NationStates Jolt Archive

This fun one's back in the news. Discuss at will...

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The owner of a famous cheesesteak shop did not discriminate when he posted signs asking customers to speak English, a city panel ruled Wednesday.

In a 2-1 vote, a Commission on Human Relations panel found that two signs at Geno's Steaks telling customers, "This is America: WHEN ORDERING 'PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH,'" do not violate the city's Fair Practices Ordinance.

Shop owner Joe Vento has said he posted the signs in October 2005 because of concerns over immigration reform and an increasing number of people in the area who could not order in English.

Vento has said he never refused service to anyone because they couldn't speak English. But critics argued that the signs discourage customers of certain backgrounds from eating at the shop.

Commissioners Roxanne E. Covington and Burt Siegel voted to dismiss the complaint, finding that the sign does not communicate that business will be "refused, withheld or denied."

In a dissenting opinion, Commissioner Joseph J. Centeno said he thought the signs did discourage some customers.

"The sign appeared immediately above another sign that had the following words: 'Management Reserves the Right to Refuse Service,'" Centeno wrote.

Geno's and its chief rival across the street, Pat's King of Steaks, are two of the city's best known cheesesteak venues. A growing number of Asian and Latin American immigrants have moved into the traditionally Italian neighborhood in recent years.

Vento had threatened to go to court if he lost. His attorney, Albert G. Weiss, said he was "pleasantly surprised" by Wednesday's decision.

"We expected that this was not going to go our way," Weiss said.

In February 2007, the commission found probable cause against Geno's for discrimination, alleging that the policy discourages customers of certain backgrounds from eating there.

The case went to a public hearing, where an attorney for the commission argued that the sign was about intimidation, not political speech. The matter then went to the three-member panel for a ruling.

W. Nick Taliaferro, the commission's executive director, said he would not appeal.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VGQ98O0&show_article=1

Still think it's a damn stupid idea and one that a competitor would be wise to take advantage of, but it's his store. I shall, however, refuse to go to his establishment if I am ever in Philly though.

Typical Italians. Coming over here, stealing our jobs, not bothering to learn the (Spanish) language...

I see nothing wrong with it. He owns the place, he has the right to decide that language buisness is done in it.

I don't expect people in foreign lands to speak English when I'm ordering food from dirty little restaurants.

I don't think foreigners in the US should expect to be held to a different standard.

Geno, stronzo!!:mad:

Its his resturaunt. He has the right to refuse service to whoever he wants. If he doesnt like Mexicans, they can go eat in his competitors resturaunts.

I don't expect people in foreign lands to speak English when I'm ordering food from dirty little restaurants.

I don't think foreigners in the US should expect to be held to a different standard.

My thoughts exactly.

Hey, if I can't understand what they're ordering, they're not getting any food. pointing and gesturing does count as a valid language, however.

Hey, if I can't understand what they're ordering, they're not getting any food. pointing and gesturing does count as a valid language, however.

No kidding I mean pointing at a menu is not exactly the hardest thing for someone working there to understand ...

Hell half the time I hate mispronouncing stuff enough I go "I want this" and point at the menu anyways reguardless.

I don't expect people in foreign lands to speak English when I'm ordering food from dirty little restaurants.

I don't think foreigners in the US should expect to be held to a different standard.

I do expect to get fed if I am able to point at a valid menu choice and provide the necessary currency though reguardless of my language capabilities.

This is America: WHEN ORDERING PLEASE SPEAK KLINGON!

I don't expect people in foreign lands to speak English when I'm ordering food from dirty little restaurants.

I don't think foreigners in the US should expect to be held to a different standard.
Ya know, it's funny. I keep seeing people say that but my experience with American tourists here in Japan says otherwise.

Hey, if I can't understand what they're ordering, they're not getting any food. pointing and gesturing does count as a valid language, however.

My father went to Thailand on a business trip several years ago. While shopping in the street markets, he encountered many merchants who spoke no English, and he spoke no Thai. Yet somehow they managed to do business very well--they traded a calculator back and forth until they agreed on a number. Those are some true business people. ;)

From my understanding, Geno's is like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld. You walk up, order and step aside. Apparently Geno is a very fast paced food service where they have to get people in and out as fast as they can so they can make more money. As a result, they don't have time to try to understand Spanish. So you either order your food in English and step aside, or don't bother at all.

I support Geno's decision to refuse service to anyone, it's his business he can run it how he likes.

Ya know, it's funny. I keep seeing people say that but my experience with American tourists here in Japan says otherwise.

My only time out of the country :( I went to Paris on a trip with some other people from my French class. I was the only one who actually spoke enough French to be understood, and the only one who ever made the effort. The difference between the way I was treated and my classmates were treated was notable--as soon as I said a few sentences in French most people were happy to help me and speak English (small blow to the ego, but nice). My classmates encountered many people who "didn't speak English"--I only met one. People really do appreciate it when you make the effort, even if you sound pathetic.

My only time out of the country :( I went to Paris on a trip with some other people from my French class. I was the only one who actually spoke enough French to be understood, and the only one who ever made the effort. The difference between the way I was treated and my classmates were treated was notable--as soon as I said a few sentences in French most people were happy to help me and speak English (small blow to the ego, but nice). My classmates encountered many people who "didn't speak English"--I only met one. People really do appreciate it when you make the effort, even if you sound pathetic.

Yea, before I went to London and Paris last Summer, I learned enough French to at least order a soft drink and food that every restaurant should have, which they appreciated because they smiled when I ordered in French.

My philosophy is, when you go to another country that doesn't speak English, stop being a lazy ass and learn a few words in their language so you don't come across as an asshole.

Its his resturaunt. He has the right to refuse service to whoever he wants. If he doesnt like Mexicans, they can go eat in his competitors resturaunts.

Actually, I don't think he can do that. He has the right to refuse service in the same way businesses have the right to fire employees--at their discretion, but not on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.

Also, considering that America has no national language, he doesn't have a whole lot of legislation to stand on.

Actually, I don't think he can do that. He has the right to refuse service in the same way businesses have the right to fire employees--at their discretion, but not on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.

Also, considering that America has no national language, he doesn't have a whole lot of legislation to stand on.

Actually he can refuse service to anyone, any business has the right to refuse service to anyone, and yes it can be on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. Of course the people who they refuse service to has the right to go to the competitors.

Actually, I don't think he can do that. He has the right to refuse service in the same way businesses have the right to fire employees--at their discretion, but not on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.

Also, considering that America has no national language, he doesn't have a whole lot of legislation to stand on.

If he has a sign up saying 'we reserve the right to refuse service', then he has the right to refuse service. But, as mentioned above, those people will simply go to his competition. Less money for him.
If he says 'Get you, you damn wetback spic' then somebody might well be able to bring a case in civil court, but you cant FORCE a business to do business with somebody.

And, IMO, its quite reasonable to refuse service based on not knowing what a customer is saying.

Ya know, it's funny. I keep seeing people say that but my experience with American tourists here in Japan says otherwise.

Who likes/cares about/defends tourists anyway.

From my understanding, Geno's is like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld. You walk up, order and step aside. Apparently Geno is a very fast paced food service where they have to get people in and out as fast as they can so they can make more money. As a result, they don't have time to try to understand Spanish. So you either order your food in English and step aside, or don't bother at all.


Indeed. It's not like McDonalds with lots of pictures that you can point to. There is a list of items to chose from before you get to the window. Once at the window, you are not allowed to hem and haw. You have to spit out what you want right then and move aside. Even english speakers are refused service unlesss they give their order very quickly. No time to waste with such long lines.

Personally, I would never go to a place that treats its it's customers like cogs or cattle at the slaughter house. Who needs that kind of stress. But to each their own.

My father went to Thailand on a business trip several years ago. While shopping in the street markets, he encountered many merchants who spoke no English, and he spoke no Thai. Yet somehow they managed to do business very well--they traded a calculator back and forth until they agreed on a number. Those are some true business people. ;)

Kudos to the both of them for finding a creative, and apparently effective, way of figuring out how to communicate. My point is simply thus, that if I cannot understand a person then I cannot be expected to provide service to them.

Whether it's pointing and nodding or passing a calculator, or even a diagram of the food on a sticky note, as long as I know what my potential customer is asking for, I'll take care of it. If I can't, then there's nothing I can do.

Then again, I'm not in the service industry so this is all hypothetically.

Personally, I would never go to a place that treats its it's customers like cogs or cattle at the slaughter house. Who needs that kind of stress. But to each their own.

Yea, I have a speech impediment so I would never go to Genos, talking fast is not my specialty.

Here's a sign: "This Is America: Please Refrain From Attempting To Jog My Sodden Brain Into Learning Something. It May Broaden My Horizons And I Could Become A Social Outcast Among My Narrow Minded Kind." or "I Took A Lot Of Shop Classes In High School. Please Speak English."

:)

His next sign should be "Say it in English or DON'T SAY IT."

T-shirts are being printed now :D

I'd walk past any establishment that has a sign like that, even if its my step brothers restaurant. He might be entitled to hang up a sign like that, but i don't like restaurants that "prescreen" their customers.

Indeed. It's not like McDonalds with lots of pictures that you can point to. There is a list of items to chose from before you get to the window. Once at the window, you are not allowed to hem and haw. You have to spit out what you want right then and move aside. Even english speakers are refused service unlesss they give their order very quickly. No time to waste with such long lines.

Personally, I would never go to a place that treats its it's customers like cogs or cattle at the slaughter house. Who needs that kind of stress. But to each their own.

Have you ever been to Philly?

I remember Genos. Damn, that place is hectic, but good.

I haven't been there since before this whole affair started. If I was ever in Philly again I'd plan on going there. A business has the right to refuse service to people they can't understand. (though maybe pictures on the menu might help)

well i think the problem with the premis of speak the local language in america, with english, is that it ISN'T the local indiginous language anywhere in the western hemisphere. i don't know what people lived in the area in question, what they called themselves, but everywhere there have been people living each spot for more then ten thousand years, so if that buisiness of speaking the local language wasn't a total load of horse hockey, where i'm living we'd be speaking nissinan maidu.

i think i'd get a real grin out of it if everyone had to learn to speak the REAL local language, and make these right wing loonies just have to totally stuff it.

=^^=
.../\...

I see nothing wrong with it. He owns the place, he has the right to decide that language buisness is done in it.

Exactly.

I see nothing wrong with it. He owns the place, he has the right to decide that language buisness is done in it.

then you'd be perfectly ok if he put up a sign saying orders only taken in swahili or urdu, or farsi or whatever?

fair enough i guess. people truly don't HAVE to eat there, and i'm pretty sure i'd be one of those who did not. what amazes me is that anyone would or does.

=^^=
.../\...

then you'd be perfectly ok if he put up a sign saying orders only taken in swahili or urdu, or farsi or whatever?

Why not? It's his place.

what amazes me is that anyone would or does.

If the food's good, why not? Is it really that unreasonable to expect customers to speak English?

Why not? It's his place.



If the food's good, why not? Is it really that unreasonable to expect customers to speak English?

all things considered, yes.
customers of places that want to stay in bussiness are usually sufficient to speak in little green pieces of paper.

=^^=
.../\...

The irony of ironies would be this guy getting busted for using undocumented workers.

The irony of ironies would be this guy getting busted for using undocumented workers.

lmao

It's an offensive sign. If they really struggled with not understanding people, they should ask them politely to speak in English, explaining that they can't speak *insert language here*. These are their customers - the people who pay for them to eat & live - and they should treat them well, not discriminate. Someone who doesn't speak English is still a paying customer, and they've made a bad business move. So, having an offensive sign is really just going to damage their business in the end.

What bothers me though, is that Americans (and Australians) seem to think that their language is the only one that exists. In other countries, people tend to speak their own language, as well as learning English and other languages. People need to learn that there are languages apart from their own.

That being said, I think that people working in an English speaking country should bother to learn basic English.

It might be legal, but it rubs me up the wrong way.

If I walked into a shop and saw that sign, I'd say something very rude in English and walk the fuck back out again. Which would probably be why the sign is visible from the OUTSIDE of the shop.

Here's another thing: the non-english speakers who might want to buy steak are probably the same people who slaughter and pack the meat for his shop. He might want to think about that.

Why not? It's his place.



If the food's good, why not? Is it really that unreasonable to expect customers to speak English?

Businesses are there to serve the public, and they make money by providing that service. If they discriminate, not only are they making a bad financial move, they are going against the very nature of businesses.

Anyway, how would you feel if you weren't able to go into a shop into another country because you didn't speak their language?

What bothers me though, is that Americans (and Australians) seem to think that their language is the only one that exists.

Hey! :eek:

Don't you dare lump us in with Americans. Down here, we speak Strayan.

Hey! :eek:

Don't you dare lump us in with Americans. Down here, we speak Strayan.

Uh, I didn't. I included my own country in the sentence.

I support Geno's decision to refuse service to anyone, it's his business he can run it how he likes.

Yeh, let's go all the way back to the 50's and says 'Whites only' :(

Alternatively, lets all starve when WE can't order food in foreign countries. Every place I have ever been to has always tried to help me order - at one place in Turkey I was taken into the kitchen and had to point at what I wanted - that was customer service!!

Businesses are there to serve the public, and they make money by providing that service. If they discriminate, not only are they making a bad financial move, they are going against the very nature of businesses.

Exactly. They are welcome to discriminate, and equally welcome to suffer the consequences.

Anyway, how would you feel if you weren't able to go into a shop into another country because you didn't speak their language?

Indifferent. After all, as a foreigner, I should be expected to learn their language.

Businesses are there to serve the public, and they make money by providing that service. If they discriminate, not only are they making a bad financial move, they are going against the very nature of businesses.

That's a bit sweeping.

Look, non-English speakers may well go across town to the other place, not just because they can be served without hassle but because they're insulted.

On the other hand, genuine racists might avoid the other place, and come to his by preference even if the food isn't as good.

Then what you have is segregation, de facto. It might be by preferred language, but it's going to look a lot like segregation by race.

I.e. this isn't just choosing which customers he wants, it's establishing an English-speaking environment which might actually attract some customers. Particularly now that he has all this free publicity.

Anyway, how would you feel if you weren't able to go into a shop into another country because you didn't speak their language?

More likely, you just feel very unwelcome but they do serve you. You eat every bite wondering if they spat in it. :(

Yeah, I've been there. And yeah there's some truth in your jibe that few native-born Aussies have any language but English. But when I travelled, I found that even a few words ("good morning" or "thankyou") in the local language broke the ice quite well, and like someone said, gesturing and charades can get quite a bit said.

EDIT:

Uh, I didn't. I included my own country in the sentence.

I was joking, petal. Self-mockery comes so easy to me I forgot to put a smilie.

"Australia! Australia!
We're God's own chosen race.
If we ever see a fairy Pom
We smash him in the face!"

In Singapore, China, and Malaysia, in food courts and the like, they display either a picture of the food or the food itself. You point and pay the marked price, and don't have to speak any language.

This is admittedly a side point, but they didn't care that I was an American, or couldn't speak Malay, Mandarin, or Xhoso for that matter. They cared that I could tell them what I wanted, and then pay them for it. The rest is sort of irrelevant, IMHO.

Yeh, let's go all the way back to the 50's and says 'Whites only' :(

If a restaurant wants to do that, that should be their decision. Of course, they won't be getting any business from me or anyone I know. Hell, I'd probably picket the place.

Indifferent. After all, as a foreigner, I should be expected to learn their language.

So before you go abroad you learn the language? Must must plan your holidays a long time in advance!!.
I have just spent a month in New Delhi and still only managed to grab the basics - pointing and finding common words got me by well enough.

I hate to see people us the 'speak English slowly and loudly' approach in foreign restaurants

Its his resturaunt. He has the right to refuse service to whoever he wants. If he doesnt like Mexicans, they can go eat in his competitors resturaunts.

I don't know about America, but in Italy ANY shop or restaurant that's open to the public (i.e. not a club requesting membership) cannot refuse service to anyone, as long as they pay and keep a standard polite behaviour. Seems reasonable to me.
Of course, it is also reasonable to expect that waiters cannot speak a foreign language, except at luxury hotels and restaurants (where waiters must be fluent in at least one foreign language by law).

I'd encourage any italian-speaker in Philly to go at this "Geno's" (or more correctly "Gino's", I guess) and order in italian. Let's see what happens.

So before you go abroad you learn the language? Must must plan your holidays a long time in advance!!.
I usually buy a simple dictionary and try to learn at least standard greetings and minimal courtesies. Not a big effort from my part, and usually the local people appreciate it, even if I have to switch to another language after the first words.


I hate to see people us the 'speak English slowly and loudly' approach in foreign restaurants
That's why spoken english is a bloody nightmare to non-native english speakers. Too many different pronounciations, many complex vowels...
The only spoken english that's easy to understand is the Queen's.

then you'd be perfectly ok if he put up a sign saying orders only taken in swahili or urdu, or farsi or whatever?

fair enough i guess. people truly don't HAVE to eat there, and i'm pretty sure i'd be one of those who did not. what amazes me is that anyone would or does.

=^^=
.../\...


I'd be extremely pleased, as it would motivate me to learn swahili or urdu or farsi.

People should thank this establishment for giving them a motivation to learn English, by rewarding simple progress with the opportunity to eat an ostensibly delicious sandwich.

At any rate, I suspect, in response to other comments, that this sign is directed primarily at people who live in the US, not tourists. Ask me how I know.

I see nothing wrong with it. He owns the place, he has the right to decide that language buisness is done in it.
Oh...wow, really? So I can open up a store in your country, and require that people speak the Y dialect of Plains Cree?

Pure genius!

Oh...wow, really? So I can open up a store in your country, and require that people speak the Y dialect of Plains Cree?

Pure genius!

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9805/nationallanguageuo2.jpg

Actually he can refuse service to anyone, any business has the right to refuse service to anyone, and yes it can be on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. Of course the people who they refuse service to has the right to go to the competitors.

Are you quite sure on that point? The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (http://www.readingpa.gov/pa_human_relations_act.asp) for example prohibits any real property owner from discriminating on a wide variety of grounds including race, colour, sex, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, handicap or disability, age or familial status, use of a guide or support animal because of blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user or because the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals.

So quite clearly your statement that 'any business has the right to refuse service to anyone' is false. The Human Relations Act (full (http://www.phrc.state.pa.us/legal/forms/Laws%20READ.pdf)) probibits any number of discriminatory activities against customers. The defense to that is that the particular practice is a bona fide requirement to carry out business. This case seemed borderline, and I'd wager a guess that it hinged on the fact that no one was actually refused service. Had he actually been tossing customers out for not speaking English, I very much doubt he could escaped unscathed.

So how about this Wilgrove? You don't make absolute statements about what businesses can and can't do without actually knowing what business can and can't do.

Oh...wow, really? So I can open up a store in your country, and require that people speak the Y dialect of Plains Cree?

Pure genius!

What is the point you're trying to make?

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9805/nationallanguageuo2.jpg

Omits the obvious 5th panel:

"When I move to the Cherokee's country, I'll learn their language."

Still think it's a damn stupid idea and one that a competitor would be wise to take advantage of, but it's his store. I shall, however, refuse to go to his establishment if I am ever in Philly though.

I think thats about the best attitude to take. I thought that the best way to maitian your trade was to diversifie and up the number of customers, this man must have missed that lesson, perhaps he bunked off that day.

Yeh, let's go all the way back to the 50's and says 'Whites only' :(

Alternatively, lets all starve when WE can't order food in foreign countries. Every place I have ever been to has always tried to help me order - at one place in Turkey I was taken into the kitchen and had to point at what I wanted - that was customer service!!

Nice Strawman. *gets out blow torch and burns Strawman*

Try again.

Oh...wow, really? So I can open up a store in your country, and require that people speak the Y dialect of Plains Cree?

Pure genius!

Why the hell not? It's your property.

Are you quite sure on that point? The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (http://www.readingpa.gov/pa_human_relations_act.asp) for example prohibits any real property owner from discriminating on a wide variety of grounds including race, colour, sex, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, handicap or disability, age or familial status, use of a guide or support animal because of blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user or because the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals.

So quite clearly your statement that 'any business has the right to refuse service to anyone' is false. The Human Relations Act (full (http://www.phrc.state.pa.us/legal/forms/Laws%20READ.pdf)) probibits any number of discriminatory activities against customers. The defense to that is that the particular practice is a bona fide requirement to carry out business. This case seemed borderline, and I'd wager a guess that it hinged on the fact that no one was actually refused service. Had he actually been tossing customers out for not speaking English, I very much doubt he could escaped unscathed.

So how about this Wilgrove? You don't make absolute statements about what businesses can and can't do without actually knowing what business can and can't do.

So a shop keeper can be forced to serve sombody that they don't want to? That does seem wrong somehow to me.

What is the point you're trying to make?

That being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole is assholish.

That being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole is assholish.

Fascinating!

That being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole is assholish.

It is, but it's a person's right to do so. Just as it's a non-asshole's right to ostracize (sp?) or outright ignore assholes.

So a shop keeper can be forced to serve sombody that they don't want to? That does seem wrong somehow to me.

Seconded.

So a shop keeper can be forced to serve sombody that they don't want to? That does seem wrong somehow to me.

Does it? So if a shopkeeper can't stand serving Muslims, it should be okay to deny them service on those grounds?

There are many ways a shopkeeper can deny service that are not based on one of these enumerated grounds...and the smart ones discriminate under the pretence of 'bona fide' reasons. But yes, you can generally refuse service to someone who is intoxicated, under the influence of other drugs, who is filthy and unkempt, who is belligerant and so forth. Human rights legislation does not mean any customer, at any time, can do anything he or she likes and still demand service. Human rights legislation targets things that are inherent to a person and cannot be changed, or that you should not be asked to change.

Also, some 'discrimination' is bona fide. You'll notice that age was an enumerated ground...but no minor is going to be able to successfully challenge a liquor store for not selling to him.

Fascinating!

Well I didn't need to tell you...I mean, you clearly know all about it.

Does it? So if a shopkeeper can't stand serving Muslims, it should be okay to deny them service on those grounds?

If they're stupid enough to turn away paying customers, that's their problem.

Does it? So if a shopkeeper can't stand serving Muslims, it should be okay to deny them service on those grounds?

Yes I think it should be okay to do this. I think the shopkeeper that does so is just asking for trouble, but his business, he should be 100% free to decide who he does business with.

If a shopkeep refuses to serve sombody because of his bigoted views, do you not think that word would soon get around about that? His would be hit hard in the one area any business man does not want to be hit, his wallet.


On the other side of things, it is not unknown for people to emply the services of a bussiness that they share a cultural heritage with. I'm a white converted Sikh, and I have lost count of the number of Sikh families I know that employ only Sikh builders for their convertions etc..


So as far as I'm concerened, yep leave em to it, perhaps when goes bankrupt a better business will take his place.

Why the hell not? It's your property.

Now, this is a bit trickier. Had Geno refused to serve customers on the basis that they refused to speak English, it's quite likely that he would have violated Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act. So, if I opened up a store, and only spoke Cree, and required that my customers only speak to me in that language, I very much doubt I could argue 'well it's my property' and not run into legal difficulty, if the effect of my requirement was to discriminate against people who didn't speak Cree. Mind you, language use is not an enumerated ground under the Act...but one could probably argue that it would be analogous to national origin or race in that unlike English, Cree is not widely spoken, and generally only by a specific ethnic group from a specific geographical location.

Well I didn't need to tell you...I mean, you clearly know all about it.

Come now, we're both victims of racism at the hands of the dominant culture! How!

If they're stupid enough to turn away paying customers, that's their problem.

It's also the problem of the Human Relations Commission.

You don't get to deny rental units to 'dem dirty negros', and have that just be your problem.

You don't get to hire only Asians and have that just be your problem.

You don't get to deny service to deaf people and have that just be your problem.

Yes I think it should be okay to do this. I think the shopkeeper that does so is just asking for trouble, but his business, he should be 100% free to decide who he does business with.

If a shopkeep refuses to serve sombody because of his bigoted views, do you not think that word would soon get around about that? His would be hit hard in the one area any business man does not want to be hit, his wallet.

So as far as I'm concerened, yep leave em to it, perhaps when goes bankrupt a better business will take his place.

Fair enough, you think that discrimination should be dealt with by market forces rather than legal sanction. I disagree. I think that discriminatory practices deserve wide social santion not dependent on the buying power of individuals. As well, were we to simply leave it up to the market, do you honestly believe that cities would be as accessible as they have become? I mean physically accessible, to wheelchairs and such.

Don't you think there is a wider cultural price to pay for allowing business to be openly racist or otherwise bigoted?

Fair enough, you think that discrimination should be dealt with by market forces rather than legal sanction. I disagree.

No not at all, of course negative discrimination needs to be takled.

In this instance I belive the best way to do that would be just to let the idiot do as he wishes, his business will suffer.

No not at all, of course negative discrimination needs to be takled. What do you mean by negative discrimination, just to be clear. And how should it be tackled?

In this instance I belive the best way to do that would be just to let the idiot do as he wishes, his business will suffer.
So...we decide this on a case by case basis? Or should there be some criteria for 'official' intervention...and if so, what would that criteria be?

Ya know, it's funny. I keep seeing people say that but my experience with American tourists here in Japan says otherwise.

Assholes abroad are still assholes. The country of origin is irrelevant.

It's an offensive sign. If they really struggled with not understanding people, they should ask them politely to speak in English, explaining that they can't speak *insert language here*. These are their customers - the people who pay for them to eat & live - and they should treat them well, not discriminate. Someone who doesn't speak English is still a paying customer, and they've made a bad business move. So, having an offensive sign is really just going to damage their business in the end.

What bothers me though, is that Americans (and Australians) seem to think that their language is the only one that exists. In other countries, people tend to speak their own language, as well as learning English and other languages. People need to learn that there are languages apart from their own.

That being said, I think that people working in an English speaking country should bother to learn basic English.

How is it offensive?

Businesses are there to serve the public, and they make money by providing that service. If they discriminate, not only are they making a bad financial move, they are going against the very nature of businesses.

Anyway, how would you feel if you weren't able to go into a shop into another country because you didn't speak their language?

I thought the nature of business is to be able to run it however the business owner chooses.

So before you go abroad you learn the language? Must must plan your holidays a long time in advance!!.
I have just spent a month in New Delhi and still only managed to grab the basics - pointing and finding common words got me by well enough.

Oh for fuck's sake. Are you telling me you wouldn't bother to even learn "hello" and "thank you" in the language of the place you were headed? You learned NO words in Hindi/Urdu/Insert the many Languages Spoken in India Here?

I hate to see people us the 'speak English slowly and loudly' approach in foreign restaurants

On this point we are agreed. Hence the "learning a bit of the language before going" idea.

Yeh, let's go all the way back to the 50's and says 'Whites only' :(

Alternatively, lets all starve when WE can't order food in foreign countries. Every place I have ever been to has always tried to help me order - at one place in Turkey I was taken into the kitchen and had to point at what I wanted - that was customer service!!

Uh...discrimination based on race is enumerated as against the law in the US. So nice try, but no.

I found the Japanese restaurants in Kobe I went to were helpful, but immediately more so when I could speak some of their language to help.

I usually buy a simple dictionary and try to learn at least standard greetings and minimal courtesies. Not a big effort from my part, and usually the local people appreciate it, even if I have to switch to another language after the first words.

Exactly.

That's why spoken english is a bloody nightmare to non-native english speakers. Too many different pronounciations, many complex vowels...
The only spoken english that's easy to understand is the Queen's.

Swing and a miss. You've got just as many homophones, homographs and other confusing rules in the Queen's English as we do in the States.

No not at all, of course negative discrimination needs to be takled.

In this instance I belive the best way to do that would be just to let the idiot do as he wishes, his business will suffer.

The sign has been up for a while, and his business doesn't appear to have suffered. Of course, that could be because those who take pride in that kind of horseshit have been eating more Geno's -- which will eventually take care of the problem through heart disease.

I see a lot of people calling this guy a bigot. I fail to see why.

He's not refusing to serve Mexicans. he's not refusing to serve Asians.

...in fact, he's not refusing to serve anybody. It says right there in the article he's not refusing service to anybody. I know someone from the area who has gone there and he tells me that if you don't speak English but want food from there, they will help you to order in English, but yes, they will insist that you do.

Funny how that little tidbit never gets mentioned. Kinda makes him out to be not so much an asshole as just being anal.

But the fact is, even if he flat out refused to serve anyone who wouldn't order in English, that's still not bigotry. It has nothing to do with someone's ethnicity or beliefs. It's a simple matter of either posessing the skill of speaking English or not.

But the fact is, even if he flat out refused to serve anyone who wouldn't order in English, that's still not bigotry. It has nothing to do with someone's ethnicity or beliefs. It's a simple matter of either posessing the skill of speaking English or not.

False. If he flat out refused to serve anyone who wouldn't or couldn't order in English, it would indeed fall under the Human Relations Act unless he he could prove it was a bona fide requirement...and I doubt he could. It's one thing to absolutely require fluency in English when hiring emergency services personel (and perhaps other languages to boot), and quite another to require that patrons to your restaurant do so.

This is America: WHEN ORDERING PLEASE SPEAK KLINGON!

THIS IS SPAR-TA!!!!!!!!

WHEN ORDERING PLEASE SPEAK DORIC GREEK!

Oh for fuck's sake. Are you telling me you wouldn't bother to even learn "hello" and "thank you" in the language of the place you were headed? You learned NO words in Hindi/Urdu/Insert the many Languages Spoken in India Here?


.

Hey....I'm on your side but it must have come over poorly, so sorry :(

I think the guys an asshat for having that sign, and I do try and learn some basics so I'm not considered an ignorant foreigner. Maybe the fact that europeans (especially the British) don't have to travel far to be way out their comfort zone with languages puts us at a disadvantage.
Ordering from a menu in some Baltic/Balkan states is very hard as the words and pronounciation are completely alien. I tried in Croatia and it sounded like I was speaking Klingon!

I don't expect people in foreign lands to speak English when I'm ordering food from dirty little restaurants.
.


I do. English has become the international language of transport, business, science, and the internet. If you are in Italy, and a Greek is trying to communicate with a Tunisian, they use English. If some dirty little restauranteur wants to stay in the 20th century and speak his own little provincial dialect instead of embracing the common forum of Humanity, he's go the problem, not me.

That being said I am reasonably competent in Spanish, and I was in Korean as well, but that has long faded. Time goes on.

The sign has been up for a while, and his business doesn't appear to have suffered. Of course, that could be because those who take pride in that kind of horseshit have been eating more Geno's -- which will eventually take care of the problem through heart disease.

It could also be because the store makes the best sandwiches, and droves of otherwise unable foreigners have been motivated to learn enough English to order.

Maybe a foreigner activism group should give Genos some kind of award for this considerate incentive to learn.

In a 2-1 vote, a Commission on Human Relations panel found that two signs at Geno's Steaks telling customers, "This is America: WHEN ORDERING 'PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH,'" do not violate the city's Fair Practices Ordinance.
Failure to see problem imminent. English is the majority language. Should he have to employ translators in order to sell food?

Vento has said he never refused service to anyone because they couldn't speak English. But critics argued that the signs discourage customers of certain backgrounds from eating at the shop.
And? Failure to see problem critical. If they don't want to eat in his shop because they are "offended," that's their own god damned problem. I would think that this saves everyone - employees and patrons - alot of time and hassle.
He is not denying services thus he is not violating said Fair Practices Ordinance. If they don't feel welcome, oh well.

"The sign appeared immediately above another sign that had the following words: 'Management Reserves the Right to Refuse Service,'" Centeno wrote.
And what establishment doesn't have that sign? The whole hoopla is about the location of one sign in proximity to another.

What do you mean by negative discrimination, just to be clear. And how should it be tackled?

Racism is an example of negative discrimination, not letting under 21's into an over 21's night club is an example of positive discrimination. Not all discimination is bad, some is good and very sensible.



So...we decide this on a case by case basis? Or should there be some criteria for 'official' intervention...and if so, what would that criteria be?


I think most things should be looked at in a case by case fashion, trying to pigieon hole things can lead to unfairness.

Mostly I think freedom of thought, and of speech is paramount. If a racist organisation wants to take to the streets and demonstrate their hatefull ideas, they should be allowed to. Then those of us who voice the opposite opinion should also be allowed to do so at least as loudly.

If you see something you feel is wrong or unjust it behoves you to stand up and shout about it.

How is it offensive?

If even one person takes offence, the surly it can be said to have offended them?

The sign has been up for a while, and his business doesn't appear to have suffered. Of course, that could be because those who take pride in that kind of horseshit have been eating more Geno's -- which will eventually take care of the problem through heart disease.

Yeah but I wonder how many more $ he has missed out on from the non-English speaking community?

False. If he flat out refused to serve anyone who wouldn't or couldn't order in English, it would indeed fall under the Human Relations Act unless he he could prove it was a bona fide requirement...and I doubt he could. It's one thing to absolutely require fluency in English when hiring emergency services personel (and perhaps other languages to boot), and quite another to require that patrons to your restaurant do so.

That doesn't make it bigotry. It might have violated an ordinance but it's still not the same as refusing service due to race.

Here's the real root of the issue that this guy is raising, and I think it's valid. Language is an integral part of any culture. A culture expresses itself politically, diplomatically and artistically through language. It's as important to the identity of a culture as its styles of clothing, food or entertainment.

When someone comes into a country to live, it's simply disrespectful to that culture to demand accomodation and refuse to learn the local laguage. It's why when Americans travel abroad the locals are (rightfully) offended if the visitor expects them to deal with him/her in English if English isn't the local language.

It's the same thing here. When people come to the USA to live and work but expect to be accomodated so that they needn't bother learning to speak English, it suggests that somehow our money is good enough for them but our culture isn't.

My father was an immigrant. When he first arrived here his English was virtually nil. He applied himself to learning English. He did it right. He doesn't ever expect people to accomodate him by speaking Spanish. And he taught me to value that, too. When I've been back to South America I always deal with people in Spanish. Always. It's a way of showing respect for the culture and the people.

Is that so much to ask?

Yeah but I wonder how many more $ he has missed out on from the non-English speaking community?

I suspect he makes a net gain from doing business with supporters who go out of their way to patronize his establishment.

I suspect he makes a net gain from doing business with supporters who go out of their way to patronize his establishment.

Heh that could indeed be the case. In which case it makes an ideal target huh.

Racism is an example of negative discrimination, not letting under 21's into an over 21's night club is an example of positive discrimination. Not all discimination is bad, some is good and very sensible. Okay good...I've stopped assuming people are using the terms the same way I would...or even according to their common usages.



If you see something you feel is wrong or unjust it behoves you to stand up and shout about it.
Don't you think that in a democracy, the passing of such legislation is in fact the result of people standing up and shouting about it? And that if such legislation were so antithecial to a large percentage of the population, that through the democratic process, said legislation would be repealed?

Pat's is better.

I think that for the record it should be restated that Geno's is one of those "order and get out of the way" establishments that having to go through a long ordeal of translating would really fuck up the system of the restaurant. Is it too much for them to ask to take care of translation before hand? IIRC, you see the menu before you even get in line so can't the person trying to order just write down what he wants on a little sticky note?

It's not really that hard.

False. If he flat out refused to serve anyone who wouldn't or couldn't order in English, it would indeed fall under the Human Relations Act unless he he could prove it was a bona fide requirement...and I doubt he could. It's one thing to absolutely require fluency in English when hiring emergency services personel (and perhaps other languages to boot), and quite another to require that patrons to your restaurant do so.
Didn't Vento state that he had never refused service based on someone's inability to order in English?

Why, yes indeed. He certainly did. Too many of you are trying to make a villain out of this guy. But that's okay, we'll pick on the illiterate later.

That doesn't make it bigotry. It might have violated an ordinance but it's still not the same as refusing service due to race. The definition of a bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Bigotry is not confined to race.

While, as I mentioned, language is not an enumerated ground under the Act, a strong case could be made for targeting people according to language. It would depend on the behaviour of the person being investigated, as in fact, the behaviour of Geno in this case seemed to have tipped the scales in his favour.

*snip*
It's not up to Geno to save US 'culture'. The fact is, South America is not an overtly multicultural continent, unlike the nations of the US and Canada. The US does not even have an official language. While it makes sense that English be the main language of use, it is not an absolute requirement.

Now, ignoring all your 'my father did it right' drivel, and 'this is really about' a crap, an better point could be made (too bad you didn't actually articulate it) that Geno's sign was a political statement, and an exercise of free speech. Since he wasn't actually refusing anyone service if they didn't speak English, it was simply a statement, an expression.

Now, imagine he had a huge sign on the front of his restaurant saying, 'if you live in America, speak English!'

Assuming the sign didn't violate advertising by-laws or any other regulations pertaining to signage, Geno would have a strong case for constitutional protection of free speech. It's when expression leads to unlawful action that we run into trouble...but there is really nothing stopping him from making such a statement.

I think that for the record it should be restated that Geno's is one of those "order and get out of the way" establishments that having to go through a long ordeal of translating would really fuck up the system of the restaurant. Is it too much for them to ask to take care of translation before hand? IIRC, you see the menu before you even get in line so can't the person trying to order just write down what he wants on a little sticky note?

It's not really that hard.

Well, there you run into the 'bona fide' issue. Considering the nature of the establishment, is ordering in English a bona fide requirement? I don't think the Commission actually spoke to that issue, but seemed to have decided it on the basis of no one having been refused service.

I really do wonder how much of an issue this actually was in terms of causing the business difficulty. Seems more like Geno just wanted to make a point.

Didn't Vento state that he had never refused service based on someone's inability to order in English?

Why, yes indeed. He certainly did. Too many of you are trying to make a villain out of this guy. But that's okay, we'll pick on the illiterate later.

Read my previous (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13541872&postcount=67) posts, and don't just take this one out of context. I stated that the reason he likely won this case is because on the facts, he never refused anyone service.

The whole point of the post you quoted was to show the difference...HAD he refused service, the issue would most likely have been decided against him.

Better? Good. We'll pick on the deliberately obtuse later.

It's not up to Geno to save US 'culture'. The fact is, South America is not an overtly multicultural continent, unlike the nations of the US and Canada. The US does not even have an official language. While it makes sense that English be the main language of use, it is not an absolute requirement.
A patently absurd assertion due to the fact that the majority of the United States isn't even taught to be bilingual.

Now, imagine he had a huge sign on the front of his restaurant saying, 'if you live in America, speak English!'
Imagine if dogs were pants. Who gives a fuck? That's not what it said. You can't go around making up imaginary scenarios to prove your point when you have no proof those scenarios would exist. If some one wanted a fucking strawman, they would go to a Halloween store.

A patently absurd assertion due to the fact that the majority of the United States isn't even taught to be bilingual. Sorry...did the US pass a law recently making English the official language? No? Then it is not a requirement. While this may upset you, the truth is not in fact patently absurd. It simply is.


Imagine if dogs were pants. Who gives a fuck? That's not what it said. You can't go around making up imaginary scenarios to prove your point when you have no proof those scenarios would exist. If some one wanted a fucking strawman, they would go to a Halloween store.
Tone it down McFrothy. If you can't handle a discussion, then don't enter into it. I'm well aware of the specific facts of this case, as I am aware that you have been unable to dispute a single thing I've said in relation to those specific facts. If I want to engage in an intellectual exercise about free speech, using a hypothetical, I'm entirely entitled to do so. I have in no way tried to assert that my hypothetical happened, or is related to what happened here...so your over the top reaction is entirely unwarranted. If you don't want to discuss the hypothetical, feel free not to. My point was proven long ago... had he actually REFUSED service to people, the commission most likely would have decided against him. But he didn't. End of story.

Oh, and you have some spittle on your chin.

By the way...did you even bother to read the rest of that quote? Or did you just make an assumption about it and run for the 'quote' button?

From my understanding, Geno's is like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld. You walk up, order and step aside. Apparently Geno is a very fast paced food service where they have to get people in and out as fast as they can so they can make more money. As a result, they don't have time to try to understand Spanish. So you either order your food in English and step aside, or don't bother at all.

I support Geno's decision to refuse service to anyone, it's his business he can run it how he likes.

Customer: Uh, gazpacho, por favor.
Soup Nazi: "Por favor?"
Customer: Um, I'm part Spanish.
Soup Nazi: Adios muchacho!

When I was in Germany and Austria, I made a point of ordering in German, because (quite obviously) that is what people speak in said countries. When in Philly, you too, should speak in the local tongue: A ridiculous blend of New York, "Joisey" and Midwestern speak, with incomprehensibility inherently built in.

And be fat.

Wow...you know what would be refreshing? If people would you know...just once in a while, admit they were wrong, and own up to it. But that must be asking too much of certain individuals. *coughMyrmcoughTPHcough*

The only spoken english that's easy to understand is the Queen's.

I'll remember that. I'm hopelessly mono-lingual, but I can do accents.

Lilibet used to do these incredibly long, hard "ar"s which I couldn't keep a straight face for, but she's gotten easier. More common English.

*straight face*
"it has turned out to be an Annus Miraaaaarrrr..."
*waves cutlass*
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr"

OK, forget I said anything. My 'dour Scot' is better.

Wow...you know what would be refreshing? If people would you know...just once in a while, admit they were wrong, and own up to it. But that must be asking too much of certain individuals. *coughMyrmcoughTPHcough*

Me! Me! I'm the one who's wrong!

Always. Sincerely, profoundly, exquisitely wrong! With bells on, and smelling of fake patchouli! And not just for you, I'm wrong for everyone!

Unfortunately for you, I am also too random to actually argue with. Life is cruel.

The definition of a bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Bigotry is not confined to race.

That definition fails. And yes, I know you got it from M-W Online. You left out the 'especially' clause. Without that, this definition means nothing since it would thus apply to ANYONE who has a strong opinion about ANYTHING.


While, as I mentioned, language is not an enumerated ground under the Act, a strong case could be made for targeting people according to language. It would depend on the behaviour of the person being investigated, as in fact, the behaviour of Geno in this case seemed to have tipped the scales in his favour.


Here's some of that hyperbole that is the only thing keeping your argument limping along. What, exactly, are non-english speaking people being targeted for? Be specific. Are they not permitted to order? No. As has been stated repeatedly, he hasn't denied anyone service.

In fact, all that's happening is he's ASKING people to order in English. That applies as much to you and me as to anyone who doesn't speak English.


It's not up to Geno to save US 'culture'. The fact is, South America is not an overtly multicultural continent, unlike the nations of the US and Canada. The US does not even have an official language. While it makes sense that English be the main language of use, it is not an absolute requirement.


Several points here:

1)South America IS a very multicultural continent. There are influences not only from several European countries (including Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherland) but also from Far East nations like China and Japan. Ther eis also a VERY strong cultural influence from aboriginal tribes, particularly in the mountain regions.

2)Irrelevant that the US (At the Federal level) has no official language. Official languages are the languages used by Government. (By the way, PA DOES have English as its official language.) When I go to South America I don't have to check the world factbook to know that if I do business there I'm expected to speak Spanish because it's the cultural language in the areas I go, just as English is the cultural language here.

http://vivirlatino.com/2006/06/29/english-official-language-of-pennsylvania.php


Now, ignoring all your 'my father did it right' drivel, and 'this is really about' a crap, an better point could be made (too bad you didn't actually articulate it) that Geno's sign was a political statement, and an exercise of free speech. Since he wasn't actually refusing anyone service if they didn't speak English, it was simply a statement, an expression.


1)Call it drivel all you want, but your problem is that my dad fails to fall under the masses ofpoor disenfranchised immigrants you seem to think you're championing. You'd be amazed how much more common examples like my dad are. It's not drivel at all. It's an example of the right way to do it because we back our opinions up with actions. I find it very interesting that you'd have a problem with an opinion that seeks to empower people by encouraging education and multilingualism. My dad is a stronger, more successful man because he made the effort to learn the local language. I'm a stronger, more successful man because I learned Spanish. Why would you react as if this were a bad thing?

2)Of course it's a political statement. That's what having your culture offended is all about. Duh.


Now, imagine he had a huge sign on the front of his restaurant saying, 'if you live in America, speak English!'


His approach was much more constructive. Rather than just throw out talking points or nationalist slogans, he's actually taking action. Don't forget, people who don't speak English who go to his shop are assisted in ordering in English.


Assuming the sign didn't violate advertising by-laws or any other regulations pertaining to signage, Geno would have a strong case for constitutional protection of free speech. It's when expression leads to unlawful action that we run into trouble...but there is really nothing stopping him from making such a statement.

And as long as he just throws out his slogan and doesn't rock the boat you'd be just fine with him, wouldn't you?

Hey....I'm on your side but it must have come over poorly, so sorry :(

I think the guys an asshat for having that sign, and I do try and learn some basics so I'm not considered an ignorant foreigner. Maybe the fact that europeans (especially the British) don't have to travel far to be way out their comfort zone with languages puts us at a disadvantage.
Ordering from a menu in some Baltic/Balkan states is very hard as the words and pronounciation are completely alien. I tried in Croatia and it sounded like I was speaking Klingon!

I apologize -- I mistook your tone and aggravated my own. You have a point more literal than you intended when you say the bolded part. The necessity for a second or third language is painfully clear when the border to the place that speaks a whole 'nother language is 5 miles away, not 500 or 2000.

I would be in bad shape were I ever in need of a Balto-Slavic or Serbo-Croatian language. I've picked up enough Greek from a Hllenic ex-girlfriend of 3 years, and I've sung enough Italian to get basic points across, and I took three years of German in high school, but Albanian? Croatian? Russian? They may be in the Indo-European family, but I have a hard time remembering even the basic "hellos" and "goodbyes". No idea why. Maybe it's something about their seeming hatred of vowels (which leads me to how bad I am at French, with their superabundance of vowels -- apparently I like a nice, moderation on the vowel-consonant axis).

It could also be because the store makes the best sandwiches, and droves of otherwise unable foreigners have been motivated to learn enough English to order.

Maybe a foreigner activism group should give Genos some kind of award for this considerate incentive to learn.

Hah! That's a cool way to look at it. Is Geno the one that uses Provolone cheese? 'Cause one of the cheesesteak guys uses Velveeta, and that's just wrong.

If even one person takes offence, the surly it can be said to have offended them?

Yes, but then you'd say "some people find that [or might find that] offensive". Just saying "it's offensive" without qualifying it makes it seem like you think everyone should be offended. I disagree. The sign neither offends nor heartens me.

Yeah but I wonder how many more $ he has missed out on from the non-English speaking community?

Not enough to be hurt by the loss. Folks from Philly in this very thread have said the place is constantly packed and quick, no-nonsense ordering is the reason why the sign went up in the first place -- to keep the lines moving. I don't wonder that at all.

That doesn't make it bigotry. It might have violated an ordinance but it's still not the same as refusing service due to race.

Here's the real root of the issue that this guy is raising, and I think it's valid. Language is an integral part of any culture. A culture expresses itself politically, diplomatically and artistically through language. It's as important to the identity of a culture as its styles of clothing, food or entertainment.

When someone comes into a country to live, it's simply disrespectful to that culture to demand accomodation and refuse to learn the local laguage. It's why when Americans travel abroad the locals are (rightfully) offended if the visitor expects them to deal with him/her in English if English isn't the local language.

It's the same thing here. When people come to the USA to live and work but expect to be accomodated so that they needn't bother learning to speak English, it suggests that somehow our money is good enough for them but our culture isn't.

My father was an immigrant. When he first arrived here his English was virtually nil. He applied himself to learning English. He did it right. He doesn't ever expect people to accomodate him by speaking Spanish. And he taught me to value that, too. When I've been back to South America I always deal with people in Spanish. Always. It's a way of showing respect for the culture and the people.

Is that so much to ask?

Extremely well said. *applauds*

Whenever I didn't have enough Japanese to get my point across in Japan, I always felt like the asshole, even if the Nihongo went out of their way to help me. I felt like an imposition. It made me go learn more about that kind of interaction in Japanese. I was only there five weeks, but I picked up enough to get around safely and reasonably. Of course, that was 1990, and I've lost the vast majority of it, except for the phrase I used whenever I was short on Japanese for a given situation: "gomen asai." (I'm sorry).

or is related to what happened here...
So you are off on some irrelevant tangent then.

That definition fails. And yes, I know you got it from M-W Online. You left out the 'especially' clause. Without that, this definition means nothing since it would thus apply to ANYONE who has a strong opinion about ANYTHING.I'm sorry you're so confused. The definition is not rendered meaningless by the lack of inclusion of the example

"A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Absolutely this refers to anyone who has a strong opinon about anything and who is 'intolerantly devoted' to that opinion. The key is that bolded part. Bigotry is not confined to race, just because you want it to be.

Here's some of that hyperbole that is the only thing keeping your argument limping along. What, exactly, are non-english speaking people being targeted for? Be specific. Are they not permitted to order? No. As has been stated repeatedly, he hasn't denied anyone service.
I'm giving you a legal argument, not a hyperbole. Once again, I'm sorry you don't understand what we're discussing, I'm hoping that clarified it for you.

First of all, I have been one of those stating repeatedly that he never denied anyone service. I'll refrain for apologising for your apparent oversight in that regard, because I don't actually intend to take responsibility for it.

Secondly, and as I made clear in the post you are quoting, there would only be a case IF people were actually refused service for not speaking English. The 'implied threat' (which seems to have been the basis of this case) is clearly not enough.

So, let's try this, shall we? You, with the clear understanding that what is about to be said is a scenario, that I am inventing, with the intent of showing you how one might argue the case. Read that again, are you sure you understand the difference between this, and me claiming something about the actual case? Take all the time you need.

Alright, say Geno actually refused people service for not speaking English. On what grounds could an action be brought? Well, let's look at the Human Relations Act (http://www.phrc.state.pa.us/legal/forms/Laws%20READ.pdf) of Pennsylvania. Section 5 defines "Unlawful Discriminatory Practices", and subsection 3 is where we'd go to in order to bring a case against Geno:

...Discriminate against any person in the terms or conditions of selling or leasing any housing accommodation or commercial property or in furnishing facilities, services or privileges in connection with the ownership, occupancy or use of any housing accommodation or commercial property because of the race, color, familial status, age, religious creed, ancestry, sex, national origin, handicap or disability of
any person, the use of a guide or support animal because of the blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user or because the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals or because of the handicap or disability of an individual with whom the person is known to have a relationship or association.

Most of the Act deals with specific employment, real estate and financial transactions, but this is the section that allows the Commission to bring a case against someone who is providing services. Alright, check out the enumerated grounds. Race, colour, blah blah blah, nothing about language, right? Ah, but this is the law my friend, just because something is not specifically listed does not mean it is not an analogous ground. We have to look at statutory interpretation here. What is the purpose of this Act? Is it only to protect people in these specific little groups? Why no, I answer. We look to the Act once more. You'll find, in section 2, the purpose stated.

Such discrimination foments
domestic strife and unrest, threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth, and undermines the foundations of a free democratic state. The denial of equal employment, housing and public accommodation opportunities because of such discrimination, and the consequent failure to utilize the productive capacities of individuals to their fullest extent, deprives large segments of the population of the Commonwealth of earnings necessary to maintain decent standards of living, necessitates their resort to public relief and intensifies group conflicts thereby resulting in grave blah blah blah


The purpose of the Act is to prevent unrest due to discrimination, and to reduce group conflicts based on this discrimination. The enumerated grounds are very expansive. Were I making the argument, I would do it thusly.

I would point out that race, ancestry, nation of origin and age are enumerated grounds. Why would I throw in age, you ask? I'll get to that.

What we want to know is if service has actually been denied. So we'd have to prove that people were actually refused service because of their use of a language other than English. (once again, not the case here, right? We get that? This is a hypothetical? Good, just making sure) That evidentiary burden is on us, making the claim.

So, say we prove this. We then say, look, the ancestry, nation of origin, or race of this person is the reason they speak a language other than English. Here, we might bring evidence about how long the person has been in the country, what attempts they've made to learn English and so forth. We could bring age in as an evidentiary issue (if applicable) in order to show that learning a new language past a certain age grows increasinly difficult. Language is something you can change, unlike race, or ancestry...but it is not necessarily something you can change EASILY or RAPIDLY. Requiring people to do so before receiving certain circumstances is absolutely discriminatory, and is inextricable linked as an analogous ground to race, ancestry, nation of origion and so on.

Now...I'd also be bringing in local case law to back my ass up on this one, to see if language has become an accepted judicially approved analogous ground or not. I'm not going to try to find such cases, I'd be at it all day. But, this is the argument I'd make, and frankly, I think it would succeed. IF SERVICE WERE ACTUALLY DENIED.

Now, the burden would shift to this imaginary Geno who refused service, to provide a bona fide reason for his actions. If somehow he could show that failure to speak English siginificantly impaired his ability to run his business, the discrimination might be allowed.

Also, note that section 8.1 makes it clear to people not familiar with administrative tribunals, that the commission is not bound to strict rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity. As in, this is not a trial.

Did you follow along in this little exercise? I'll respond to the rest of your post in short order.

This publicity stunt is really going well for that guy.

Okay good...I've stopped assuming people are using the terms the same way I would...or even according to their common usages.?

Heh a good way to be on internet forums.


Don't you think that in a democracy, the passing of such legislation is in fact the result of people standing up and shouting about it? And that if such legislation were so antithecial to a large percentage of the population, that through the democratic process, said legislation would be repealed?

Well in a true democracy yes I would say that would certianly be the case(as it should be). Heh but who lives in such a world? Not I.

How many times can you remember a referendum being held on a new law, or a general forum open to all?

Or more simply put how much input into the drafting and choosing of new legistlation does the avarage Joe actualy have?

In fact, all that's happening is he's ASKING people to order in English. That applies as much to you and me as to anyone who doesn't speak English. I'm aware of what he is doing. I am also aware that it is not the same as you or I asking someone to speak English. Why? Because (assuming) neither of us are doing so in Pennsylvania, as we provide services to the public. Therein lies a very crucial difference. Neither you nor I could even have a case brought against us in the first place by this Commission for those reasons. The case failed against Geno, but he at least is a person listed in the actual Act.



Several points here:

1)South America IS a very multicultural continent. There are influences not only from several European countries (including Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherland) but also from Far East nations like China and Japan. Ther eis also a VERY strong cultural influence from aboriginal tribes, particularly in the mountain regions. Sheesh, and you leave out the indigenous people? Pish posh.

Nonetheless, diversity and/or multiculturalism are not nearly the issues they are in the US and Canada, who receive many more immigrant settlers than South American nations (excluding internal migration in that continent). But I won't actually argue that South America is homogenous. I like it too much to lie about it.

2)Irrelevant that the US (At the Federal level) has no official language. Official languages are the languages used by Government. (By the way, PA DOES have English as its official language.) When I go to South America I don't have to check the world factbook to know that if I do business there I'm expected to speak Spanish because it's the cultural language in the areas I go, just as English is the cultural language here. English is the de facto official language, fair enough. However, this still does not make it a requirement. English and French are the official languages of Canada, but no one is forced to learn them. In fact, in many cases (especially when it comes to the administration of justice), the state is required to provide services in languages other than the official ones. My point is, there is nothing at any level that requires a customer to speak English. There is common sense, there is courtesy, there is just plain come on and do it...but there is nothing that can make them do it, or punish them (absent bona fide reasons) for not speaking English. I'm just arguing facts, not whether or not people should be required by law etc.


1)Call it drivel all you want, but your problem is that my dad fails to fall under the masses ofpoor disenfranchised immigrants you seem to think you're championing. You'd be amazed how much more common examples like my dad are. It's not drivel at all. It's an example of the right way to do it because we back our opinions up with actions. I find it very interesting that you'd have a problem with an opinion that seeks to empower people by encouraging education and multilingualism. My dad is a stronger, more successful man because he made the effort to learn the local language. I'm a stronger, more successful man because I learned Spanish. Why would you react as if this were a bad thing? Oh, I am an ardent proponent of language learning. I just don't like language learning arguments backed up by 'pulled-himself-up-by-his-bootstrap' arguments followed up with 'the right way to do it' statements. You're making absolute statements based on how one of your family members did it. Don't. English is not necessarily the only indicator of success in the US. Far from it. Your oversimplification of the issues is not something I'm going to accept.

2)Of course it's a political statement. That's what having your culture offended is all about. Duh. That's how YOU interpret it. That's not necessarily how it is. In any case, my point, and you seem to have missed it, is that this sign was interpreted not as a political expression, but as an implied threat of discrimination. Since no actual action was taken, the 'implied threat' scenerio is somewhat discredited, and it really does become a freedom of speech issue. What I wonder is if even had they found discrimination, whether they could have made him take down the sign. I mean, they could fine him, maybe even fuck with his license...they could stop him from continuing to discriminate (pretending he did)...but could they actually force him to take that sign down? I rather doubt it.



His approach was much more constructive. Rather than just throw out talking points or nationalist slogans, he's actually taking action. Don't forget, people who don't speak English who go to his shop are assisted in ordering in English. Oh I agree, his approach was less antagonistic (well...hmmm, that's debatable actually). Nonetheless, the point I was making is that if he wasn't actually doing anything discriminatory, a huge ass sign making whatever nationalistic statements he might feel compelled to make would likely fall under the protection of free speech, which interests me. This case seems to answer the issue of whether a sign itself can be discrimination, and the answer was clearly no.


And as long as he just throws out his slogan and doesn't rock the boat you'd be just fine with him, wouldn't you?
He can do as he pleases. I can feel however I want about it. My interest isn't in making him do what I want, my interest is in the legal issues, and I'm fairly comfortable with the outcome of this case. He made a statement, not a threat, and did not engage in discriminatory practices. In my mind, this case shows that the law works.

So you are off on some irrelevant tangent then.

Hardly. The line between discrimination and free speech is a fine one. But blundering along as you are, reading snippets here and there rather than the entire posts, skewing context and getting all worked up in a fearful sweat, I don't actually expect you to be looking for fine distinctions. It's okay.

This publicity stunt is really going well for that guy.

No shit, hmmm? Either way he put his restaurant on The MapTM.

Well in a true democracy yes I would say that would certianly be the case(as it should be). Heh but who lives in such a world? Not I.

How many times can you remember a referendum being held on a new law, or a general forum open to all?

Or more simply put how much input into the drafting and choosing of new legistlation does the avarage Joe actualy have?

All good points, and valid criticisms of the legislative process. I agree with you. However, were we to simply leave it up to the individual to enforce his or her particular views on discrimination (or lack thereof) we'd be missing a crucial element to social cohesion...certainty. It's bad enough that we might have different human rights legislation on federal, state, and even municipal levels, dealing with different issues in different ways (acknowledging of course how primacy works in terms of which legislation would trump which). If it were truly up to every neighbourhood to enforce, what protection could people actually count on?

I'm much more comfortable with the idea of people using the democratic process to bring in this kind of legislation, or conversely, to get rid of it.

I've always liked them better than Pat's

What annoys me is that there are so many other more important things the city could be worrying over and they pick somthing stupid like this

No shit, hmmm? Either way he put his restaurant on The MapTM.

Absolutely. For the price of a sign he's gotten international recognition.

All good points, and valid criticisms of the legislative process. I agree with you. However, were we to simply leave it up to the individual to enforce his or her particular views on discrimination (or lack thereof) we'd be missing a crucial element to social cohesion...certainty. It's bad enough that we might have different human rights legislation on federal, state, and even municipal levels, dealing with different issues in different ways (acknowledging of course how primacy works in terms of which legislation would trump which). If it were truly up to every neighbourhood to enforce, what protection could people actually count on?

I'm much more comfortable with the idea of people using the democratic process to bring in this kind of legislation, or conversely, to get rid of it.

Yes I'm with you. except I live in the UK so differant state laws do not enter into my equasion.

On another note, Hey I'm Peeps, my politics are liberal-socialist-quasianarchist.

I hope that helps you get a hold on where I'm coming from.:D

Absolutely. For the price of a sign he's gotten international recognition.

Oh for more than that...he must have shelled out a hefty sum for the lawyers he had representing him etc. But probably less than an advertising campaign :D

I've always liked them better than Pat's

What annoys me is that there are so many other more important things the city could be worrying over and they pick somthing stupid like this

Well, it brings up a lot of issues people feel very strongly about. It's no great surprise that those issues fuel this particular situation, and blow it into something bigger than it is.

Swing and a miss. You've got just as many homophones, homographs and other confusing rules in the Queen's English as we do in the States.

(you... who? I'm Italian, you know)

Anyway, since I missed, I'll have another try. I was trying to point out the fact that I understand better Her British Majesty than I understand any other english-speaker, including Her British Subjects, Her Non-British Subjects and Any Other Native English-Speaker. I think it's because H.B.M.'s been taught to speak very clearly.
I hope I've explained my mind better this time.:)

So a shop keeper can be forced to serve sombody that they don't want to? That does seem wrong somehow to me.

Why? I think it's normal. As a shop keeper he isn't running a private business - it a business that's open to the public, id est anyone. It's a service you're offering to the whole community, not just to whom you like best.

Why? I think it's normal. As a shop keeper he isn't running a private business - it a business that's open to the public, id est anyone. It's a service you're offering to the whole community, not just to whom you like best.

Naaaa I disagree, all business is private.(usual exceptions apply). A business is there first and foremost to make money for it's owner, and business man can certianly say who he can do business with.

Hardly. The line between discrimination and free speech is a fine one. But blundering along as you are, reading snippets here and there rather than the entire posts, skewing context and getting all worked up in a fearful sweat, I don't actually expect you to be looking for fine distinctions. It's okay.
You yourself said your hypothetical diatribe has nothing to do with this case, thus you are off on some irrelevant tangent.
You are either talking about this case, or you arn't. And you admitted you arn't. I can pull hypothetical situations out of my ass too, but I don't pretend to relate them to actual situations and then say I'm not while continuing to relate them.

It's the same as
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"
and
"Management reserves the right to refuse service"

my only question is tho...

The sign is in ENGLISH. Chances are, those who cannot speak english won't be able to read the sign.

So what does this change, other than to remove the small percentage who can read english but not speak it?

This is America: WHEN ORDERING PLEASE SPEAK KLINGON!

...*scratches head*

Nope, doesn't make any sense.

My father was an immigrant. When he first arrived here his English was virtually nil. He applied himself to learning English. He did it right. He doesn't ever expect people to accomodate him by speaking Spanish. And he taught me to value that, too. When I've been back to South America I always deal with people in Spanish. Always. It's a way of showing respect for the culture and the people.
Isn't it sad that Geno's refuses to show respect for the people and the culture in the US by expect people to accomodate them by speaking English...

Why? I think it's normal. As a shop keeper he isn't running a private business - it a business that's open to the public, id est anyone. It's a service you're offering to the whole community, not just to whom you like best.
That reasoning is wrong

Does he own his store? if so, then it's a private business.
Does he offer stocks or shares to the public? if so, then it's a public business.

what makes it public or private isn't the fact that people can walk in off of the streets but the ownership of the business itself.

That reasoning is wrong

Does he own his store? if so, then it's a private business.
Does he offer stocks or shares to the public? if so, then it's a public business.

what makes it public or private isn't the fact that people can walk in off of the streets but the ownership of the business itself.

Meh. As I stated before, clearly there is an ocean between Italy and the USA. Here owning a place doesn't make the business you're running in it private. It's about the use - a bar, a restaurant, a shop etc are "public" businesses, meaning that they're open to anyone, not that they are of State property.

Naaaa I disagree, all business is private.(usual exceptions apply). A business is there first and foremost to make money for it's owner, and business man can certianly say who he can do business with.
Not by our Constitution. Art.41 iirc says private enterprise is free, as long as it doesn't fail to provide a benefit to the whole society. Offering a public-orientered service, like a restaurant, provides a benefit to the whole society. Just making money for oneself does not.

"Joisey"

NOBODY CALLS IT THAT.

That is all.

Meh. As I stated before, clearly there is an ocean between Italy and the USA. Here owning a place doesn't make the business you're running in it private. It's about the use - a bar, a restaurant, a shop etc are "public" businesses, meaning that they're open to anyone, not that they are of State property. so what would be a Private Business in Italy? even Doctors take walk in's. Art Galleries do the same...

Not by our Constitution. Art.41 iirc says private enterprise is free, as long as it doesn't fail to provide a benefit to the whole society. Offering a public-orientered service, like a restaurant, provides a benefit to the whole society. Just making money for oneself does not.


Heh as they say then 'horses for courses'

It's the same as
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"
and
"Management reserves the right to refuse service"

my only question is tho...

The sign is in ENGLISH. Chances are, those who cannot speak english won't be able to read the sign.

So what does this change, other than to remove the small percentage who can read english but not speak it?

It attracts the attention of those who aren't happy that people dare to come to America without first learning English. And the media.

It attracts the attention of those who aren't happy that people dare to come to America without first learning English. but if they don't learn the language, how do they know what the sign says?
And the media. free publicity!

but if they don't learn the language, how do they know what the sign says?
It's not the people that don't speak the language that this is aimed at, it's the people who speak English and agree with the sentiment that English should be/is the national language of America, and everyone who lives there should speak it.
free publicity!

Well, very cheap publicity.

It's not the people that don't speak the language that this is aimed at, it's the people who speak English and agree with the sentiment that English should be/is the national language of America, and everyone who lives there should speak it. yet the claim is that it offends those who don't speak the language.

yet the claim is that it offends those who don't speak the language.

Well that's just silly. How can you be offended by something you don't understand?

Well that's just silly. How can you be offended by something you don't understand?

hence my first post... :p

hence my first post... :p

I think the idea is that other people who do understand the sign have a problem with it. Or maybe I'm crazy.



Or maybe both :)

You yourself said your hypothetical diatribe has nothing to do with this case, thus you are off on some irrelevant tangent.
You are either talking about this case, or you arn't. And you admitted you arn't. I can pull hypothetical situations out of my ass too, but I don't pretend to relate them to actual situations and then say I'm not while continuing to relate them.

Awww...don't get upset that you didn't understand my point. Pretending that somehow, we must only discuss this one case, and nothing more is very unconvincing, especially from someone who has been on this forum as long as you. We can expand this topic all we like. If some people are incapable of recognising, despite clearly worded statements, that these expansions are not in fact errors being made about the specific case...well, who do those people have to blame but themselves? A little more effort reading, and less getting all outraged about nothing might be in order.

That being said, do you have anything to add to this topic other than petty gutter sniping, which, to point out your hypocrisy (since you miss the obvious on a distressingly regular basis), is not focused on the topic either?

I thought not. Bu-bye.

hence my first post... :p

You and Ifreann are very silly :D

I'm sorry you're so confused. The definition is not rendered meaningless by the lack of inclusion of the example
"A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."
Absolutely this refers to anyone who has a strong opinon about anything and who is 'intolerantly devoted' to that opinion. The key is that bolded part. Bigotry is not confined to race, just because you want it to be.


Please read the posts you're trying to refute more carefully. I said teh definition is meaningless because it is too vague.

If someone is 'intolerantly devoted' to their Chevy, could it be said of them that they're bigoted against me for driving a Ford?

If you seriously want to just call this guy a bigot because it makes you feel better, at least acknowledge that people aren't going to play along just because you're passionate about it.


I'm giving you a legal argument, not a hyperbole. Once again, I'm sorry you don't understand what we're discussing, I'm hoping that clarified it for you.
First of all, I have been one of those stating repeatedly that he never denied anyone service. I'll refrain for apologising for your apparent oversight in that regard, because I don't actually intend to take responsibility for it.
Secondly, and as I made clear in the post you are quoting, there would only be a case IF people were actually refused service for not speaking English. The 'implied threat' (which seems to have been the basis of this case) is clearly not enough.

So... you're arguing for a point that, by your own words, isn't being raised yet you still used the term 'tergeted.' You haven't answered my question. Who is being targeted?


So, let's try this, shall we? You, with the clear understanding that what is about to be said is a scenario, that I am inventing, with the intent of showing you how one might argue the case. Read that again, are you sure you understand the difference between this, and me claiming something about the actual case? Take all the time you need.


Snippy and personal. And yet you want to be taken seriously...


Alright, say Geno actually refused people service for not speaking English. On what grounds could an action be brought? Well, let's look at the Human Relations Act (http://www.phrc.state.pa.us/legal/forms/Laws%20READ.pdf) of Pennsylvania. Section 5 defines "Unlawful Discriminatory Practices", and subsection 3 is where we'd go to in order to bring a case against Geno:

<snip>


You wasted all that time creating a purely hypothetical scenario that, by your own admission, isn't the case, then spend all that time describing how it MIGHT be approached, then end it off with another little condescending remark...

So, in your mind, how did you envision me reacting. Did I suddenly jump up and shout 'Eureka! Neeskia has come up with such a powerful hypothetical scenario to argue, that surely it MUST bear on the issue at hand!'?

...just curious. Not trying to be nasty.

I'm aware of what he is doing. I am also aware that it is not the same as you or I asking someone to speak English. Why? Because (assuming) neither of us are doing so in Pennsylvania, as we provide services to the public. Therein lies a very crucial difference. Neither you nor I could even have a case brought against us in the first place by this Commission for those reasons. The case failed against Geno, but he at least is a person listed in the actual Act.


So....?


Sheesh, and you leave out the indigenous people? Pish posh.


Kinda funny that you're using a tone with me like you're talking down to a fool, and yet you're not taking the time to read my replies. This is the last line from the very quoted text you said this in response to:


Ther eis also a VERY strong cultural influence from aboriginal tribes, particularly in the mountain regions.

If that was somehow unclear, I refer to the descendants of ancient Inca as well as Hovito tribes with whom I have personally interacted. Take a perfect example nation: Ecuador. If you go to the coastal region or the city of Guayaquil, the influences are heavily Carribbean, Spanish and European. If you go northeast into the Mountains you'll find yourself in or around Quito, the capital. This is where you'll see more European influence, North American, but the locals tend to be much more connected to the past, with references to, and descendants of, Incan culture just about everywhere you look.

Your imperious attitude is juvenile. It's comically ineffective when you back it up with this kind of carelessness. Tell me, are you really in this to have a discussion, or are you just using this as a platform for your talking points?


Nonetheless, diversity and/or multiculturalism are not nearly the issues they are in the US and Canada, who receive many more immigrant settlers than South American nations (excluding internal migration in that continent). But I won't actually argue that South America is homogenous. I like it too much to lie about it.


Oh please I dare you to pretend to be better acquainted with South America than I am.

Please please please please?


English is the de facto official language, fair enough. However, this still does not make it a requirement. English and French are the official languages of Canada, but no one is forced to learn them. In fact, in many cases (especially when it comes to the administration of justice), the state is required to provide services in languages other than the official ones. My point is, there is nothing at any level that requires a customer to speak English. There is common sense, there is courtesy, there is just plain come on and do it...but there is nothing that can make them do it, or punish them (absent bona fide reasons) for not speaking English. I'm just arguing facts, not whether or not people should be required by law etc.


None of what you just said is in dispute. I say again: The good that comes of learning and using the local language is a sign of respect. Fail to do so at your own risk, for just as fond as you are of pointing out that nobody is required to use English, so too is no one required to use anything else.


Oh, I am an ardent proponent of language learning. I just don't like language learning arguments backed up by 'pulled-himself-up-by-his-bootstrap' arguments followed up with 'the right way to do it' statements. You're making absolute statements based on how one of your family members did it. Don't. English is not necessarily the only indicator of success in the US. Far from it. Your oversimplification of the issues is not something I'm going to accept.


It's not oversimplification. It's called not muddling the issue with irrelevance. So far I've had to question the relevance of most of what you've said to me in these two posts I'm quoting you from. Don't assume that just because people don't try to drag arguments from all over the spectrum, that somehow it's an oversimplification.

Let me give you a good real world example.

My dad, as I've stated, learned English upon his arrival in this country. As a direct result of that he became self-reliant and was able then to get better and better jobs, to be competitive in the job market, and was able to improve his skills through training and seminars. (My dad was never a construction worker. He was, (until he retired) an electronics technician.) This, in turn, enabled him to improve his income, which allowed him to afford better housing and a family. He was also able to create a retirement fund, on his own, that now sees him retired back home in grand style.

Could he have done that without English? Well, most of it, but not as easily and not as successfully. I have a number of cousins, aunts and other extended family who came to this country in exactly the same way and learned English. ALL of them live VERY well.

By contrast, I also have a stepmother who never bothered to learn English. She, along with other family and friends who didn't bother (because they could be easily accomodated at shops and such here in the local area that DO cater to Spanish speakers) were able to live here and function, but that's about it. They have very little self reliance because any time something comes up that they have to deal with English speakers on, they need to find someone to help. They don't understand anything they read in newspapers unless it's published in Spanish and thus they're missing a complete picture, because what the Latin media thinks is important isn't the same as what the Engish speaking media does, to the detriment of its readers.

The relevance? Success comes to those who go out there and make an effort to improve themselves. I'm citing a LOT more than one example. Remember, I'm close to the very community we're talking about and I am telling you there's a stark difference.


That's how YOU interpret it. That's not necessarily how it is. In any case, my point, and you seem to have missed it, is that this sign was interpreted not as a political expression, but as an implied threat of discrimination. Since no actual action was taken, the 'implied threat' scenerio is somewhat discredited, and it really does become a freedom of speech issue. What I wonder is if even had they found discrimination, whether they could have made him take down the sign. I mean, they could fine him, maybe even fuck with his license...they could stop him from continuing to discriminate (pretending he did)...but could they actually force him to take that sign down? I rather doubt it.

I didn't miss your point, but I'll addrss it more directly than I have been.

The thing is, you're absolutely right that some people will interpret it as some kind of hostile act. My problem is that such people are being given WAY too much credence. That's exactly the mentality that drive this whole issue to national attention.

So we do agree that it's a freedom of speech issue. The matter for debate then is, is this guy being a bigot, or acting reasonably? I say he's acting reasonably.


Oh I agree, his approach was less antagonistic (well...hmmm, that's debatable actually). Nonetheless, the point I was making is that if he wasn't actually doing anything discriminatory, a huge ass sign making whatever nationalistic statements he might feel compelled to make would likely fall under the protection of free speech, which interests me. This case seems to answer the issue of whether a sign itself can be discrimination, and the answer was clearly no.


Which, we seem to agree, is a good thing.


He can do as he pleases. I can feel however I want about it. My interest isn't in making him do what I want, my interest is in the legal issues, and I'm fairly comfortable with the outcome of this case. He made a statement, not a threat, and did not engage in discriminatory practices. In my mind, this case shows that the law works.

But the question remains, do you feel he's a bigot. and if so, then are you truly comfortable with no further action being taken?

Awww...don't get upset that you didn't understand my point. Pretending that somehow, we must only discuss this one case, and nothing more is very unconvincing, especially from someone who has been on this forum as long as you. We can expand this topic all we like. If some people are incapable of recognising, despite clearly worded statements, that these expansions are not in fact errors being made about the specific case...well, who do those people have to blame but themselves? A little more effort reading, and less getting all outraged about nothing might be in order.
But you arn't discussing any other case. You are discussing this case while pretending you arn't and are inserting hypotheticals to imply things about the owner.

Isn't it sad that Geno's refuses to show respect for the people and the culture in the US by expect people to accomodate them by speaking English...

Your point?


Extremely well said. *applauds*

Whenever I didn't have enough Japanese to get my point across in Japan, I always felt like the asshole, even if the Nihongo went out of their way to help me. I felt like an imposition. It made me go learn more about that kind of interaction in Japanese. I was only there five weeks, but I picked up enough to get around safely and reasonably. Of course, that was 1990, and I've lost the vast majority of it, except for the phrase I used whenever I was short on Japanese for a given situation: "gomen asai." (I'm sorry).

Thankya.

Learning Japanese is, from what I've heard, very difficult. I'm sure your efforts were appreciated even if they had to talk slower ;)

You and Ifreann are very silly :D

*bows*
Thank you.. we're available for parties, weddings and bar mitzahs... tho I wouldn't say no to a bit of stand up at an orgy or two... :D

*bows*
Thank you.. we're available for parties, weddings and bar mitzahs... tho I wouldn't say no to a bit of stand up at an orgy or two... :D

I prefer to lie down for that sort of thing. Or sit.

(you... who? I'm Italian, you know)

Anyway, since I missed, I'll have another try. I was trying to point out the fact that I understand better Her British Majesty than I understand any other english-speaker, including Her British Subjects, Her Non-British Subjects and Any Other Native English-Speaker. I think it's because H.B.M.'s been taught to speak very clearly.
I hope I've explained my mind better this time.:)

*smacks forehead with heel of right hand*

Escuse, Signore -- I am so used to ignoring the little "LOCATION" thing on the left and just reading posts, that I assumed you were English. Un migliaio di scuse.

NOBODY CALLS IT THAT.

That is all.

Sure they do. Otherwise, "Joisy" wouldn't exist.

Thankya.

Learning Japanese is, from what I've heard, very difficult. I'm sure your efforts were appreciated even if they had to talk slower ;)

Do Itashimashte

They seemed to appreciate the effort, and yes, they did speak very slowly. The best experience was when I was buying some Japanese porcelain, and the shopkeeper (This is Motomachi Mall near Sanomiya Station in Kobe) went to get his adorable 12-year-old daughter to practice her English on me. I stayed in that shop long after I was done looking and purchasing. Many of the Japanese people I met were incredibly friendly and glad to practice English and help you with your Japanese. I'd love to go back, but as pricey as it was 18 years ago, it's much more so now.

Yeah but I wonder how many more $ he has missed out on from the non-English speaking community?

I'll tell you how much. NONE.

His shop has been featured in Dozens of food programs ranging from PBS to the Food and traven networks. And ive been there several times. You will NOT find a better cheese steak anywhere.

I went there at 4 in the morning on a sunday, and there was a line around the building.

Naaaa I disagree, all business is private.(usual exceptions apply). A business is there first and foremost to make money for it's owner, and business man can certianly say who he can do business with.
That's not true. You can, of course, lock your doors against the public and only let in those you invite, but once you open up to the public you surrender your right to pick and choose which parts of the public you will deal with.

Please read the posts you're trying to refute more carefully. I said teh definition is meaningless because it is too vague.

If someone is 'intolerantly devoted' to their Chevy, could it be said of them that they're bigoted against me for driving a Ford? I think there's little point in narrowing the word too much. We generaly use it as a perjorative term, but the definition lends itself to a Chevy based bigotry yes. I mean, if someone really wants to judge another person based on their driving of a Ford...well, it's bigotry isn't it? Silly, but bigotted. The criteria for being intolerant of another person quite often is silly; that's sort of the sad part of it.

If you seriously want to just call this guy a bigot because it makes you feel better, at least acknowledge that people aren't going to play along just because you're passionate about it. Except you won't find a single instance of me calling him a bigot. What you originally responded to was my explaining a scenario of bigotry, and why I believe it would be classified as such. As you'll note, that scenario never played out in this situation.


So... you're arguing for a point that, by your own words, isn't being raised yet you still used the term 'tergeted.' You haven't answered my question. Who is being targeted?

Snippy and personal. And yet you want to be taken seriously... Frankly I don't care if you take me seriously. I've given you the hypothetical argument you asked for, since both of us know that the real Geno never refused anyone service. As we've seen, the case against him failed, and likely for that very reason. It would be ridiculous of you to ask me to make an argument based on the very grounds that were dismissed. If you want to debate the argument from a legal standpoint, please feel free. If your feelings are too bruised, well, that's okay.

You wasted all that time creating a purely hypothetical scenario that, by your own admission, isn't the case, then spend all that time describing how it MIGHT be approached, then end it off with another little condescending remark... Amusing. It seems that you want to dodge your question. You asked ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13542185&postcount=103) what non English speaker would be targeted for here. Forgive me for making an assumption, based on the fact that both you and I know that this case was tossed out, that you would want to actually know how non-English speakers could be seen as discriminated against according to the Human Relations Act. You seemed to be implying that no such discrimination was possible, either in this case, or in any case.

So, in your mind, how did you envision me reacting. Did I suddenly jump up and shout 'Eureka! Neeskia has come up with such a powerful hypothetical scenario to argue, that surely it MUST bear on the issue at hand!'? No, judging from your previous posts, you get hung up on what you want to get hung up on in order to avoid looking foolish. My hypothetical has quite a bit of bearing on the case. It’s the reason the Commission was able to bring the case against Geno in the first case, and it is the reason that case failed. They couldn’t make out the action necessary to prove discrimination, or even implied discrimination. I was merely illustrating for you what exactly Geno would have had to have done in order for this case to have been successful against him. Because you made it quite clear that you were unable to figure that out for yourself. I figured I’d walk you through the steps so we could avoid an annoying repetitious explanation. Seems like that failed.
So....? Once again, pointing out where you err. Geno, as a proprietor of a restaurant providing services in Pennsylvania, telling people to speak English, is most unlike you or I telling people to speak English. And not just because neither of us are named Geno, or happen to live in Pennsylvania. (once again, an assumption on my part) You make false statements, I correct them. There is merit in that alone, regardless of your inability to understand how it all fits together.

Kinda funny that you're using a tone with me like you're talking down to a fool, and yet you're not taking the time to read my replies. This is the last line from the very quoted text you said this in response to: Nevermind. I suppose the indigenous/aboriginal dichotomy isn’t well-known, or funny outside of political circles. I apologise for making an admittedly obscure, and therefore poor joke.

Your imperious attitude is juvenile. It's comically ineffective when you back it up with this kind of carelessness. Tell me, are you really in this to have a discussion, or are you just using this as a platform for your talking points? I’ll note that you’ve failed to even once address the substance of my argument so far. My ‘juvenile attitude’ is in response to your lack of anything interesting to add on the topic of discrimination/human rights legislation/Geno’s specific case/freedom of speech, and so on.

Oh please I dare you to pretend to be better acquainted with South America than I am. Ahhhhh....hah.
Well, let’s see, I married a Chilean about 11 years ago, and my children speak fluent Spanish, albeit with a strong Chilean accent, as do I. I travelled throughout Latin America since I was 17 (don’t worry, job at a diner paid for it all, not mommy and daddy). I have no idea how ‘well acquainted’ you are with South America, nor do I care. Women tend to do poorly in standing-up pissing contests for obvious reasons. I might get some on you. But I am reasonable certain that my knowledge of the reason is not something you are going to find very lacking.

None of what you just said is in dispute. I say again: The good that comes of learning and using the local language is a sign of respect. Fail to do so at your own risk, for just as fond as you are of pointing out that nobody is required to use English, so too is no one required to use anything else. Nope, but I’m sure even you can conceive of situations where it would be of great benefit to speak those other languages, fluently, not as a recent learner. There are many people who cater specifically to certain ethnic groups, and build up a lot of trust and good will because of their fluency. While this might not be ideal in that it does in fact encourage some people to be lax in their learning of English, it does, nonetheless, prove the counter to your basic assertion that ‘the right way’ is learning English, because your dad did. All I’m saying is that I could care less what your dad did. The situation is going to vary enormously from person to person, and you can make it just fine in either of our countries of residence without a single word of English.

It's not oversimplification. It's called not muddling the issue with irrelevance. So far I've had to question the relevance of most of what you've said to me in these two posts I'm quoting you from. Don't assume that just because people don't try to drag arguments from all over the spectrum, that somehow it's an oversimplification. It’s amusing that you go on this little familial tangent (which for the sake of brevity and extreme disinterest I’ll mostly snip out), while claiming that my legal argument in relation to the Human Relations Act of Pennsylvania, which is in direct relation to the actual topic, is somehow ‘irrelevant’. I think you cherry pick. I’m not interested in your particular tangent about learning English. I’m interested in the issues involved in defining what is and what is not discrimination. You are, it seems, uninterested in this. Both topics are valid, and I have no need to pretend that yours is out of bounds, while claiming mine is strictly within the lines. I’m unclear as to why you, on the other hand, feel this need very strongly.

I didn't miss your point, but I'll addrss it more directly than I have been.
The thing is, you're absolutely right that some people will interpret it as some kind of hostile act. My problem is that such people are being given WAY too much credence. That's exactly the mentality that drive this whole issue to national attention.
So we do agree that it's a freedom of speech issue. The matter for debate then is, is this guy being a bigot, or acting reasonably? I say he's acting reasonably. Whether he is reasonable or not is not going to inform whether this is a protected form of speech. We could tweak the criteria of ‘reasonable’ all day, and come up with different determinations on the subject. I think it’s an assholish thing to do, but plenty of people are assholes all the time, and it’s not necessarily unreasonable for them to be. I wouldn’t eat his damn sandwiches, but that’s in a big way because I don’t really care for sandwiches. If I came across a similar sign here at home, I’d think the person was an asshole, and I’d probably not bother to shop there. Would I want the government to step in? Bah. Hell no. Not unless there was more to it than a sign.

But the question remains, do you feel he's a bigot. and if so, then are you truly comfortable with no further action being taken? I think he is probably a bigot yes. I don’t know the guy, don’t know what’s really behind this, so I could be wrong. But I’m assuming. I am, however, comfortable with no further action being taken. He has done nothing more, he has taken no actual steps to prevent non-English speakers from eating there. We need to keep that line between thought and action VERY clear.

That's not true. You can, of course, lock your doors against the public and only let in those you invite, but once you open up to the public you surrender your right to pick and choose which parts of the public you will deal with.
that doesn't define private and public business in the US.

But you arn't discussing any other case. You are discussing this case while pretending you arn't and are inserting hypotheticals to imply things about the owner.

Yes dear. Me stating, repeatedly...in fact, nearly in every single post, that GENO NEVER REFUSED ANYONE SERVICE is so clearly going to be missed by the average reader, that of COURSE my hypothetical (clearly labelled as such with a long explanation about the difference between fact and fiction) will be misundertood as implying things about the owner.

Oh wait. None of that is true unless the reader is seriously intoxicated, on drugs, having sex, blind, has a serious learning disability, or (ha, forgive me for this) perhaps not a fluent speaker of English. It has to be one of the above. The only alternative is that the person coming to this ridiculous conclusion is doing it on purpose, against all odds! Now THAT would be silly, wouldn't it?

I'll note once again, just in case you think no one has noticed...that you have added nothing to this conversation whatsoever. I start to think you have a crush on me TPH, following me around so doggedly like this!

Sure they do. Otherwise, "Joisy" wouldn't exist.

Well, no one from here calls it that. Ever.

Your point?

Thankya.

Learning Japanese is, from what I've heard, very difficult. I'm sure your efforts were appreciated even if they had to talk slower ;)

You know, I do have to lodge one complaint about language learning experiences in anglo countries as opposed to non-anglo countries. I've found, universally non-anglos (okay not true, I have had some bad experiences with francophones) are delighted when you try to speak their language. So why is it that so many anglos get ridiculously impatient and rude with people attempting to speak English? Not all, but it certainly seems to be a trend. It's like anglos assume the struggling speaker is stupid. I don't generally find that people assume you're stupid when you're trying to speak a language other than English to them. So why the difference?

that doesn't define private and public business in the US.

You are confusing the difference between a "private corporation" vs. "public corporation" with a "business serving the public", which is what the issue is here. Since Geno's is a business serving the public (it makes zero difference whatsoever what shareholders Geno's has, if any), it does not have a general right to refuse service, if ordinances forbid discrimination on some particular grounds.

You are confusing the difference between a "private corporation" vs. "public corporation" with a "business serving the public", which is what the issue is here. Since Geno's is a business serving the public (it makes zero difference whatsoever what shareholders Geno's has, if any), it does not have a general right to refuse service, if ordinances forbid discrimination on some particular grounds.

The unpronouncable person here is right. (kidding, it looks like the Cree word for "have sex later!", I'm not even joking...Mate'hkan. Okay, without the T, and without the r, because there is no r in Cree, but it sounds pretty similar, and it made me laugh cuz 'a' in Cree sounds like 'u' and ahhhh....nm) Anyway, the Human Relations Act doesn't bother distinguishing between private and public...a public corporation, or a private company legislated to provide public services is already subject to the Bill of Rights. Private businesses aren't, hence the need for different legislation to deal with them. It just forbids you to "Discriminate against any person in the terms or conditions of selling or leasing any housing accommodation or commercial property or in furnishing facilities, services or privileges in connection with the ownership, occupancy or use of any housing accommodation or commercial property.

Not all states, or jurisdictions will have such legislation, so there might be little to stop a person from being a complete discriminatory arse other than market forces.

From my understanding, Geno's is like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld. You walk up, order and step aside. Apparently Geno is a very fast paced food service where they have to get people in and out as fast as they can so they can make more money. As a result, they don't have time to try to understand Spanish. So you either order your food in English and step aside, or don't bother at all.

I support Geno's decision to refuse service to anyone, it's his business he can run it how he likes.

:D

CUSTOMER: Uh, gazpacho, por favor.

SOUP NAZI: Por favor?

CUSTOMER: Um, I'm part Spanish.

SOUP NAZI: Adios muchacho!

You know, I do have to lodge one complaint about language learning experiences in anglo countries as opposed to non-anglo countries. I've found, universally non-anglos (okay not true, I have had some bad experiences with francophones) are delighted when you try to speak their language. So why is it that so many anglos get ridiculously impatient and rude with people attempting to speak English? Not all, but it certainly seems to be a trend. It's like anglos assume the struggling speaker is stupid. I don't generally find that people assume you're stupid when you're trying to speak a language other than English to them. So why the difference?

It would be interesting to see if this kind of issue tends to pop up in other countries where there's a lot of immigration from places of different languages. I know France and England are examples. Any French or British who can toss in some insight on that?

The unpronouncable person here is right. (kidding, it looks like the Cree word for "have sex later!", I'm not even joking...Mate'hkan. Okay, without the T, and without the r, because there is no r in Cree, but it sounds pretty similar, and it made me laugh cuz 'a' in Cree sounds like 'u' and ahhhh....nm)
I had an "Atlas of Ancient and Medieval History" when I was a kid, with great old maps (all Eurocentric of course), and I always loved the "Principality of Tmutarakhan" on the eastern fringe of the medieval maps.

The name is Khazar (an extinct language of the Turkic group) meaning "ruler of the crossing": Tmutarakhan controlled the eastern Crimea and some territory facing it on the other side of the straits that join the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea. This was not much land, but earned a lot of money from tolls charged for access to the Don River (through which you could get to the Varangian Route, to Russia and the Baltic, or the Khazar Portage, to the Volga River and Caspian Sea and points east).

It was famously multicultural. The natives were the Cimmerians (Robert Howard stole that name for Conan's people), but it was colonized by the Greeks in classical times, Goths in Roman times, then by various kinds of Turk as the Hunnish Horde moved through, and by Italians and Varangians (Vikings) in medieval times. While it was a principality of the Khazar Empire (whose ruling family converted to Judaism to maintain diplomatic neutrality between the Christians and Muslims), its official language was Hebrew. In the 11th century it was taken over by the Kievan Rus, and colonized by Slavs. Then the Mongols went through, and for a while it was the capital of the Khanate of the Golden Horde before going into decline. The Black Death in the 14th century apparently wiped its population out: the very site of the Tmutarakhan fortress was lost for 400 years, and the name "Tmutarakhan" became Russian slang for "boondock; Timbuktu".

Cool!

Just out of curiosity, Neeskia, do you think all those little digs you include at the biginning of virtually every paragraph you wrote are actually scoring points, or are you just unable to remain civil?

Just wondering.

I think there's little point in narrowing the word too much. We generaly use it as a perjorative term, but the definition lends itself to a Chevy based bigotry yes. I mean, if someone really wants to judge another person based on their driving of a Ford...well, it's bigotry isn't it? Silly, but bigotted. The criteria for being intolerant of another person quite often is silly; that's sort of the sad part of it.


Exactly. It's silly to toss that word around just because one can make it fit the dictionary definition in the most technical terms, but out in real life you don't see it happening between Ford and Chevy owners.. (well, maybe sometimes, but that's extreme)


Except you won't find a single instance of me calling him a bigot. What you originally responded to was my explaining a scenario of bigotry, and why I believe it would be classified as such. As you'll note, that scenario never played out in this situation.


You're really in love with hypothetical situations, aren't you? ;)


Frankly I don't care if you take me seriously. I've given you the hypothetical argument you asked for, since both of us know that the real Geno never refused anyone service. As we've seen, the case against him failed, and likely for that very reason. It would be ridiculous of you to ask me to make an argument based on the very grounds that were dismissed. If you want to debate the argument from a legal standpoint, please feel free. If your feelings are too bruised, well, that's okay.


Actually, I dind't ask you for a hypothetical. I asked you a direct question.

And yes, my feelings are horribly bruised by rudeness from a anonymous person from out in the world whom I've never met and never will.


Amusing. It seems that you want to dodge your question. You asked ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13542185&postcount=103) what non English speaker would be targeted for here. Forgive me for making an assumption, based on the fact that both you and I know that this case was tossed out, that you would want to actually know how non-English speakers could be seen as discriminated against according to the Human Relations Act. You seemed to be implying that no such discrimination was possible, either in this case, or in any case.

No, still just waiting for an answer to a direct question. I'm not the one dodging, my dear.


No, judging from your previous posts, you get hung up on what you want to get hung up on in order to avoid looking foolish. My hypothetical has quite a bit of bearing on the case.

It has no bearing whatsoever, and making snarky comments and repeating yourself ad nauseam isn't going to magially alter that. I asked you who is (not who would be) targeted. If you agree that there's no discrimination then the answer is "nobody." Which, of course, could be seen as a contradiction since you have indicated that you feel he is "probably a bigot" and thus there MUST be a target.

So who is it? Spanish speakers only? Non-English speakers in general? Who is the target for this man's bigotry, in you rmind?

(Note: That was not a hypothetical question. Please don't give me a hypothetical answer.)


Nevermind. I suppose the indigenous/aboriginal dichotomy isn’t well-known, or funny outside of political circles. I apologise for making an admittedly obscure, and therefore poor joke.

OK.


I’ll note that you’ve failed to even once address the substance of my argument so far. My ‘juvenile attitude’ is in response to your lack of anything interesting to add on the topic of discrimination/human rights legislation/Geno’s specific case/freedom of speech, and so on.

So... you want me to address substance where I see none (namely, the hypothetical story) and so you feel justified in trying to make yourself look intimidating with personal shots. Gotcha.


Ahhhhh....hah.
Well, let’s see, I married a Chilean about 11 years ago, and my children speak fluent Spanish, albeit with a strong Chilean accent, as do I. I travelled throughout Latin America since I was 17 (don’t worry, job at a diner paid for it all, not mommy and daddy). I have no idea how ‘well acquainted’ you are with South America, nor do I care. Women tend to do poorly in standing-up pissing contests for obvious reasons. I might get some on you. But I am reasonable certain that my knowledge of the reason is not something you are going to find very lacking.

So... you want to make a series of assertions that, when conflicted by someone else's personal experience, you dismiss as being just a pissing match anyway. Gotcha.


Nope, but I’m sure even you can conceive of situations where it would be of great benefit to speak those other languages, fluently, not as a recent learner. There are many people who cater specifically to certain ethnic groups, and build up a lot of trust and good will because of their fluency. While this might not be ideal in that it does in fact encourage some people to be lax in their learning of English, it does, nonetheless, prove the counter to your basic assertion that ‘the right way’ is learning English, because your dad did. All I’m saying is that I could care less what your dad did. The situation is going to vary enormously from person to person, and you can make it just fine in either of our countries of residence without a single word of English.


Yes even I can, thanks for the praise /sarcasm

I'm pointing to direct personal observation in support of my points. It's a helluva lot stronger than pulling hypotheticals out of my bum and expecting people to nod in amazed agreement.


It’s amusing that you go on this little familial tangent (which for the sake of brevity and extreme disinterest I’ll mostly snip out), while claiming that my legal argument in relation to the Human Relations Act of Pennsylvania, which is in direct relation to the actual topic, is somehow ‘irrelevant’. I think you cherry pick. I’m not interested in your particular tangent about learning English. I’m interested in the issues involved in defining what is and what is not discrimination. You are, it seems, uninterested in this. Both topics are valid, and I have no need to pretend that yours is out of bounds, while claiming mine is strictly within the lines. I’m unclear as to why you, on the other hand, feel this need very strongly.

Because the legal aspects are not in dispute. Sure they're relevant. I also happen to agree with you on them. What is it, exactly, you're trying to push me to dispute with you?

Where we disaree is a matter of principle and/or ethics. Thus, your constant badgering on the law and the result of the case is not relevant.


Whether he is reasonable or not is not going to inform whether this is a protected form of speech.

See? We already agreed on this.

We could tweak the criteria of ‘reasonable’ all day, and come up with different determinations on the subject. I think it’s an assholish thing to do, but plenty of people are assholes all the time, and it’s not necessarily unreasonable for them to be. I wouldn’t eat his damn sandwiches, but that’s in a big way because I don’t really care for sandwiches. If I came across a similar sign here at home, I’d think the person was an asshole, and I’d probably not bother to shop there. Would I want the government to step in? Bah. Hell no. Not unless there was more to it than a sign.

And yet you maintain he's a bigot. That is the point of contention.


I think he is probably a bigot yes. I don’t know the guy, don’t know what’s really behind this, so I could be wrong. But I’m assuming. I am, however, comfortable with no further action being taken. He has done nothing more, he has taken no actual steps to prevent non-English speakers from eating there. We need to keep that line between thought and action VERY clear.

Agreed with the last.

So tell me, why are you so attached to repeatedly going back to the legal matters as if they were still a point of contention? Somebody else might be arguing that but I'm not, yet you keep trying to insult me as if I were. Kind of a strawmanish thing to do.

Just out of curiosity, Neeskia, do you think all those little digs you include at the biginning of virtually every paragraph you wrote are actually scoring points, or are you just unable to remain civil?

Just wondering. I'm a bitch. I'm open about it. You've been an arrogant prig more than once. I suppose you'd like to pretend that was civility. *shrugs* One of us is being honest at least.



Exactly. It's silly to toss that word around just because one can make it fit the dictionary definition in the most technical terms, but out in real life you don't see it happening between Ford and Chevy owners.. (well, maybe sometimes, but that's extreme) Someone who discriminates against someone, whether the reason is how they wear their sneakers, or because they have a disability, is a bigot, and an idiot. I really don't see why you think that the reason they are being an idiot matters.



You're really in love with hypothetical situations, aren't you? ;) Yeah, all one of them I used. Wow. Crazy woman with her crazy one hypothetical situation!


Actually, I dind't ask you for a hypothetical. I asked you a direct question. Which was a stupid question since it had been established that there was no issue. By a tribunal more competent than a bunch of NSG posters. Next time I will not assume you deserved better than a stupid response. Lesson well learned.



No, still just waiting for an answer to a direct question. I'm not the one dodging, my dear. Your direct question? What fuck are you on about? You asked what a non-English speaker would be targeted here for. I gave you an extremely detailed explanation of how language fits into the Human Relations Act. You failed to understand this explanation. I made it simpler for you, and restated the point. You fail now to understand once more. I spoon fed you already NB, do you want me to vomit partially digested food into your mouth like a baby penguin now? Because that is asking a little much.

Go back and read my original post about languge as an analogous ground. If your petty little point is that there was no discrimination here, I really have only this to say...

No shit. What's your point?


It has no bearing whatsoever, and making snarky comments and repeating yourself ad nauseam isn't going to magially alter that. I asked you who is (not who would be) targeted. If you agree that there's no discrimination then the answer is "nobody." Which, of course, could be seen as a contradiction since you have indicated that you feel he is "probably a bigot" and thus there MUST be a target. A bigot doesn't need to act on his or her bigotry. Must be your difficulty with the definition again. The Human Relations Act doesn't define a bigot. It only defines what counts as discrimination. He can be a bigot, and not go around discriminating against people. Wow, isn't that amazing?

And that right there was some haddock I had for lunch, please enjoy.

So who is it? Spanish speakers only? Non-English speakers in general? Who is the target for this man's bigotry, in you rmind? I really don't know for certain, as I stated early. Were I to guess, from what very little I know of him, I'd say people who don't speak English, in general.

It is a hypothetical question. I don't know enough about the man to do more than guess. Maybe you need to look up 'hypothetical'. Oh wait, we've established you don't do well with dictionaries.




So... you want me to address substance where I see none (namely, the hypothetical story) and so you feel justified in trying to make yourself look intimidating with personal shots. Gotcha. No, by now I have established that you are unable to deal with the substantive issue of where the line between free speech and discrimination is. Instead you want to bore us with stories of your grandpappy. You're off the hook.



So... you want to make a series of assertions that, when conflicted by someone else's personal experience, you dismiss as being just a pissing match anyway. Gotcha. Considering the way in which you've treated my special little issue, I certainly am not going to go out of my way to pay attention to whatever family story you've constructed for the forum. I mean, tit for tat, no?



Yes even I can, thanks for the praise /sarcasm

I'm pointing to direct personal observation in support of my points. It's a helluva lot stronger than pulling hypotheticals out of my bum and expecting people to nod in amazed agreement. Ha, difference here is my hypotehtical is solidly based in the law. Yours is...um, well, to be frank, totally anecdotal and irrelevant to any substantive issue being discussed. But treat it like pearls if it makes you feel good.


Because the legal aspects are not in dispute. Sure they're relevant. I also happen to agree with you on them. What is it, exactly, you're trying to push me to dispute with you? Actually, finally admitting you have no point is nice, thanks.

Where we disaree is a matter of principle and/or ethics. Thus, your constant badgering on the law and the result of the case is not relevant. Mmmm, yeah no, don't think I'll give you permission to tell me what our little problem here is. The case, and the law have been my only point, and you had a few options.

1) Debate me on those points.
2) Ignore the points, and not respond.
3) Be a douche, and talk about something completely irrelevant to any point I made, while pretending that this irrelevance somehow contradicted me.

You choose number 3. And stuck with it apparently. *yawn*



So tell me, why are you so attached to repeatedly going back to the legal matters as if they were still a point of contention? Somebody else might be arguing that but I'm not, yet you keep trying to insult me as if I were. Kind of a strawmanish thing to do.Actually, you haven't made any point relevant to me. Which has been my point in the past few posts.

Or should I say, 'why are you so attached to repeatedly going back to whatever it is you are on about as if it was a point of contention'? I could care less about your personal stories, and made that clear at the outset. I am interested in, and only have been, in the legal issue.

What you could have tried, had you been less intellectually dishonest, is something like,
"Ok fine, so maybe the Human Relations Commission could find him guilty if he actually refused service, but I don't agree with that because of 'x, y an z'".

Now THAT would have been more fun than wasting the past five minutes chewing salmon for you.

You are confusing the difference between a "private corporation" vs. "public corporation" with a "business serving the public", which is what the issue is here. Since Geno's is a business serving the public (it makes zero difference whatsoever what shareholders Geno's has, if any), it does not have a general right to refuse service, if ordinances forbid discrimination on some particular grounds.

then the phrase isn't private or public business, but a private or public service, or to be more specific, service or retail (which Geno's can easily fall into both since he sells the sandwiches and not just the service as a restruant would.)

I'm a bitch. I'm open about it. You've been an arrogant prig more than once. I suppose you'd like to pretend that was civility. *shrugs* One of us is being honest at least.


Someone who discriminates against someone, whether the reason is how they wear their sneakers, or because they have a disability, is a bigot, and an idiot. I really don't see why you think that the reason they are being an idiot matters.

Yeah, all one of them I used. Wow. Crazy woman with her crazy one hypothetical situation!
Which was a stupid question since it had been established that there was no issue. By a tribunal more competent than a bunch of NSG posters. Next time I will not assume you deserved better than a stupid response. Lesson well learned.

Your direct question? What fuck are you on about? You asked what a non-English speaker would be targeted here for. I gave you an extremely detailed explanation of how language fits into the Human Relations Act. You failed to understand this explanation. I made it simpler for you, and restated the point. You fail now to understand once more. I spoon fed you already NB, do you want me to vomit partially digested food into your mouth like a baby penguin now? Because that is asking a little much.

Go back and read my original post about languge as an analogous ground. If your petty little point is that there was no discrimination here, I really have only this to say...

No shit. What's your point?

A bigot doesn't need to act on his or her bigotry. Must be your difficulty with the definition again. The Human Relations Act doesn't define a bigot. It only defines what counts as discrimination. He can be a bigot, and not go around discriminating against people. Wow, isn't that amazing?

And that right there was some haddock I had for lunch, please enjoy.
I really don't know for certain, as I stated early. Were I to guess, from what very little I know of him, I'd say people who don't speak English, in general.

It is a hypothetical question. I don't know enough about the man to do more than guess. Maybe you need to look up 'hypothetical'. Oh wait, we've established you don't do well with dictionaries.


No, by now I have established that you are unable to deal with the substantive issue of where the line between free speech and discrimination is. Instead you want to bore us with stories of your grandpappy. You're off the hook.

Considering the way in which you've treated my special little issue, I certainly am not going to go out of my way to pay attention to whatever family story you've constructed for the forum. I mean, tit for tat, no?

Ha, difference here is my hypotehtical is solidly based in the law. Yours is...um, well, to be frank, totally anecdotal and irrelevant to any substantive issue being discussed. But treat it like pearls if it makes you feel good.
Actually, finally admitting you have no point is nice, thanks.
Mmmm, yeah no, don't think I'll give you permission to tell me what our little problem here is. The case, and the law have been my only point, and you had a few options.

1) Debate me on those points.
2) Ignore the points, and not respond.
3) Be a douche, and talk about something completely irrelevant to any point I made, while pretending that this irrelevance somehow contradicted me.

You choose number 3. And stuck with it apparently. *yawn*

Actually, you haven't made any point relevant to me. Which has been my point in the past few posts.

Or should I say, 'why are you so attached to repeatedly going back to whatever it is you are on about as if it was a point of contention'? I could care less about your personal stories, and made that clear at the outset. I am interested in, and only have been, in the legal issue.

What you could have tried, had you been less intellectually dishonest, is something like,
"Ok fine, so maybe the Human Relations Commission could find him guilty if he actually refused service, but I don't agree with that because of 'x, y an z'".

Now THAT would have been more fun than wasting the past five minutes chewing salmon for you.

Win.

Damn Neesika, that was a hefty smack down.

*Holds her clenched fist up*

KO


Neesika wins!

I haz cheerleaders!

there is no r in Cree

most unfortunate

I'm a bitch. I'm open about it. You've been an arrogant prig more than once. I suppose you'd like to pretend that was civility. *shrugs* One of us is being honest at least.

<snip>


I'd have expected someone with as high a post count as yours to know better than this.

If you feel like a point's been missed, you can just say so without writing a 6 page dissertation on it.

If you feel it continues to be missed, you can simply ignore further posts.

What I see instead is a series of posts displaying a shocking failure to get the point being put out there, while simultaneously railing that their own point is missed. I have had no problem indicating areas we agreed on, but for some readon you seem to be almost pathologically unable to a)do the same and b)to behave as an adult.

Incidentally I hope you don't flatter yourself into thinking somehow you're hitting a nerve by insulting me. What you're doing is entertaining me because I've been gleefully watching the buildup of vitriol in your replies that suggests that I'm getting under your skin. That's not generally my goal but since you seem to wear your juvenile attidude with pride I figured you wouldn't mind.

Oh, and while you've been patting yourself on the back for your big hypothetical novel, I've been wondering if you have any ability to descuss the actual issue. I've come to the conclusion that since prsonal attacks have all but completely replaced rational points in your posts, that you cannot. (Yes, yes I know how proud you are of that. No need to remind me.)

I haz cheerleaders!

SB and Ruffy in mini-skirts. I like where this thread has gone.

Win.

Damn Neesika, that was a hefty smack down.

*Holds her clenched fist up*

KO


Neesika wins!

You guys need a hobby.

I've been wondering if you have any ability to descuss the actual issue.
The issue that was raised by the opening post was under what circumstances such a sign would be illegal under the discrimination laws. She addressed it, correctly, that IF he had (hypothetically) actually refused service to people he WOULD BE in legal trouble, but SINCE HE DIDN'T, in fact, he wasn't, whether or not he is a bigot.
That was the actual "issue" in the thread, and Neesika discussed it quite succinctly. What in the world is your issue?

The issue that was raised by the opening post was under what circumstances such a sign would be illegal under the discrimination laws. She addressed it, correctly, that IF he had (hypothetically) actually refused service to people he WOULD BE in legal trouble, but SINCE HE DIDN'T, in fact, he wasn't, whether or not he is a bigot.
That was the actual "issue" in the thread, and Neesika discussed it quite succinctly. What in the world is your issue?

I too remain mystified. Apparently we didn't get the secret decoder ring.

I suppose my tactic of laying it out in explicit detail is a little too obvious. Hmm.

*snip*

Ah sugar lips, I wonder if you've actually convinced yourself that your need to respond to me is really motivated only by 'glee'. Please, spin as a yarn about your Great-Aunt, I'm sure eventually we'll figure out your intensely complicated point one day. I apologise in advance for not being here to catch your inevitable snippy reply. I'm all out of fish, sorry.

You guys need a hobby.

You wouldn't say that if we rooted for you, would you?

Hm.

SB and Ruffy in mini-skirts. I like where this thread has gone.

*jumps*

Gimme an M
Gimme an I
Gimme an N
Gimme an I
Gimme an S
Gimme an K
Gimme an I
Gimme an R
Gimme an T

What's that spell?

Neesika!

Geno's cool. I've supported him from day one. And he's no "Soup Nazi", he's just a typical Philadelphian. The man has a very successful business to run. Place your order, pay for it and make room for the next person in line. Period. He doesn't have time to waste on someone too thick to learn enough of the language to order a cheesesteak before entering his establishment.

You guys need a hobby.

Cheerleading is a hobby.

This is AMERICA!!! Speak frickin English if you live here! You have to speak English to become a citizen! If you can't speak English, either you're a tourist in need of an interpreter or a dictionary, or you're an illegal immigrant. Simple as that. You expect us to use your language in your country, we expect you to use ours. I don't care how bad life is wherever you came from, if you want to live here, you need to go through the citizenship process and pay taxes. Currently, schools aren't allowed to check for a green card. I think checking for a green card should be mandatory. Kids of illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes and speak English have no right to our educational system. Making sure you're a citizen of the country you currently reside in and/or refusing service to you because you're not a citizen of the country you reside in is NOT racial discrimination!

On the other hand, I'm naturally rebellious and actually hate America and want to move to Switzerland :p

This is AMERICA!!! Speak frickin English if you live here!

Why English?

Why English?

Because it's our national language, just like Spanish is for Spain and Mexico, French is for France, Italian is for Italy, and German is for Germany. And Russian is for Russia and so on and so forth. Especially for France. People in France expect you to speak French. Most of us here in America expect you to speak English while here.

If he wants to lose business because he doesn't want to serve some people, then that's up to him. Personally, I think he's a fool.

This is AMERICA!!! Speak frickin English if you live here!

Yes, yes, everyone is so demanding of speech standards. Too bad written English is sadly neglected... even by folks such as yourself, loudly proclaiming your standards.

You have to speak English to become a citizen! If you can't speak English, either you're a tourist in need of an interpreter or a dictionary, or you're an illegal immigrant. Simple as that.

False dichotomy. There are plenty of other possibilities, and it's very telling how quickly you are to assume the terrorist/illegal immigrant status.

You expect us to use your language in your country, we expect you to use ours.

Which country expects American tourists to learn the language exactly?

I guess some country that has never before encountered American tourists, nor heard of them.

Because it's our national language, just like Spanish is for Spain and Mexico, French is for France, Italian is for Italy, and German is for Germany. And Russian is for Russia and so on and so forth. Especially for France. People in France expect you to speak French. Most of us here in America expect you to speak English while here.

So shouldn't we speak Usian, and Mexicans speak Mexican, and Canadians speak Canadian?

Yes, yes, everyone is so demanding of speech standards. Too bad written English is sadly neglected... even by folks such as yourself, loudly proclaiming your standards.



False dichotomy. There are plenty of other possibilities, and it's very telling how quickly you are to assume the terrorist/illegal immigrant status.



Which country expects American tourists to learn the language exactly?

I guess some country that has never before encountered American tourists, nor heard of them.

Americans expect people in other countries to speak their own language. And I´m so spiteful.. One American lady asked a question in English and I didn´t answer. She asked me if I was ignoring her, and I told her than since she was in MY country, I expected her to address me in Spanish.

I can understand if Geno wants English spoken in his store. It´s in the US, is it not? And English is the official language there, right? Ok.
If any of you ask me a question whilst in my own country, don´t expect me to be condescending and go out of my way to talk to you in your native tongue. You´re in Spain, use a friggin´ Spanish dictionary! Same principle applies in the US.;)

Read my previous (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13541872&postcount=67) posts, and don't just take this one out of context. I stated that the reason he likely won this case is because on the facts, he never refused anyone service.

The whole point of the post you quoted was to show the difference...HAD he refused service, the issue would most likely have been decided against him.

Better? Good. We'll pick on the deliberately obtuse later.
Watch it. You know how things work here.
1. No post ever has any context other than what is stated in that post.
2. The worst possible connotation must be assigned to any word used in the post.
3. The reader is always able to divine what the poster _intended_, no matter what was really written.
4. Among other things, the deliberately obtuse don't know when they're being picked on.

i think there are some other rules, but these are the big ones.

Because it's our national language, just like Spanish is for Spain and Mexico, French is for France, Italian is for Italy, and German is for Germany. And Russian is for Russia and so on and so forth. Especially for France. People in France expect you to speak French. Most of us here in America expect you to speak English while here.

Is that so? Since when does America have a national language? I don't recall hearing about anything being done to make English the official language of the USA.

Well, no one from here calls it that. Ever.

Ah, so that's what you meant. Not "nobody calls it that", but "nobody from here calls it that". I'll assume for the sake of argument that you've met everyone in Jersey, and leave it at that. I live in North Dakota. I've heard enough ignorant pricks call my state a barren wasteland to last me a lifetime. Before that, there was Oregon being called "or-e-GONE" (you wouldn't call Boston "boss-TAWN", wouldja?), and before that, Washington and those who feel the need to add an R to the damned word. I think you can buck up and deal with someone not from Jersey calling it Joisy.

You know, I do have to lodge one complaint about language learning experiences in anglo countries as opposed to non-anglo countries. I've found, universally non-anglos (okay not true, I have had some bad experiences with francophones) are delighted when you try to speak their language. So why is it that so many anglos get ridiculously impatient and rude with people attempting to speak English? Not all, but it certainly seems to be a trend. It's like anglos assume the struggling speaker is stupid. I don't generally find that people assume you're stupid when you're trying to speak a language other than English to them. So why the difference?

The American Sense of Entitlement to Damned Near Everything. I think.

I'd have expected someone with as high a post count as yours to know better than this.

If you feel like a point's been missed, you can just say so without writing a 6 page dissertation on it.

If you feel it continues to be missed, you can simply ignore further posts.

What I see instead is a series of posts displaying a shocking failure to get the point being put out there, while simultaneously railing that their own point is missed. I have had no problem indicating areas we agreed on, but for some readon you seem to be almost pathologically unable to a)do the same and b)to behave as an adult.

Incidentally I hope you don't flatter yourself into thinking somehow you're hitting a nerve by insulting me. What you're doing is entertaining me because I've been gleefully watching the buildup of vitriol in your replies that suggests that I'm getting under your skin. That's not generally my goal but since you seem to wear your juvenile attidude with pride I figured you wouldn't mind.

Oh, and while you've been patting yourself on the back for your big hypothetical novel, I've been wondering if you have any ability to descuss the actual issue. I've come to the conclusion that since prsonal attacks have all but completely replaced rational points in your posts, that you cannot. (Yes, yes I know how proud you are of that. No need to remind me.)

Translation: "Those grapes were probably sour, anyway."

Don't be obtuse. Of course English is the national language. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to be aware of it, either.

Is that so? Since when does America have a national language? I don't recall hearing about anything being done to make English the official language of the USA.

As far as I know, English is the Official Language on the United States of America. Is it not? Because I´ve known a lot of Americans and all they use is English. I´m sure I´ve heard Bush speak, and all through his drawl and insufferable idiocy, I know he´s using English. Isn´t English the US´s official language? What did I miss?:rolleyes:

Americans expect people in other countries to speak their own language. And I´m so spiteful.. One American lady asked a question in English and I didn´t answer. She asked me if I was ignoring her, and I told her than since she was in MY country, I expected her to address me in Spanish.

I can understand if Geno wants English spoken in his store. It´s in the US, is it not? And English is the official language there, right? Ok.
If any of you ask me a question whilst in my own country, don´t expect me to be condescending and go out of my way to talk to you in your native tongue. You´re in Spain, use a friggin´ Spanish dictionary! Same principle applies in the US.;)

Wrong.

Don't be obtuse. Of course English is the national language. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to be aware of it, either.

Until legislation of some kind makes it so, it isn't. Melting pots aren't supposed to need official languages.

Wrong.

Then, what the official language of the US? Hindi? Tagalo? French? I think it´s English.

Yes, yes, everyone is so demanding of speech standards. Too bad written English is sadly neglected... even by folks such as yourself, loudly proclaiming your standards.
"frickin" is a euphemism for "fucking", which is considered offensive by many people

False dichotomy. There are plenty of other possibilities, and it's very telling how quickly you are to assume the terrorist/illegal immigrant status.

First, I said "tourist", not "terrorist". Second, I know there are other ways of becoming a US citizen (such as "birthright", children born in the US are automatically citizens and their parents become citizens), which I think are absurd. If you can't speak the national language, you shouldn't be able to become a citizen. Maybe all nations should adopt a world language (other than English, even, I don't care which) so all these misunderstandings don't happen.

Which country expects American tourists to learn the language exactly?

Not necessarily learn the language, but at least speak it to some extent or use a translator. I know that France is really big on that point.

If I had a business whose head office was in the USA, I would require customers to have some way of speaking English, and I would only hire US citizens. If my business grew to other countries, those offices would hire citizens of those countries and would require those countries' national languages to be spoken. If someone calls customer support for their region, they will get someone who is from that region. Not quite as cost-effective, but I have standards that I want to uphold.

Until legislation of some kind makes it so, it isn't. Melting pots aren't supposed to need official languages.

Clearly Geno recognizes English as the official language. Otherwise he wouldn´t enforce it being spoken at his store. There are many people of different ethnicities in Spain. They tend to speak their different languages amongst themselves and even so, Spanish´s the official language of the country. It is recognized as such by the people and by the state. English is the language most widely spoken in the US, so, that should make it official. Doesn´t it?

Then, what the official language of the US? Hindi? Tagalo? French? I think it´s English.
None of the above. The US has never had an official language.

"frickin" is a euphemism for "fucking", which is considered offensive by many people

How noble. You haven't been here long, have you? (We tend not to give a fuck about what language you use beyond how it tends to give some people away).

First, I said "tourist", not "terrorist". Second, I know there are other ways of becoming a US citizen (such as "birthright", children born in the US are automatically citizens and their parents become citizens), which I think are absurd. If you can't speak the national language, you shouldn't be able to become a citizen. Maybe all nations should adopt a world language (other than English, even, I don't care which) so all these misunderstandings don't happen.

Absurd? Really? So all children of immigrants who couldn't speak English when they arrived should not be citizens, according to you? Well, that will just break my Prussian great-grandfather's heart. Tell me, when in your cycle would someone become a citizen? When they enrol in Kindergarten to start "learning the language"?

Not necessarily learn the language, but at least speak it to some extent or use a translator. I know that France is really big on that point.

Right. Nice backpedal. You're honestly saying that a vacation in a country where they don't speak English is gonna cost me the price of a translator too? Nuts to that. If I know I'm going to a country where English isn't spoken, I'll learn as much as I can, but I don't think they'll expect me to "speak it" to any extent beyond a few useful phrases. Any more than that, and they're usually pleased to help you. What got into your Wheaties today, Junior? Or are you just pissed off at them durn furriners?

If I had a business whose head office was in the USA, I would require customers to have some way of speaking English, and I would only hire US citizens. If my business grew to other countries, those offices would hire citizens of those countries and would require those countries' national languages to be spoken. If someone calls customer support for their region, they will get someone who is from that region. Not quite as cost-effective, but I have standards that I want to uphold.

You'd require customers to speak English? Really? Better not open up a branch in Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico (there's a hint), or Florida, at least.

Not quite as cost-effective? Better ask your shareholders about that (all I mean by that is that there are always other considerations when doing business...the bottom line being chief among them).

None of the above. The US has never had an official language.

Hm... interesting...

"frickin" is a euphemism for "fucking", which is considered offensive by many people

Yes, but it's slang, colloquial at best. Appropriate for oral communication in some venues, but not written!

First, I said "tourist", not "terrorist".

Well, I was referring to your claim about illegal immigrants, who, it seems to the far right, are on par with terrorists these days. (At least they are among the few groups it's still PC to hate.) Oh well.

Second, I know there are other ways of becoming a US citizen (such as "birthright", children born in the US are automatically citizens and their parents become citizens), which I think are absurd. If you can't speak the national language, you shouldn't be able to become a citizen.

You think it's absurd, but that's the law of the land. As such there it's certainly not so simple as either english-speaking or illegal immigrant.

Maybe all nations should adopt a world language (other than English, even, I don't care which) so all these misunderstandings don't happen.

Probably will happen if technological human civilization continues for a few more centuries or more.

Not necessarily learn the language, but at least speak it to some extent or use a translator. I know that France is really big on that point.

France may be the only ones, then. Most everyone acknowledges that Americans generally aren't multilingual... or even bilingual, and if they are, their secondary language(s) may well not work well in whatever country they're visiting.

And really, since the French are noted for being arrogant about this, is it really a good idea to emulate them? We're arrogant enough as it is without adopting French-style arrogance.

Then, what the official language of the US? Hindi? Tagalog? French? I think it´s English.

Look, you're ON a computer, right? Is there no Google where you're connecting from? Just type "Official Language of the USA" into Google and just see what comes up. See, looking for yourself in a medium that has instant access to all kinds of information tends to clear up the confusion for you before you go ahead and make several posts in a row that are howlingly incorrect, no matter how strongly asserted.

Hm... interesting...

A few states have english as an official language, but not all states or the union as a whole.

Is that so? Since when does America have a national language? I don't recall hearing about anything being done to make English the official language of the USA.
Although English is not by law the national language of the United States of America, it is the de facto official language, and has been since the United States was founded by colonists from Europe.

Americans expect people in other countries to speak their own language. And I´m so spiteful.. One American lady asked a question in English and I didn´t answer. She asked me if I was ignoring her, and I told her than since she was in MY country, I expected her to address me in Spanish.

I can understand if Geno wants English spoken in his store. It´s in the US, is it not? And English is the official language there, right? Ok.
If any of you ask me a question whilst in my own country, don´t expect me to be condescending and go out of my way to talk to you in your native tongue. You´re in Spain, use a friggin´ Spanish dictionary! Same principle applies in the US.;)
I completely and whole-heartedly agree. If I ever plan to go to another country, I'm going to pick up a dictionary of their language and try to learn as much as I can about it. Then again, languages come fairly easily for me (give me the syntax and grammar and some vocabulary and I'll have a rudimentary understanding of it).

Look, you're ON a computer, right? Is there no Google where you're connecting from? Just type "Official Language of the USA" into Google and just see what comes up. See, looking for yourself in a medium that has instant access to all kinds of information tends to clear up the confusion for you before you go ahead and make several posts in a row that are howlingly incorrect, no matter how strongly asserted.

Oh, I´ll Google search, don´t you worry about that, sport. But let me give you a piece of advice that´ll serve you for some time to come. Google search too, for the word rudeness and do learn it´s meaning.;) You´ll thank me later.

Although English is not by law the national language of the United States of America, it is the de facto official language

Therefore, has no legal meaning or relevance.

You might as well say Christianity is the de facto official religion of the US.

I know that France is really big on that point.

Once I've come out with a sentence, or a sentence fragment, in my horrible French, they admit that they know English, to stop me from murdering their language any further!
Although English is not by law the national language of the United States of America, it is the de facto official language
Stop right there: "de facto" means NOT official.

Oh, I´ll Google search, don´t you worry about that, sport. But let me give you a piece of advice that´ll serve you for some time to come. Google search too, for the word rudeness and do learn it´s meaning.;) You´ll thank me later.

Look, all I'm saying is that you have access to trillions of facts right there in front of you at a moment's notice! Instead of asking repeatedly the same question, you could have spent that time discovering a very simple fact to discover. If pointing out you wasting your own time and appearing foolish in the bargain is rude, then I apologize.

By all means, continue asking. I don't know what language they speak in Botswana. But why go look it up INSTANTLY when I can ask NSG and wait for a reply?

The official (and majority) language of Botswana is Tswana. See? It was so easy, I couldn't help myself.

Once I've come out with a sentence, or a sentence fragment, in my horrible French, they admit that they know English, to stop me from murdering their language any further!

That sounds like a very French thing to do. I hope to go there someday, but I hope to be prepared enough to get through at least a few pleasantries in order to diminish the reaction to a mere mild annoyance as a US tourist.

Don't be obtuse. Of course English is the national language. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to be aware of it, either.
What law makes it so?

Although English is not by law the national language of the United States of America
Exactly. So according to you English isn't legally the national language, but it just is anyway.

That sounds like a very French thing to do. I hope to go there someday, but I hope to be prepared enough to get through at least a few pleasantries in order to diminish the reaction to a mere mild annoyance as a US tourist.
Yes indeed! If you do NOT mangle a few sentences in French first, they will refuse to admit that they know any English at all, and you will be helpless. You have to at least try, they give you points for that.

Although English is not by law the national language of the United States of America, it is the de facto official language, and has been since the United States was founded by colonists from Europe.


It has? Really? You mean to tell me I can ignore all the colonists from Spain, The Netherlands, France, Russia, Germany and elsewhere? That would have made US history a little shorter, I guess. And world history more confusing, 'cause I thought all those places were in Europe.

Look, all I'm saying is that you have access to trillions of facts right there in front of you at a moment's notice! Instead of asking repeatedly the same question, you could have spent that time discovering a very simple fact to discover. If pointing out you wasting your own time and appearing foolish in the bargain is rude, then I apologize.

By all means, continue asking. I don't know what language they speak in Botswana. But why go look it up INSTANTLY when I can ask NSG and wait for a reply?

The official (and majority) language of Botswana is Tswana. See? It was so easy, I couldn't help myself.

See, that´s the difference between you and me. While you can´t, oh, so not help yourself and Google search, I like to read what others have to say. There are a lot of intelligent people on NSG. Sorry for my Spanish Ignorance if I didn´t know English isn´t the official language of the US. By posting my questions and my views I didn´t think I was repeating myself. And if you read the answers that members like Tmutarakhan gave me, you would see that the only one who got ticked off by my inquiries was you. If me asking a question annoys you, you have, seriously, all the right in the world not to answer it. And no, you didn´t anger me by posting that I was ¨wasting my time¨ when I have Google to run to. I do think your retort was extremely rude, though. But hey, that might be just me. I do apologize for lacking the black humor of your countrymen, Intangelon. Don´t worry, from now on, I´ll just use Google to answer the serious questions that plague my life instead of reading about what other people have to say.

Oh I remember reading about this on NSG awhile ago. I think when he first put it up. I think you got a free pen if you expressed support for the sign. Did I ever want to go visit. I still do and being in Philadelphia, it's a possibility by year's end. Hail to Geno's Steaks!

To clear up my opinions a little bit:

In case you haven't noticed my post count, I haven't been here long. It takes a bit to get used to different places' standards.

Children of US citizens can automatically become citizens, but anchor babies should not automatically become citizens. Also, children do not learn how to speak English in Kindergarten (that'd be kind of funny, since "Kindergarten" is German for "children garden"), they pick it up from their parents/guardians. As a baby/toddler, they pick up whatever language they hear others speaking. If a baby is raised in a bilingual household, they'll pick up both languages spoken, but may have to learn how to differentiate between them later. I don't know, I wasn't raised in a multilingual household.

Illegal immigrants are not terrorists. A terrorist can be a citizen of the country he/she is terrorizing, and an illegal immigrant can be quite peaceful, as most are. My main concern about illegal immigration is that most of them are not paying taxes for the services they receive.

I'm not trying to emulate France's arrogance, in fact I'm rather annoyed by it, but they have a point about expecting people to speak their language to some extent.

To me, a dictionary is a translator. What I mean by "use a translator" is use something so you have some way of communicating with them in their language. For me, that would be learn the basics before hand and take a dictionary with me.

There is no official religion, not even a de facto one, in the US. If you come to the United States, you're not expected to practice Christianity, even though you're expected to speak English. If that's your reasoning, then Christianity must be the de facto official religion of the world. The percentage of the population of the US that's Christian is less than in several other countries (70-79%, while most of Central and South America is 80-100%, by country), and is falling in the Northern and Western regions.

In the United States, twenty five states have declared English an official language, with Hawaii using Hawaiian and English as official languages. However, two US states also have de facto second languages: Spanish in New Mexico and French in Louisiana.
25 states have declared English the official language. We're well on our way to having an official language.

"...the United States was founded by colonists from Europe"
The French, Spanish, etc. did not find the United States. They founded other territories that we later purchased from them and made part of us.

Why must everything I post here be controversial?

Your point?
Seriously??

Clearly Geno recognizes English as the official language. Otherwise he wouldn´t enforce it being spoken at his store.
Others have pointed out the fact that the US have no official language. I'd ask: Why do you think he would feel the need to set up such a sign in the first place? What good does it do?

Seriously??


Others have pointed out the fact that the US have no official language. I'd ask: Why do you think he would feel the need to set up such a sign in the first place? What good does it do?

Well, Geno might feel threatened by other people´s languages, since the US is considered such a big, melting pot.

Until legislation of some kind makes it so, it isn't. Melting pots aren't supposed to need official languages.

What language does Congress use to conduct official business? What language is used in the printing of American currency? What language is used aboard United States Naval vessels? And on and on. I do believe it's English. That trumps your "until official legislation" poppycock.

English is and has been the language of the United States since the nation's inception. And no amount of whining about making it a law or any other nonsense will change the facts.

Personally, I think we should all speak French.

Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculé de ta mère.

It's like wiping your ass with silk, I love it.

SnipWhat language is used in the printing of American currency? Snip

Latin?

See, that´s the difference between you and me. While you can´t, oh, so not help yourself and Google search, I like to read what others have to say. There are a lot of intelligent people on NSG. Sorry for my Spanish Ignorance if I didn´t know English isn´t the official language of the US. By posting my questions and my views I didn´t think I was repeating myself. And if you read the answers that members like Tmutarakhan gave me, you would see that the only one who got ticked off by my inquiries was you. If me asking a question annoys you, you have, seriously, all the right in the world not to answer it. And no, you didn´t anger me by posting that I was ¨wasting my time¨ when I have Google to run to. I do think your retort was extremely rude, though. But hey, that might be just me. I do apologize for lacking the black humor of your countrymen, Intangelon. Don´t worry, from now on, I´ll just use Google to answer the serious questions that plague my life instead of reading about what other people have to say.

Ah, yes, so wounded. The "serious questions that plague your life" really include "Is English the official language of the USA?" I'm sorry you're so incredibly sensitive, but simple facts were made to be looked up quickly. If you choose to continue to assume something despite getting an answer to your question -- you know, one like "WRONG". Then perhaps the next place you should look is to a reference of some sort to get your question a quick answer. If you're so interested in a fact that you have to ask "well what is it then?" and continue to wait on NSG for a reply, then that's your lookout. Just as you have the right to be grape-skinned about it, I have the right to point out that questions like that are why sties like Google were invented.

Latin?

Looked at a greenback lately?
"This note is legal tender for all debts public and private"
"Federal reserve Note"
"In God We trust"
Sure reads like Latin doesn't it? :rolleyes:

What language does Congress use to conduct official business? What language is used in the printing of American currency? What language is used aboard United States Naval vessels? And on and on. I do believe it's English. That trumps your "until official legislation" poppycock.

English is and has been the language of the United States since the nation's inception. And no amount of whining about making it a law or any other nonsense will change the facts.

Uh, no. The FACT is that there is no official language in the USA. Sorry.

And "since its inception"? Then why is there Latin on my money and in my national motto? Look, I'm all for patriotism, but the fact remains that there is no official language in this country, and even the BANKS and SUPERMARKETS in bleeding NORTH DAKOTA know it. Why? The ATMs and checkout card-readers all ask me whether I need this transaction to be in English or Espanol. Do the banks and supermarkets know something you don't? Even THIS far away from Mexico?

Looked at a greenback lately?
"NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM"
"ANNUIT COEPTIS"
Sure sounds like English is the only language allowed, doesn't it? :rolleyes:
Fixed.

Looked at a greenback lately?
"This note is legal tender for all debts public and private"
"Federal reserve Note"
"In God We trust"
Sure reads like Latin doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Look at a quarter? Right between the eagle's wings on the tails side.

E PLURIBUS UNUM.

Ah, yes, so wounded. The "serious questions that plague your life" really include "Is English the official language of the USA?" I'm sorry you're so incredibly sensitive, but simple facts were made to be looked up quickly. If you choose to continue to assume something despite getting an answer to your question -- you know, one like "WRONG". Then perhaps the next place you should look is to a reference of some sort to get your question a quick answer. If you're so interested in a fact that you have to ask "well what is it then?" and continue to wait on NSG for a reply, then that's your lookout. Just as you have the right to be grape-skinned about it, I have the right to point out that questions like that are why sties like Google were invented.

This is a waste of time.:rolleyes:
And don´t worry, my feelings weren´t hurt. I deal with beings like you on a daily basis.;)
And perhaps, just perhaps, WRONG isn´t a competent answer. Think about it. But thanks for answering my questions SO thoughtfully. You´ve been of great help in, once understanding, the warped human psyche. Agur!:)

Lol. :rolleyes:

Okay. Whatever. Have fun in your United States, whilst I continue to reside in the USA based in a little dimension I like to call "reality".

What language does Congress use to conduct official business? What language is used in the printing of American currency? What language is used aboard United States Naval vessels? And on and on. I do believe it's English. That trumps your "until official legislation" poppycock.
No it doesn't. Until the government officially says that English is the national language of the USA then it is not the national language of the USA, no matter who uses it.

Looked at a greenback lately?
"This note is legal tender for all debts public and private"
"Federal reserve Note"
"In God We trust"
Sure reads like Latin doesn't it? :rolleyes:
Yes I have ... And there be not just English on there

"Annuit Coeptis"
"Novus ordo seclorum"
"pluribus unum"

This is a waste of time.:rolleyes:
And don´t worry, my feelings weren´t hurt. I deal with beings like you on a daily basis.;)
And perhaps, just perhaps, WRONG isn´t a competent answer. Think about it. But thanks for answering my questions SO thoughtfully. You´ve been of great help in, once understanding, the American psyche. Agur!:)

When you finish a question with "right?" How is "wrong" NOT a competent answer when it's the correct one?

Honestly, I meant no offense. You're really far too thin-skinned, but don't worry, I won't go judging the whole of the "Spanish Psyche" based on your example.

Lol. :rolleyes:

Okay. Whatever. Have fun in your United States, whilst I continue to reside in the USA based in a little dimension I like to call "reality".

Ah, sweet denial.

Lol. :rolleyes:

Okay. Whatever. Have fun in your United States, whilst I continue to reside in the USA based in a little dimension I like to call "reality".

I suppose you can call it reality ... would not be my choice of words

Latin is an old language that doesn't have anymore native speakers. That's why it's used so heavily in science and national mottos. That's why Artiquit's motto is in Latin.

I would love to learn French. I'll be taking it in a couple years, after I finish German. Like wiping your ass with silk... :D That's awesome.

Also, like I said before, I'm naturally rebellious and I hate the United States anyway, so none of this really matters to me much anyway.

Looked at a greenback lately?
"This note is legal tender for all debts public and private"
"Federal reserve Note"
"In God We trust"
Sure reads like Latin doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I think the reference is also to "E PLURIBUS UNUM", "ANNUIT COEPTIS", and "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM"

Lol. :rolleyes:

Okay. Whatever. Have fun in your United States, whilst I continue to reside in the USA based in a little dimension I like to call "reality".

Even in your USA, English is the preferred language, it can even be the most used language, but it's not the Offical Language of the USA.

Lol. :rolleyes:

Okay. Whatever. Have fun in your United States, whilst I continue to reside in the USA based in a little dimension I like to call "reality".

I don't live in any USA, based in reality or otherwise.

When you finish a question with "right?" How is "wrong" NOT a competent answer when it's the correct one?

Look... the fact of the matter is, I´m at a loss for your attitude. But what the heck, is not like it matters.
I was asking a question that to me, had validity. English is the language spoken in the US. So what would that make you, if you were from another country, think? Hm? That it´s the official language, since Americans are so adamant in it being the only language used there. I lived in the US, I was exposed to this. You spoke another language with someone else, for common courtesy, and Americans look at you like you´re an alien. But it seems that it isn´t the official language. Of course, not counting the the President uses it, that every road sign´s in it or that it´s almost the only language the inhabitants know how to speak, well, maybe not speak, but use it. I don´t make the laws nor the nuances.
I wanted to see what the US residents in NSG had to say about it. For that, for wanting to know what other people on the forum think, I don´t need Google. I don´t need a search engine if I want to have a debate with someone. Some answer, some didn´t. That was the end of that.
And yes, Wrong isn´t a competent answer. Explain yourself after using it.
If I offended you in any way by my curiosity, well, I apologize. If you think I was deliberately asking the same question over and over again, let me assure you, I wasn´t. And now, normality sets in. Agur!

The irony of ironies would be this guy getting busted for using undocumented workers.

FTW!

The irony of ironies would be this guy getting busted for using undocumented workers.

ROFL!!:D

Well, Geno might feel threatened by other people´s languages, since the US is considered such a big, melting pot.

Yeah, I agree, he had no serious and real reason to put it up. ;)

English is a language spoken in the US.

Fixed.

You might as well say Christianity is the de facto official religion of the US.

If the Republicans had their way, it would be the de jure official religion of the U.S. Scary thought.

Yeah, I agree, he had no serious and real reason to put it up. ;)

This makes one wonder what can prompt someone to be so afraid of other people´s languages and cultures. Diversity´s fun. Understading, or trying to understand others is exciting. It shouldn´t be a cause of fear... I may be wrong though...

So a shop keeper can be forced to serve sombody that they don't want to? That does seem wrong somehow to me.

No, but I'm pretty sure (still) that their right to refuse service must be balanced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

At least, according to this link. (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html)

This makes one wonder what can prompt someone to be so afraid of other people´s languages and cultures. Diversity´s fun. Understading, or trying to understand others is exciting. It shouldn´t be a cause of fear... I may be wrong though...

why assume it was out of fear? Maybe he put the sign up to encourage people to practice English. Maybe he put the sign up because some customers complained that they got the wrong order because the order taker and the customer couldn't understand each other.

Has there been any instance where he refused service because someone wouldn't speak english?

why assume it was out of fear? Maybe he put the sign up to encourage people to practice English. Maybe he put the sign up because some customers complained that they got the wrong order because the order taker and the customer couldn't understand each other.

Has there been any instance where he refused service because someone wouldn't speak english?

But JuNii, why else would someone be prompted to place a sign like that at his store if not on account of fear? In most instances, fear´s the motivator. I don´t think Geno´s intentions were that altruistic as wanting people to practice English at his store. But once again, I could be wrong in my assertion.

I do not know though if service has been refused for not speaking English at the store.

Personally, I think we should all speak French.

Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculé de ta mère.

It's like wiping your ass with silk, I love it.

*gasp!* Crisse d'estie de tabernac!

Lol. :rolleyes:

Okay. Whatever. Have fun in your United States, whilst I continue to reside in the USA based in a little dimension I like to call "reality".

But your reality includes words like "whilst"?

Sorry, I really can't help myself. I hate words like "whilst", "amongst" and "acrosst". It's a disorder.

But your reality includes words like "whilst"?

Sorry, I really can't help myself. I hate words like "whilst", "amongst" and "acrosst". It's a disorder.

By calling them a disorder, you make those words like anorexia nervosa or something.:D

But JuNii, why else would someone be prompted to place a sign like that at his store if not on account of fear? I just gave several possible reasons. others could include that there have been complaints from both workers and customers about misunderstood orders.

or it could be a joke since the sign was in english...
In most instances, fear´s the motivator. I don´t think Geno´s intentions were that altruistic as wanting people to practice English at his store. But once again, I could be wrong in my assertion.bolding mine.
we can assume that he was motivated out of fear, or fustration (you should hear how some of our Filipino workers talk... and that is english.) but we really cannot be sure. until solid evidence is presented, it's still Innocent until proven guilty.

I do not know though if service has been refused for not speaking English at the store.
I think, if it had, the media would've reported it... I think... ;)

I just gave several possible reasons. others could include that there have been complaints from both workers and customers about misunderstood orders.

or it could be a joke since the sign was in english...
bolding mine.
we can assume that he was motivated out of fear, or fustration (you should hear how some of our Filipino workers talk... and that is english.) but we really cannot be sure. until solid evidence is presented, it's still Innocent until proven guilty.


I think, if it had, the media would've reported it... I think... ;)

I agree with you, fear might´ve been a motivator, but we cannot be sure until proven so otherwise. As for the media, yes, if there was an instance when service was refused for not speaking English, it would´ve been reported.
On the account of the Filipino, my dad´s boss is Filipino. It´s funny, because his Spanish is horrible and his English even more. LOL! I heard him speak Tagalo to his daughters once and I couldn´t follow. His photographers have to speak to him in a mixture of Spanish and English to understand him and to be understood and even that doesn´t always work.:D

On the account of the Filipino, my dad´s boss is Filipino. It´s funny, because his Spanish is horrible and his English even more. LOL! I heard him speak Tagalo to his daughters once and I couldn´t follow. His photographers have to speak to him in a mixture of Spanish and English to understand him and to be understood and even that doesn´t always work.:D
come to Hawaii and experience the lyrical beat of Pid'gn English. :D

the phrase "I reconize the words... but I don't understand the language." will ever float in your brain.

This makes one wonder what can prompt someone to be so afraid of other people´s languages and cultures. Diversity´s fun. Understading, or trying to understand others is exciting. It shouldn´t be a cause of fear... I may be wrong though...
I think I agree with you.

why assume it was out of fear? Maybe he put the sign up to encourage people to practice English. Maybe he put the sign up because some customers complained that they got the wrong order because the order taker and the customer couldn't understand each other.
That's not what the owner himself said:

Some try to order a cheesesteak. And it bugs Vento if they can’t ask for American cheese, provolone or the classic - Cheez Whiz - without pointing.

“If you can’t tell me what you want, I can’t serve you,” he said. “It’s up to you. If you can’t read, if you can’t say the word cheese, how can I communicate with you - and why should I have to bend?
Evil blogg link (http://michellemalkin.com/2006/05/31/genos-says-speak-english/)

And there's something about the tone and setting...

I do not know though if service has been refused for not speaking English at the store.
No customer has, apparently.

That's not what the owner himself said:


Evil blogg link (http://michellemalkin.com/2006/05/31/genos-says-speak-english/)

And there's something about the tone and setting...
(if we hold the blogg to be a credible news source...)
which speaks more of frustration than fear. ;)

come to Hawaii and experience the lyrical beat of Pid'gn English. :D

the phrase "I reconize the words... but I don't understand the language." will ever float in your brain.

ROFL!!:D