News today from the liberal war against hurt feelings.
First of all, Mark Steyn points out the difference between a country with a First Amendment and a country with a “Human Rights Commission”.
Second, the city of Philadelphia seems to think that it’s part of that latter category. Geno’s Steaks is one of the two most popular cheesesteak joints in Philadelphia — it’s one of the few remaining cultural institutions of a once-great city. Recently, owner Joe Vento put up a sign reading, “This is AMERICA. WHEN ORDERING, please ‘SPEAK ENGLISH.’”
Well, apparently, that doesn’t fly with the speech police. Philadelphia’s “Commission on Human Relations” held a hearing today to determine whether the sign violates anti-discrimination laws. (Which hearing was called in response to a complaint by the commission’s own chairman, who presided today and apparently is one of three people who will vote on the matter.)
Camille Charles, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, testified that the sign reminds her of the Jim Crow era. “The signs give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded,” she said.
Well, yes, that seems to be the point: only serve customers who order in English. How can you do anything else? What’s happening here, of course, is that liberals disagree with the political statement implied by the sign–that people in America ought to speak English–and therefore they want the government to silence that statement.
Nick Taliaferro, of the Human Relations Commission, told a reporter, “Individuals who operate in a place of public accomodation cannot post signage or express messages that might have the resulting effect of making any group, any ethnicity, any national origin person, feel unwelcome.”
Really! No messages that might make any group feel unwelcome? The commenters at the Volokh Conspiracy blog make some good points:
- “Does the requirement mean a business has to hire bilingual employees based on the possibility that someone might come in and order in a foreign language?”
- “When I call my bank the menu says “push 1 for English or push 2 for Spanish”. My bank doesn’t offer choices for any other languages and I don’t see that as any different than Geno’s Steaks electing to use only English.”
- “What if the sign read, ‘Due do our unfortunate linguistic shortcomings, we can speak only English. Accordingly, we can only serve English-speaking clients. Interpreters welcome.’”
- “Seems like this law would also include the posting of high menu prices that would make poor people feel unwelcome.”
- “I would think that people who don’t speak English can’t read the sign and thus couldn’t be offended. “
- “Who cares? Am I the only cold-hearted capitalist who thinks that if non-English speakers are deterred from going to a hostile restaurant, they will go elsewhere, and, eventually, the restaurants that are more inclusive will do better for the exclusiveness of places like Gino’s? What does this come down to? ‘You’re not allowed to lose business by being a xenophobe’?”
- “Taliaferro’s overbroad statement could theoretically include groups like known fugitives. But I don’t think he was quoting the statute. The statute, on the other hand, could well encompass groups like diabetics, anorexics, or alcoholics, which leads to all kinds of fun conclusions. Does the prohibition on using marital status apply to singles bars and dating services? Fascinating.”
- “A sign outside of a porno shop that said ‘Adults Only’ might make children feel unwelcome.”
- “My fond hope is that Geno’s lawyer will address the Commission in, say, Urdu. And only in Urdu.”
Ah, you can only laugh at our ridiculous nanny statism. I don’t have anything to add, except the following book recommendations:
