Behold the magic of the “Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission,” which probably has some very creative definitions of harm, including imaginary only-exists-in-my-brain harm.

And regarding Mr. Wolff’s contention that they “should not give discounts based on religion,” they don’t – they give discounts based upon having a bulletin from a church, which really isn’t different from giving discounts based upon coupons from a newspaper.

“My interest is in social justice and tolerance, and I get a little annoyed at all the religiosity,” he said. I wonder if Mr. Wolff realizes how far he sets back the cause of tolerance by this little stunt.

Local atheist John Wolff, “who said he’s never been to Prudhomme’s…”

It seems to me if he’s never been there, he’s never been “harmed” by having to pay more than someone who had a bulletin and therefore has no cause of action. Any lawyers out there that can clarify?

No, they are asking for a copy of the bulletin.

My recollection from a youth in the church is that these are freely available by scanning the parking lot and surrounding grounds after the service. (Or in entrance area of church before dissemination and subsequent disposal)

My recollection is that in at least two instances the above was a winner for plaintiff

Proof for discount can be a photocopy of the first page from any brief from a prior vexious litigation or ownership of a copy of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.