Now we can’t require language?
Ok, I was under the impression that we were living in a country that was founded on the principle of a free market economy, where they business owner made the decisions as to who he would sell his product to and not the government.
Well it seems like the government once again is sticking their hand into our pot without permission, and deciding for us, who does what and with whom.
One of THE biggest names in cheesesteaks, put up a sign after a period of frustration from people who attempt to order in languages other than English. The sign was posted near the window where orders are taken and reads as follows:
This is AMERICA … WHEN ORDERING SPEAK ENGLISH.
The city’s Commission on Human Relations filed a “discrimination” complaint against Geno’s for posting the sign. Rev. James S. Allen Sr. stated that the sign violates human rights because it is discriminating based on national origin and it makes foreigners feel uncomfortable.
Owner Joey Vento defends the sign saying that ‘it is an immigrant’s duty to learn the language.’ and I agree with him 100,000%. I don’t care who you are, the fact that I live in a country where the majority of us speak English (and where Congress is in the process of declaring it our national language) it’s pathetic that I must “press 1 for English”, or seek out merchandise that is labeled in English so I know what I’m buying.
Geno’s is a PRIVATE business, therefore by the very nature of our economy has the right to deny anyone of their service. If they want to deny service to all patrons who refuse to speak English, that is their right. No shirt, no shoes, no service anyone?
Simply because there are people in this country that don’t speak our language, DOES NOT make it mandatory for the businesses in this country to accommodate them.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
but on the other, if he refused service to blacks or Jews or all Latinos, would the matter be different?
Absolutely the matter would be different. It’s NOT a civil rights violation simply because you can’t or refuse to speak the language supported by said company… BUT we have laws in this country regarding the discrimination based on religion and race. If his sign had stated that he sells only to Italians, then there would most definatly been a cause for alarm IMHO.
On this matter, I’m in complete agreement with you. My question was rhetorical. On the matter of anti-discrimination laws, we both, and the nation in general, have settled on a compromise between a valid social objective (civil rights) and the rights of the private shopkeeper (to serve whoever he likes). The strict Libertarian point of view would be that people are free to be jerks, and so I’m divided between my desire for equality and my desire for freedom from the government.
My point is that now that because of this compromise, it is now necessary to guard against further erosion of the principle of minimal government interference.
Well, I’m one who believes a business should be able to refuse service to ANYONE for whatever reason.
There are so many instances of government intervention into private business sales it makes your head spin…
The most recent one that comes to mind was when three women sued Wal-Mart because they refuse to sell the morning after pill. They sued Wal-Mart and won, the state government demanded that Wal-Mart carry the morning after pill in ALL of their stores that had a pharmacy. The ironic thing was that located no more than a few miles down the road was a Walgreens that DID sell the morning after pill, but because these broads were a)too damned lazy to drive their BMW’s a few more miles to obtain their ‘oopsy I didn’t wear protection’ pill b)lawyer crazy because who isn’t these days… government got involved in demanding a private business carry inventory on an item they had no intention selling in the first place.
It’s enough to make you sick sometimes.
See, James… THIS is the proper way to address the issue of “assimilation” by immigrants. Just allow people to be free to use their property anyway they wish, and the market will take care of itself.
Many in the anti-immigrant crowd would rather have the State strictly control who comes here, and on what terms…including a proper amount of “re-education”. You don’t need the State to do that…just let people be free to decide for themselves.
Good post.
but on the other, if he refused service to blacks or Jews or all Latinos, would the matter be different?
Absolutely the matter would be different. It’s NOT a civil rights violation simply because you can’t or refuse to speak the language supported by said company… BUT we have laws in this country regarding the discrimination based on religion and race. If his sign had stated that he sells only to Italians, then there would most definatly been a cause for alarm IMHO.
I disagree, James. For a couple of reasons…
One, “rights” do not come from the “law”. If someone has a _right_ to run his business as he sees fit, there can be no qualifiers, otherwise, it’s not a right at all. The complaint to the local civil rights commission is simply a logical extension of the principle that the state should intervene in such matters.
Second, it’s contradictory of you to say that one kind of discrimination is ok, but another isn’t. The only matter at hand here is who’s delicate sensibilities are being offended. Political correctness rears its ugly head. You don’t personally mind a sign like this…. Likewise, a Klansman, wouldn’t hardly object to a “whites only” sign. The only difference is in the number of people who don’t object to the type of discrimination at hand.
The only alarm that would set off, IMHO, would be the bigot alarm. If I saw a business that said they only serve white, 30-something, males with blonde hair….I wouldn’t patronize them, as a matter of principle.
I have no problem with contradicting myself in certain areas… it’s like people who disagree with helmet laws but are fine with seatbelt laws… you’re not REALLY contradicting yourself, as there are factors in each argument that affect the logic of each law.
Putting up a sign demanding that one speak a certain laguage to do business is VERY different than putting up a sign requesting that only White males shop there. Anyone can learn a new language, even if it’s only the very limited amount needed to order a sandwich. If I’m a black man from russia, I can adjust my language capabilities to the point of being able to say “A number 2 with Cheeze Whiz” I CANNOT make myself into a white man so I can shop somewhere.
I have no problem with private business telling us who they will do business with. There was a small mom-n-pop taco shop across the street from a previous employer of mine that ONLY catered to Spanish speaking individuals. I liked their taco’s so what did I do? I spole spanish when I was in there, so I could eat their food.
Well, personally I take a very tolerant view of non-English speaking immigrants, partially as a second generation immigrant myself (albeit from an English-speaking country). Especially for the older generation, learning a new language is very hard! While children learn very quickly, the grandparents might never be able to speak more than a few words of broken English.
However, I completely agree that this should not be a matter of government interference. The shopkeeper should have the ability to provide services only in English.
I’m ambivalent about the statement that he has the right to refuse service to anyone. On the one hand, I’m for limited government interference, but on the other, if he refused service to blacks or Jews or all Latinos, would the matter be different?