it, but many people do report the violation. this thread shows people care.
> It won't somehow lead to open discrimination against people who don't go to church.
Okay, then a free drink for whites won't lead to apartheid. What is your point? this applies to both situations.
> A normal business in a developed country offering a free drink to a given race is not a realistic scenario.
So as long as it's uncommon, it's okay?
>
> Once again: so why aren't you bitching about other groups getting discounts? By your own logic, giving a free drink or a dicount to, for example, surfers at a beach-side cafe is as bad as racism, or even giving a friend a free drink/discount.
We've been over this. That is not illegal, nor is it religious/racial discrimination. There is a reason "non-surfers/surfers" rights are not protected legally, while religious and racial protections are in place.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,352

@122,344 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
It is freedom with rules, like everywhere else. Some places have more rules and less freedom as well as the opposite.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,353

@122,340 (G)

> A minor promotional offer is hardly discimination.

All right, then giving whites a free drink is also "hardly discrimination".

Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,354

@122,346 (G)
> As a place of “public accommodation,” it is illegal for restaurants, grocery stores or other businesses to discriminate, or show favoritism, on the basis of religion.
I don't see why they wouldn't be.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,355

@122,350 (A)
Which CiCi's was that? I will contact the local ACLU for that region.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,356

@122,354 (N)
The link in my OP explains why, and shows the law that says exactly that.

Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,360

@122,348 (N)
The ability to discriminate makes no business sense at all. In fact, the discrimination in the South in the pre-MLK age was MANDATED by the state. They wouldn't have bothered driving customers away if they weren't forced to. Oh, and anti-discrimination laws means that one is forced to serve alcohol to even a pregnant mother.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,362

@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Alcohol to a pregnant mother isn't very tasteful but a pregnant woman who wants to drink is probably going to give birth to a retard anyway.

Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,363

@122,360 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)

> anti-discrimination laws means that one is forced to serve alcohol to even a pregnant mother

You just made that up.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,364

@122,360 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)

> Oh, and anti-discrimination laws means that one is forced to serve alcohol to even a pregnant mother.

I am against racial and religious descrimination. I am not okay with this law. She can have it aborted before it becomes sapient, and she can have the baby, but poisoning a baby that you plan to have? Fucked.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,365

@122,363 (O)
No, it's true actually. :(

Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,368

@122,363 (O)
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/553331/can_bars_legally_serve_alcohol_to_pregnant.html
> According to law, a bartender is unable to refuse to serve a certain group of people, unless there is a reason for them not to, such as drunkenness. What this means is that, legally, a pregnant woman would be able to bring up a lawsuit against a bar if they made the decision to refuse serving her alcohol, based on discrimination.
The most surprising thing about this article is the fact that the domain is .com, not .co.uk.

Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,377

@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)

Is there any precendence? Because it seems to me that any such lawsuit would be thrown out for being frivolous.

Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,381

@previous (O)
Discrimination is discrimination.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,383

@122,377 (O)
Supposedly it is discriminating against women, but that's bullshit.

Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,387

@122,377 (O)
Because if a court viewed a fetus as a viable life form then they would have to revisit Roe v Wade and that is something they try to avoid like the plague.

Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 47 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,441

@122,381 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)

That isn't answering my question. Is there precedence or is this just speculation?

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,497

@122,106 (G)
Funny thing is, that is kinda how Hitler rose to power.

Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,520

@122,200 (A)

...I've gotten free drinks for being brown before. Is that discrimination? :')

Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,521

Don't eat at Feces Pizza, then. FFS.

Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,522

CiCi Pizza: You can taste the discrimination.â„¢

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,537

@122,520 (Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6)
A bar gave you a free drink for that?

Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,539

@previous (A)
Not a bar, I'm a bit young for that.
Just, like, pop.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,540

@previous (Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6)
Which store has a "free drinks for blacks" policy?

[^_^] !IOdbnXsKDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,541

@122,539 (Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6)
You're brown?

Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,545

@122,540 (A)
Huh? None that I know of. The store owners just took a bit of a liking to me because I'm brown and now give me free drinks~

@previous ([^_^] !IOdbnXsKDk)
Yeah.

advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,548

Print out something from the Pastafarian church website.

[^_^] !IOdbnXsKDk replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,676

@122,545 (Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6)
Oh. Ok.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 53 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,694

Actually, it is antidiscrimination laws that take away our civil liberties.

advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,696

@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
wat

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,700

@previous (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
It is not liberty to be forced to do something.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,701

@122,696 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
It is not liberty to be forced to do something.

Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #122,909

@122,036 (D)
sim detected

Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #123,243

@previous (U)
YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.