Interesting! Wow, that's a rather Richard Dawkins-inspired position, I guess (a man I cordially loathe, even though I am no longer "religious" in the conventional sense). I can't see how they get away with that if you're a, as you say, bona fide registered charity.

Simon wrote:

This can be emotive because we all discriminate in some way or another
and I'm not looking to start an argument with others, it's just an
observation. I work for a Christian charity and am amazed at how many
software vendors discount their software for charities, but specifically
state not for religious organisations (even if they are fully registered
bonafide charities). They are of course entitled to do so, but this is
clear discrimination against a specific group of people and they get
away with it.

They have every right to decide which organisations they offer discounts.

What makes it worse in Devonthink's case is they
specifically state in their principles that, "We Treat All People Equal"
(https://www.devontechnologies.com/about/principles but obviously not
when handing out discounts!

I'd say you're mixing up things. They do not support certain organisations. That does not mean they treat all people equal. They do not treat all organisations equal.

Franz Grieser wrote:

. They do not support certain
organisations. That does not mean they treat all people equal. They do
not treat all organisations equal.

Perhaps you meant "That does not mean they do not treat all people equal" ?

I think it is just because most companies, especially in Europe, and unlike in America , tend to stay away from anything religious as it is often a sensitive subject.

MadaboutDana wrote:

Interesting! Wow, that's a rather Richard Dawkins-inspired position, I
guess (a man I cordially loathe, even though I am no longer "religious"
in the conventional sense). I can't see how they get away with that if
you're a, as you say, bona fide registered charity.

It doesn't have anything to do with Richard Dawkins ( who few people know anyway outside of the Anglo-Saxon countries ). It's mostly a cultural thing. In America it is accepted that public-facing government or commercial entities openly show (or advocate) their religious beliefs, while in Europe it is mostly accepted that these entities should remain as neutral as possible and refer as little as possible to religion ( not talking about individuals here ). So while it is accepted that the President of the USA may often cite God in his speeches, you will very rarely hear a country's political leader ( or a commercial company, in their public communications) here do so in a public speech, even if they are religious. It is simply considered to be something that should remain private.
Which is why refusal from Devonthink (or other non US companies) shouldn't be seen as discriminatory or fiercely anti-religious, it is simply a different way of handling these things .

Skywatcher wrote:

Perhaps you meant "That does not mean they do not treat all people
equal" ?

Thanks for the correction. :-)

Franz Grieser wrote:

They have every right to decide which organisations they offer
discounts.

I'd say you're mixing up things. They do not support certain
organisations. That does not mean they treat all people equal. They do
not treat all organisations equal.

Yes they do.

However, to state that you treat all people fair and equal and then not provide a discount based on an organisations ideology, is not treating all people equally. In this case if you are a registered charity in the area of human aid, you will receive a discount, but if you are a religious charity (also providing human aid), you will not receive a discount. That is not equal treatment and by definition classed as discrimination.

Simon wrote:

Franz Grieser wrote:

>They have every right to decide which organisations they offer
>discounts.
>

>I'd say you're mixing up things. They do not support certain
>organisations. That does not mean they treat all people equal. They do
>not treat all organisations equal.
>

Yes they do.

However, to state that you treat all people fair and equal and then not
provide a discount based on an organisations ideology, is not treating
all people equally. In this case if you are a registered charity in the
area of human aid, you will receive a discount, but if you are a
religious charity (also providing human aid), you will not receive a
discount. That is not equal treatment and by definition classed as
discrimination.

Simon : I know you're addressing Franz, but, although english isn't my first language, I sense that the use of the word "people" here points to "individuals". Organisations are usually not referred to as "people" although they consist of many people :-)
Also, nowhere do they say that they give discounts to all NPOs. They used the word "many". This is what I see on their website :

"We try to treat all people fair and equal, whether they are our customers or not.
Our prices are reasonably calculated and not open to individual negotiations; we give discounts to students, educators, and many NPOs."

Whichever way you spin it, they have made a decision to treat specific groups of people differently when offering a discount. As it's their company they are of course entitled to do so. However, by just about every dictionary you check, this behaviour is defined as discriminatory.

1. "Discriminatory" is a very loaded term and, in my opinion, completely unfair. A commercial user could just as well argue that DT are "discriminating" against commercial organisations and people by not offering discounts available to students, educators and some other groups. Is "discriminating" against atheists and agnostics OK?
2. Skywatcher provided a very cogent and accurate explanation of how religious sentiment is treated differently in Europe compared to the USA. You will know that DT is a German company so it's not surprising that they have a European sensibility in these things.
3. Maybe they're just avoiding a risk. After all, they might get hammered if they were providing discounts to Muslim religious groups, given the proclivity of our media and politicians to equate "Muslim" with "terrorist". They couldn't get too far with a "some religious groups but not all" approach.

Simon wrote:

Whichever way you spin it, they have made a decision to treat specific
groups of people differently when offering a discount. As it's their
company they are of course entitled to do so. However, by just about
every dictionary you check, this behaviour is defined as discriminatory.

Good analyses, @NickG and @Skywatcher.

Maybe the motive is simply "since any grifter can claim religiosity, we'll just have to say no to all of them". Makes economic sense.

Well, I would agree, except these are properly registered charities. So they have already been vetted, at least in principle, for their own "discriminatory" behaviour. So DT could reasonably be described as discriminatory.

However, I think this discussion, interesting though it is, is distracting us with semantics. Grounds for a detailed analysis, but not for a casual discussion, perhaps?

The original post makes a claim of discrimination, eventually supporting its negative "discriminatory" as opposed to "discriminating" in followups. Here we are debating the meaning when I believe instead we should ask whether any effort was made ask why the charity is not recognized. What is officially vetted in the US is not necessarily officially vetted elsewhere and vica versa. Finally, absent proof otherwise, Hanlon's razor should apply foremost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

In summary, I take the OP's underlying tone that Devonthink is being maliciously discriminatory (which is a bad thing) as opposed to being discriminating (which is permitted and reasonable) or inadvertently ignorant (Hanlon's razor) as a bark without any teeth.

MadaboutDana wrote:

Well, I would agree, except these are properly registered charities. So
they have already been vetted, at least in principle, for their own
"discriminatory" behaviour. So DT could reasonably be described as
discriminatory.

However, I think this discussion, interesting though it is, is
distracting us with semantics. Grounds for a detailed analysis, but not
for a casual discussion, perhaps?

This is unfair. I think you are reading too much into this. They have no hidden agenda they are just a software company.

I lack the information necessary to take a view on this discussion. I will only say that in my own limited email communications with the developers they have been polite, straightforward and responsive.

Maybe Devonthink had a bad brush with a cult, and that shaped their policies.

But it we're going to talk religion, I have to report the destructive influence vi and vim have had on my life. I'd use Notepad in preference to vi, except my parents raised me better than to have anything to do with Microsoft.

Microsoft isn't all evil, of course, and Bill Gates himself codified a touching yet hidden plea for man's salvation. You see it, don't you? Microsoft spelled backward?

Microsoft in retrograde - tfosorcim - has a silent "T". That makes Microsoft spelled backward fosorcim, which is a thin disguise of Forsocim. That is exactly - and I mean precisely, down to the last fractional phoneme - what you hear when you play Disney's "Hot Dog Dance" in reverse. Do you see it yet? Microsoft is Mickey's plea for your soul, "Forsake Vim!"

No need to thank me. Cash is all I ask.

Written in humble service to all mankind, crafted in emacs. (What? You thought I was going to say Word??)

I actually wrote this about ten days ago but didn't press the post button. It's not just Christians who are registered religious charities in the Western countries. They include newly created religions, some big like Scientology many newer and smaller, occult groups, cults, gonna regional and tribal, ritual, occult, left hand or dark ones, satanic churches, hundreds of sects in Abrahamic religions, etc etc. All feel they're the right one and of course persecuted, misunderstood and prejudiced against.

All officially registered as religious charities for tax, donation and other purposes in the hundreds of thousands in the West and even elsewhere. I can't blame any small software house or dev who says I don't have time to look into this. Because if they accept one, they have to accept all registered religious charities from anywhere or might get a letter from a lawyer about discrimination.

Interesting discussion; I am positively impressed by the contributors' sensitivities and principle-centric approach. These are no easy matters, as we are finding out in Europe and elsewhere, but I for one much prefer to be part of a debating society, than of one which believes that all questions have simple answers--usually involving getting rid of those who don't agree...

Well said, sir. I could not imagine living under a repressive government, and I’m pretty sure it would not turn out well for me. Actually, for honor’s sake, I hope I would have the integrity to imperil myself.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Interesting discussion; I am positively impressed by the contributors'
sensitivities and principle-centric approach. These are no easy matters,
as we are finding out in Europe and elsewhere, but I for one much prefer
to be part of a debating society, than of one which believes that all
questions have simple answers--usually involving getting rid of those
who don't agree...