PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A small sign that asked customers to order in English at a famous cheesesteak shop was never meant to be offensive, the shop's owner testified Friday at a hearing to decide whether the policy was discriminatory.

Joe Vento, the owner of Geno's Steaks, defended his policy before the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which filed the discrimination complaint.


Questions:

Is the policy of requiring all patrons to order in English discriminatory?


Is it racist?

Is the policy of requiring all patrons to order in English discriminatory?


If all of the employees of a given restaurant only speak english, then is it discriminatory if they cannot understand someone who speaks spanish? If the owner speaks english and cannot understand a patron who speaks spanish, then obviously he cannot serve him. Furthermore, it is his place of business. If a patron doesn't like it, they can take their business elsewhere.

Is it racist?

English is spoken by people of all races, religions, and ethnicities. What race is he being racist against?

Is the policy of requiring all patrons to order in English discriminatory?

No...it should be expected. If you go to a restaurant in France, would you expect to have to speak French? Why is this even a story? The basic headline is "Restaurant owner asks patrons to speak in language he understands." Well, duh!

Is it racist?

Absolutely not. Why is asking patrons to speak so you can understand them racist?

This is the most absurd thing that I've ever seen. It's sad, that in America someone is going to a discrimination hearing because it's expected that business is done in English.

I will say that if Geno's Steaks wanted to expand it's consumer base, Spanish might help. However, it's their perogative. I personally don't mind the notion of someone doing business in Spanish, specifically if it grows their revenues.

However- the idea that someone is called RACIST because they don't feel it necessary to speak other languages is just dispicable.

I personally believe that expecting immigrants to speak English isn't outlandish. Sure, if you're in a sales capacity it might be cutting your nose to spite your face, but at least minimal English to get a Driver's license, etc would be just fine with me.

It doesn't have to be discriminatory, but the way he does it is. He has a walk-up window with a large menu above the servers and pictures of the food. He will not allow people to simply point at what they want. they MUST order it verbally and in English, even if its a group of Japanese tourists. If it was a sit-down restaurant where communication with a waiter is required, fine, but he seems to be doing it because he dislikes foreigners, even at the expense of his own profits.

In which case, he is already being punished. There's no law that says you have to maximize your profits. The business down the street can certainly cater to whoever dislikes this establishment.

Also, I didn't get that this is what he was doing from the article. He seemed to be getting grief solely for having the sign up at all.

Which is pretty ridiculous, given the fairly outlandish signs I've seen at any number of restaurants. My favorite being a Taco Bell that had a sign on the wall--behind the counter-saying that they had Braille menus available. Who is that sign for, exactly? (I asked the cashier, but the irony was clearly lost on him).

For the way the question was phrased on this thread, I voted no. It is not discriminatory to require patrons to speak the language in order to guarantee proper service. It does appear though that the business owner had other motives behind this policy. While it is tempting to disregard these other motives, labeling them "trivial", I do not believe tourists or immigrants would agree. That said, if the business owner wants to kill his profits by being spiteful, then it's his choice. In my opinion, it doesn't reach the level of discrimination.

It is not discriminatory, they can walk up and point somewhere else. No where does it say that they have to go there to eat. If he misses out on business, that is his problem. Besides, where on the sign does it say that they have to order verbally? I must have missed that part of the sign that he has in his store. Please feel free to help us all with finding that. I also am interested in finding out how you have come to have first hand knowledge of his thoughts in that you seem to know that "he dislikes foreigners". I have not seen anything in any story that suggests that.

By the way, can you point me to a picture that shows the set up you described? The one with the picture menu above the servers? I tried looking, but couldn't find it.

Anyway, what you suggest is to have the city force this business owner into allowing pepole to point at a menu that is of some distance from them and have the server guess as to what it is they are pointing at. Makes sense. Or should the city force this business owner into making hand-held menus just for those that don't speak English? Who pays for that?

In my business, my customers need to speak English. Do you know why? It's because I don't know how to speak every other language in the world. It isn't a policy against any single language or nationality. In fact, I deal with people from many different nationalities-in English. It is a policy that comes from the lack of knowledge of every other language on Earth. I can't be expected to know all the languages that are spoken by immigrants and visitors. I know a little Spanish from various jobs that I have held, but not enough to do business in. Therefore, my customers need to be able to speak English, otherwise, I won't be able to understand them, and they won't be able to understand me. Am I discriminating against anyone, am I a racist?

The only people that think this is discrimination are the thought police. This is an example of political correctness gone too far. Stay out of this man's business and let him run it as he sees fit. If this truely is the city's most famous cheesesteak restaraunt, it appears that he is doing just fine.

If the sign said "This is America, no Spanish", then we would be having a completely different conversation.

Is the policy of requiring all patrons to order in English discriminatory?
It depends.

I've seen and heard this guy on the news.

It's not a practical matter of business efficiency, he's trying to make a point political, social or otherwise.

As the policy has a definite target, yes I'd say it's a bit discriminatory.

Is it racist?
Again, the target is Latin-American immigrants so yeah...

...but I hope we can agree that it's bigoted at the very least, semantics is hardly the point here.

Help me understand where you got the information that this policy is directed towards Latin American immigrants. I must have missed that part. Is this fact, or assumption?

I think it is very practical. If he or his staff can't understand the guy from France that is trying to order in French, how efficient is that? What is going to be accomplished by the two sides speaking two different languages?

I think the point he is making is that he only speaks English, so if you want to do business with him, you should be able to speak enough English to order a cheesesteak sandwich. I think you and everyone else that wants to make this a bigger deal than it really is are reading too much into it.

Sources, certainly.

Link

"Your loyalty should be to America and America only"...Vento said he was referring to the growing Mexican population. That is one quote regarding his views on where their loayalty should be. Since we are talking about a sign that says that his customers need to order in English, that has nothing to do with Spanish speaking people only. It refers to all of the Irish, Italians, French, Russia, Bosnian, Egyptian etc.

What is more interesting is the exclusion of the parts of the article that don't support your position. It always amuses me when people take sound bites to make their point, but when looking at the entire context, their position is not supported.

Doesn't sound bigoted, racist or discriminatory at all.

Then, if you would have read page two of the story you linked us to, you would have found (As the line made famous by Paul Harvey goes) the rest of the story.

Not too much racism going on since in 40 years, no one has ever been refused service. Still think the city is not making a mountain out of a mole hill? Any other stories you would like to use to bolster your position?

Is the policy of requiring all patrons to order in English discriminatory?

Well it seems to be discriminatory. If you can't speak English you seem not to be able to get this City of Brotherly Love specialty at this particular location.

Does the question mean to ask about this being criminally discrimintory? While some still cling to the "it's his business so he can discriminate all he wants" theory, I think the law and law enforcement have clearly shown that to be an inaccurate theory?

Dodging the intent of the sign because I don't what the owner's complete motives are here, I don't see how this is criminally discriminatory. If it is, then what is the problem, and what is the remedy? Is the prblem that the owner does not offer ordering services in other languages? Is the problem that the owner refuses to let people order unless they speak English (the mute community would clearly have a legitimate gripe here I believe under the ADA)? But if the problem is that this small business owner refuses to make transactions in other languages, I wonder what the remedy is supposed to be?

Should the owner hire employees until every langauge is an option to order in? Or would it be most fair if at least the ten most commonly spoken languages were taken care of? Is this what we want to do? require all businesses to do transactions in multiple languages? Because I go to many businesses that do not hang up a sign, but still are not equipped to conduct a sales transaction in any language other than English.

The problem seems to be with the sign. While it does not speak the sentiment all are welcome, I do not see any criminal dicrimination. Of course the article does not cite federal civil rights laws it refers to city ordinances. I do not know if this truly does violate a city law, but I see no evidence offered in the article of lawbreaking.


Is it racist?

This is not overtly racist. Of course neither was the grandfather clause in its text. I also do not see a direct challenge to people of any particular race or ethnicity.

It does seem to be nativist in tone. It is a message to new arrivals that rapid assimilation is expected of them.

It is not racist.

How is this discriminatory in any way? The guy has learned from his parents experience, and I am sure his own, that English is the language that is spoken in America. I have no evidence that he speaks any other language than English. If he can't speak any other language, he is telling everyone that by putting a sign up. He is simply pointing out to everyone that English is the only language spoken at that restaraunt. It isn't discrimination at all.

Strictly speaking it is discriminatory, which isn't necessarily wrong or illegal. Discrimination by a retail business only becomes illegal when it discriminates against certain protected classes (race, gender, ability, etc), and as far as I know speakers of a specific language are not a protected class.

One may argue that language is serving as a proxy for race/ethnicity and that it really does discriminate against a protected class. My response to that is that almost everthing is a proxy for some race or another, and it isn't reasonable to expect the government to regulate a store policies solely on the basis that the policy indirectly, statistically favors one race or another.

Despite the legality of it all... looking at the nature of the sign does give me the impression that there's more than a little xenophobia behind it. I don't buy his claims that it was only a request and that he didn't mean to be offensive. Nothing about that that sign looks like a request. It looks more like a requirement for service.

*** I saw the link turnea posted that offered a bit more explanation and the owner is pretty clear that speaking English isn't a requirement for service***

Maybe you missed the finer points of my post. The question is about a policy of requiring all patrons to order in English. I am leaning on the lesser used definition of discrimination that does not imply prejudice but simply finds that people are being separated by group instead of individual. This is a less common element in definitions of discrimination and in common usage today. With that in mind, I simply say that a policy prohibiting non-English speakers from ordering (which is not necessarily the policy at the store in question but it is the debate question). However after scanning about ten online dictionary definitions of discriminatory or discrimination I would say that my usage of this word is so little used that I should not use it that way.


What I did not intend to conclude in my post was that this policy in itself is an act of prejudice against people on account of race, creed, or ethnicity. I do not think this sign is such prejudice or discrimination.

It merely says (in English LOL like Hobbes braille sign) if you don;t speak English you can;t order. I wonder how they would know??

Except he said it had to do with Mexican immigrants, I think we can take his word for it.

I read the whole article, I simply disagree that Geno's explanation proves the policy is not discriminatory.

Bigotry is complicated and not every bigot knows it.

Ill-will as such is not a necessary condition, especially in front of the press. Denial of service isn't either, he was likely trying to avoid a suit.

The fact that he meant to target Latinos does it for the charge discriminatory policy.

The charge of bigotry is more common sense.

He doesn't have to hate them, just give voice to an irrational jingoist viewpoint.

I think "This is America: Speak English!" counts.

Is the policy of requiring all patrons to order in English discriminatory?

Requiring patrons to speak English when ordering is not discriminatory if no one at the establishment speaks another language. It makes it easier to do business. Yes, Vento is making a political statement with the sign. Is it discriminatory on its face, no. He himself says:


There is nothing on the sign to indicate that you will not be served if you do not speak English.

There is nothing to indicate that you can't find a way of communicating what you want.

If there was a sign saying "This is America - those who do not order in English will not be served." That would be discriminatory.

Oddly enough I voted Yes in the poll because the answer to that question is Yes, but that's not the situation here.

I disagree that actual denial of service is a necessary condition. The message is rather clear: "go away!"

I argue that the lack of denials is more likely simple caution on his part to avoid any legally defensible situations.

A simple "No hablo espanol" would suffice. "This is America" and Geno's own specific comments about Mexican immigrants crosses the (ethical not legal) line.

Then he will lose customers but, legally, it isn't discrimination. I thought this thread was about whether or not this was legal. I mean, that's what the hearings were about, right?

I think that is light of both questions it addresses both the legal and moral aspects of the situation.

.and really I think its all about sentiment anyway, both Geno's and the city are just making a point.

Agreed.

However, who is right here?

Is a sign that says "speak English" racist? Is it even inappropriate? I don't believe so.

If I went to a Taqueria that had a sign that said "Ordene en Espanol por favor", I'd be ok with it. Would it be racist then? Of course not.

As a private business, it is not discriminatory to set parameters for business exchange as long as race or gender is not involved. He was not denying people on the basis of who they were, just whether they could communicate with him. But even so, purely from a pragmatic standpoint, if the owner or employees don't know another language, business with a foreign language customer would be impossible if they were unable to communicate with him or his employees. Putting a sign up was simply an unnecessary redundancy, and you could poke fun at him on that basis as it was a bit stupid.

However, since it was just a restaurant, as a business move it was also stupid since one really doesnt have to know another language to have someone point at a menu item. He was simply lowering his own business income by turning away customers because of his intolerant behavior.

"No hablo espanol" "This is America" would be discriminatory since it singles out an individual language. What he has done is eliminated all languages except English. I guess in it's purest definition, it is discriminatory, however, as a legal standpoint, he has done nothing wrong. From an ethical standpoint, I don't see anything wrong with what he has done. If he took your advice, turnea, he would be singling out Spanish, and that would be discriminatory.

I am interested in what legal consequences would be possible if he refused service to anyone that didn't speak english? Is there a law requiring businesses to provide services to everyone, no matter what? If so, please share. I don't think there is anything wrong with a business refusing service to anyone. We are talking about a sandwich shop here, it isn't a company that has the backing of the government like a lender does. It is a privately owned and operated business. Get out of his office and let him run his business the way he wants. Who's business is it to tell him how to run his shop anyway?

It depends on the reason.

If it was because the employees won't understand what you're talking about, then no problem.

If it's to snub the lousy gringos, problem...

Intent matters here I think.

There are other protected categories, national origin is the one in play here I think.

It need not be explicit, take the poll tax for instance.

Once again I think the intent is a key issue.

But, again, you are talking about an ethical, moral issue and not a legal one, right?

I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that without actual denial of service the plaintiffs have no case, so yes my objection is ethical.

Law is just meant to approximate ethics, it's not illegal to be a jerk nor should it be.

The court costs alone would bankrupt the country.

Of course not. It is the right of the provider of the service to higher people who may not speak the 3-5 languages they may run into in a typical city. Those who order should be able to do so in the accepted language universally accepted in this country – ENGLISH.

Most recently, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 mandates, on behalf of the handicapped, both the figurative and literal removal of curbs to access to employment, public transportation and other public services, and as well as privately owned but public-oriented accommodations, including restaurants among other commercial facilities. However, the ADA adds ambiguous language regarding the implementation of such access in private businesses, so the notion of "readily achievable" or "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense" depends on the local interpretation. Usually it is well spelled out, like you must spend up to X amount of dollars making a business handicapped accessible. But race and gender are still the most common discrimination problems that have a legal remedy.

In the case of the restaurant, I would not speculate about his intent to discriminate on the basis of race unless he arbitrarily enforced his "English only" rule, systematically excluding one group of non-English speakers whose only common characteristic is race, while granting another group of non-English speakers whose only common characteristic is race, access and service.

Or, more obviously, excluded someone who did speak English but was of a specific race.

Well, the first time they sell someone a product with an ingredient someone is highly allergic to (due to language issues), then they would be negligent criminals who should have known better. I guess that's better than the bigoted racists some here think they are.

So, should we force the company to accept all the losses they incur because they can't get orders correct the first time due to the same language issues?

There's no way this company can win.

At least on a Federal level, I think most of the FDA's laws reguarding labelling deal with packaged foods, and in restaurants, the veracity of claims of nutrient value. Here is a link here: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/laws/511441-1.html

I think locally there may be state laws regarding allergy warnings, but I have never seen any consistent application of such warnings where I live, so in my neighborhood it either must be not mandatory or unenforced. Even less likely then would be the importance of the language issue in such warnings unless actually defined by law and routinely enforced so that it would be reasonable to expect compliance.

Is the policy of requiring all patrons to order in English discriminatory?

Even if it neither discriminatory nor racist, I think it is bad business. The Hispanic/Latino population of Philadelphia is 8.5%. Holding up the "this is America" sign is probably loses customers, unless the owner thinks he could make up the difference in jingoistic simple-minded patrons. Even though I am Anglo, I would boycott this man’s business.

Although I have lived in the Southwest all my life I have almost no command of Spanish. On rare occasions, I have eaten in TexMex restaurants where the menu is printed in Spanish. I have never encountered an owner who didn't help me interpret. Because of this kindness and helpfulness, I have often been a repeat customer.

BTW: I just got home from tax class. I've finished 90% of the requirements. I hope to finish by Thursday, giving myself a couple of weeks before actually going to work.

I voted that it wasn't discriminatory. Unless the man denied service to anyone, nobody would be able to file a discrimination lawsuit.

I think it is a little bigoted. While I can't read minds, I suspect that the restaurant owner had a particular group of people in mind when he posted his English only sign. If English is indeed spoken by different ethnic groups, why would the man feel the need to remind his customers to speak in English? Yes, it is America and English is the official language. In America though, there are unwritten rules that dictate how you interact with your neighbors, which include the stuff that you can say to people's faces and stuff you cannot say to their faces, as well as rules on how you would say the things. So the man will lose some of his customer base by being very blunt about his wish for Mexicans to speak English.

Well, figure this. If the guy is selling a Pepperoni Pizza, it's not too hard to decipher

English: I'll have a Pepperoni Pizza
vs.
Other Language: Blah blah blah Pepperoni Pizza blah blah blah.

That's loaded question.

What "race" is torked off because of a request to use the English language?

Ahh, let me rephrase that. What "race" is supposed to be torked off because of a request to use the English lanauge?

Black people? Brown people? Yellow people?

I have several heritages. Not all of them Caucasian. I'm not exactly sure I'm supposed to be offended by mixing "race" between "language".

In another country, they don't flush toilet paper down the toilet. The put it in a basket next to the toilet, and it's an accepted custom. Is it "racist" to post a sign saying, "due to cleanliness reasons, please flush your used toilet paper"? Because that'd be calling people of the non-flushing custom "dirty", huh?

But it's not race, or gender OR national origin. It's language. What class of protected people are exclusive to a language?

As for me, a paying customer is a good customer. I'll meet him halfway with whatever obstacle there is. You can't legislate that everyone should HAVE to, though, and the PCHR is stupid for trying. It'll be worse if they succeed.

Oh goody. Now we have the government pushing mom and pop businesses around. Requesting, or even demanding a particular language is NOT racist. Heck, I've been to Italian Restaurants that don't have a menu in English. I didn't get my knickers in a wad over it. I just asked what each thing was.

I refuse to be a patron at several stores because they have a "No Firearms" policy. (In AZ, it's not uncommon to see someone in public with a handgun, myself included). Is that store owner restricting my 2nd Amendment rights? Of course not. Just if I agree to enter his property. I just go somewhere else. And as a result, I'll never set foot or spend a dollar there. Too many other places see it my way. I don't need some government agency making decisions on MY spending dollar. I bought my tires from Big-O instead of Purcell Tires for that very reason.

This guy is a little tacky, but the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations is making a mountain out of a molehill.

You want Human Relations? Here's some Human Relations, 2nd Grade style: Don't like someone? Then don't play with them. Find someone else you DO like. Is there no other HR emergencies in that entire city? C'mon, we deserve better than this.

You know, it just mentions english, not spanish, not russian, no race mentioned, - it mentions a language requirement.

If I, as a white guy, come up and asked in for something in Russian, then in spanish, and was refused, would it be for racial reasons?

Racial discrimination is not just about the color of your skin.

According to international law (and this has been accepted as the definition by the United States), the term racial discrimination:



Now, legally, this man has not refused service to anyone based on the above but he does have prejudices based on the above and if he were to ever act upon them and refuse service to someone based on the language they are speaking, it would be considered racial discrimination. So let's not go limiting the definition of racial discrimination.

As I scrolled through this thread I was hoping to come across someone who actually has been to Geno's - AS I HAVE, but apparently no one else has. I went there about 2 years ago when I went to Philly to see a concert, I was with a friend who was there recently when the band he tours with played there. He had been to Pat's, which was literally across the street and wanted to try Geno's this time, so we went there. The speak english thing caught my eye right away, O.K., maybe I can understand that, then there was something else that was less (IMO) excusable (sorry I don't remember what it was), and then the straw that broke this camel's back - FREEDOM FRIES!. Well that sent me into NY'er mode, "F" this "MF", he can "%$#*!@# MY *&^@@@" and so on, in full volume NY'er attitude for all to see, an open challenge for you say something to me. So let's not downplay this one sign, it's more than just that, there is a totality of the issue (at least in regards to Geno's specifically) that isn't being addresses. Either way I concluded that this guy is either xenophobic, sociopathically nationalistic or one of the right wing sheeple, either way he can keep his food and I'll walk across the street to get lunch.

Discrimantory - yes, illegally so, that's going to depend on local laws, which I don't think anyone quoted so far, so I'm undecided on that one.

As for my vote, I voted yes, clearly it's discriminatory by the common definition of the word, and because the question says "require", that implies a mandatory condition, which also implies that non-compliance will not be tolerated.

Racist - no, laguage and race are not synonomous.

On the other side of the coin, Philly was one of the coolest cities I've even been to, I want to go back and see more.

So, if I open a franchise in Brownsville, Texas and require spanish, I would be a bigot? I understand you don't like the person or the business, but he has a right to deny you service because he thinks you're ugly, too short, or doesn't like your cologne. In other words, he can order you off his property for any reason.

To be consistent, would my Brownsville, Texas scenario be discriminatory? If I open a Japanese restaurant focused primarily on the Japanese manufacturing plants on the I-75 corridor here in Ohio and require Japanese to be spoken, is that discriminatory?

To me, discrimination has become synonymous with "I really just don't like you". Your post proves that point.

By the way, any place that calls their french fries "freedom fries" wouldn't get my business because in my opinion, they are clearly douchebags. But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they don't have the right to do whatever the hell they want with their business as long as it's legal.

What's next? No shirt, no shoes, no service unless you bring a lawyer with you?

Ah, but consider that Geno has already said he was referring to Mexican immigrants, proof enough that he had a nationality in mind with the rule.

To use a more famous example consider voting restrictions like poll taxes in the Jim crow south.They didn't mention race specifically but the purpose was clear enough.
The key is intent, otherwise it's loophole city.

Wish I was there to hear the voice of New York City in Philly. I'm also envisioning Cruising Ram yakking away in Russian and inserting little English phrases along the New York City lines. You want English? Here's your ****ing English. Or is that Jersey?

Regarding the legality of this, I'm not so sure. Ordering from a little greasy spoon (making an assumption here) can't be that difficult. Don't they number the items? That's the way many of the Mexican places do it around here. I've heard that US visitors to France, Italy and so on use things called "tourist guides" to ask about where restrooms are and to avoid ordering something really gross, snails and tentacles in slime sauce for example. So the point is that language can be modified fairly easily, but something like skin color cannot.

Gee, how clever. Freedom Fries. Even at a place called Uncle Sam's in Manitou Springs (or is it Old Colorado City, it gets confusing sometimes) they still call them French Fries. Fine place of American tradition, old Uncle Sam's. It was a wrong name to begin with and danged if they're going to budge off of that.

I too would probably cross the street. Attitude at a place is part of the whole experience. But I can also see the take that the PCS nazi gets to tell people, "NO PCS FOR YOU!" It is his (making another assumption) business. Seems he wants to attract a certain kind of customer in the City of Brotherly Love. People with brothers will understand, especially older ones, just how much sadism lurks beneath the slogan.

I hear you- as an Alaskan, with our super diverse racial makeup, I would find it very offensive to see such a sign, and that business would fail in a month here- we just don't take that kind of crap up here for long. Most of the resteraunts here are owned by Asians of one decent or another, with the mexican food resteraunts owned by hispanics. NOT illegals mind you- we have the lowest amount of illegal aliens per capita in the nation- 99% of all foriegn born poeple are here legally, and it is considered VERY rude to impose your culture on another in business, and there is quite a bit of "honor' in showing your knowledge of another culture when a person of another ethnicity comes into your home or business, for instance, if a Japanese person comes into your place of business, a "Koniche' wa" - no matter how bad you mangle it, is considered VERY respectful here, and good business practise.

So, if I were to see this sign on a business in the "lower 48"- you can bet I won't be buying anything there! The "Freedom fries" stupidity would take the cake- a middle finger and a few curse words directed in that resteraunt might be in order.

IIRC, it has been over 20 years since I was in Philly- there are much better places to get a cheesesteak and some chilli cheese fries-

but, I think it is that right wing conservative crap that would turn me off- I don't think it is neccesarily racist, just stupid and ignorant- and being stupid and ignorant is, thankfully, stil not illegal.

I have to ask though- is Geno's consistant with all languages, against an skin color? That would be the real litmus test here- if it hispanics that he is targeting, that means that me, as a near "ginger" white guy, speaking, oh, swahili, would they say "take that elsewhere"- or would they just target spanish and hispanics?

No, it is not. Human beings have the capacity to learn and speak basic English required in ordering things like Philly cheesesteak, regardless of race or cultural differences.

English is not only the dominating language of the United States, it is also the universal language. Global business is done in English, and other important functions as well, such as air traffic control. Pilots of all nations use English. It's for the sake of universal understanding. But that is beside the point.

In regards to the situation at hand, the owner has every right to ask that English be used when ordering. He's not a bigot for doing so, either. Of course it is the Mexicans. Here's a news flash: Mexicans are immigrating and not learning the language. So they will be the ones who walk into a restaurant without even the basic understanding that would allow for placing an order in English.

If you go down to Mexico and you are expected to order in Spanish, is that discrimination against you? Or is it merely the spoken language of the country, hence the language you are expected to speak?

I'll give you an example of real discrimination. Trying to get into a hot shot night club in L.A. when you aren't young and georgious. They turn people away based on how they look or how old they are. People can learn English, they can't change their age of their looks (for the most part).

We, as a country, are making a huge mistake by not demanding that immigrants learn the language. It is evident in all the controvery and accusations of racism that are being spewed by people who do not have the best interest of immigrants in mind.

Look at it this way. If the Mexican learns the language he will be able to make more money and build a more prosperous future for himself and his family. Do we want that? Not if we are in business and want his cheap labor. All those do-gooders who claim they are on the side of immigrants, are only helping keep those indivuals in the lower strata of society, in the name of "fairness" and "equality". What is being done here is called SPIN!

It's one thing if you put patrons on notice that servers can't speak Spanish and if he posted a "No Se Hable Espanol" sign I doubt anyone would care.

..but when it crosses the line as a political statement he has to expect controversy.

Fact is English will not long be the universal language if there every was such a thing (I doubt it). Spanish, Hindi, Mandarin Chinese, it's all coming to America eventually.

America has always been a multilingual country and there is no moral obligation to speak English.

I got a business proposal, I'm going to market MYOB T-shirts to immigration advocates.

Who's in?

Isn't political speech protected?

This action is not discriminatory. The sign says nothing about refusing service nor has service ever been denied. The courts use a damage test to see if a plaintiff has standing to bring a suit. Since nobody has actually been damaged by this sign, nobody has a basis for a claim in court.

Now, a free society should have freedom of association, even for business owners. I personally support the freedom to choose to deny service for most any reason. Of course, these business owners should (and would) face the consequences of those choices.

This case, however, has no "denial of service" either in theory or in fact, so no such discrimination took place. It is basically akin to a political statement (protected speech) similar to a sign I saw in a bar a few weeks ago that said "Hippies must use the back door.... No Exceptions". No one is going to sue over a flippant sign that endorses a policy that is not enforced.

This is protected speech and the message is that integration will help you get ahead. This is a message that I personally agree with... learn English and your chances of success in the US skyrocket. Remain segregated, cling to your foreign culture, and remain on the outskirts of society. It may not be politically correct, but it is harsh reality.

I agree that the plantiffs likely have no legal case for discrmination.

I don't agree that discrmination laws concerning denial of service need to be curtailed in any way. Natural consequences are not enough punishment for the real bigots out there.

As for concerns about learning English, the issue is complicated.

I think that construing this sign as evidence of Geno's concern about the well-being of Mexican immigrants to be laughable.

Get real. This isn't about them it's about his taking offense at what language they choose to speak in this, a free country.

well- if he is targeting specifically mexican immigrints, and not russian, or polish or whatever- which makes him a flaming racist and he should be treated as such by the public, though I don't think he will have a litigatible offense, he should be picketed as a racist jerk.

That is the way things work anyway- make sure every patron that goes in there knows he is a racist jerk, and anyone that eats there is a racist jerk as well. That is the best way to take care of that.

I hate to break the news to you Turnea... but umm... the US will be a predominantly English speaking society so long as first generation immigrants are still in the minority.

What you're advocating here is beyond absurd.

What you're saying is that eventually there won't be a common language, and/or that people will live and work within their own cultures and not associate with each other.

Something I can tell you now, is that there are two up and coming countries that are teaching their children to speak English. Can you guess what they are? One already has a predominantly English speaking society...hmm... India and China.

Why? English is the language of business. As I've mentioned, I do business in Tokyo, Cannes, Paris, the UK, Mexico City, and Sao Paulo...and we have begun a partnership in Beijing as well. I do speak Spanish, but for convenience. All of our partnerships have English speaking representation.

In the US, our children are barely fluent in English. Rarely do you find even a 5th grader who knows more than 15 spanish words. If we were to have a multi-lingual society, the kids would have to be taught from a very early age. This isn't happening. What you're saying is that if we don't share a common language, that the US won't be a nation anymore. We'll be a culmination of immigrant groups destined to be tied to our own borders. That's outlandish. Either that or you're saying that our nation will be multi-lingual as a whole, which would have to be true from Pensacola to Pittsburgh. That's not being taught in schools, so good luck with that notion.

Finally, what you're advocating doesn't even have a middle ground. In American schools, English will always be taught, fair enough? With that being said, even if communities are multi-lingual, the Universal language will always be English.

The problem with such uber-liberal thought and their intense need for inclusion is that it actually advocates eradicating truly American culture (which includes "our version" of English). It seems to be that those who fit in the least advocate inclusion of what helps the minority the most. Hence, contemporary liberal ideology and statements like "America has always been a multilingual country and there is no moral obligation to speak English.".

No turnea, America hasn't always been multi-lingual. Parts of America have. Case in point; How many cities in America as a percentage require their public servants speak Spanish? How many cities have a China town? Get it?

All America has done is allow immigrants to feel comfortable to speak their native language in their own communities, which is fine. We also have expected that if they plan to leave the confines of their own communities that they learn a common language... English.

No industrialized nation has done or is going to do what you advocate Turnea. Not even one.

You mean, no industrialized nation except for:
Switzerland
Canada
Belgium
Finland
Ireland
Spain

Or maybe you can just go here for a more exhaustive list: Multilingual countries

I was going to respond at length but then I would drag the thread off topic because what I would say would cover a lot of ground.

I'll say here only that I was referring to international commerce when I said English would not long be the "universal language".

For the rest I'll start of new thread concerning the "essentialist" view of American culture.

Well, now you're introducing the word bigot, which isn't what this thread originally addressed, I would however say that you would fall into same category, for the same reason - language "REQUIREMENT".



1) he can deny an individual service for a reason, it may or may not be discriminatory, but when you apply the same measure to a GROUP of people, then perhaps it is.

2) the place is essentially an outdoor eatery, there is no inside seating.



I would apply the same standard as I did above.



I'll take that at face value, but could explain how so, I just don't follow your logic.



Well that is it isn't it, is what he's doing illegal. Like I said it would depend on the local laws. In NY I think that would clearly be considered discrimination - I THINK.


Come on, you know that's not a valid comparison, there are sanitary issues for number one, and then action would be taken against an individual not a group. It would be interesting to see if there were sort of cultural group that forbit the wearing of shirts, would it then be discriminatory to not serve them?

You know Geno's has a website http://www.genosteaks.com/home.html . You can see the shirts the staff is wearing http://www.genosteaks.com/staff.html , bigoted, racist, discriminatory - well that might be the subject of another debate completely. I would say that it shows clear animosity for immigrants.

And then there is the question about tourists, I would have starved in Spain and France if I wasn't allowed to point at the menu.