# English in the US



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20071214_Ventos_lawyers_question_fairness_of_hearing.html 
University of Pennsylvania professor Camille Charles, has decreed that the <strong>"This is America, when ordering, please 'speak English" </strong>sign posted at James Vento's business, Geno's Steaks is akin to Jim Crow.The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations decided to charge that Vento discriminated against non-English speakers.

You know what? All the founding documents of this country are written in English, all our elected representatives conduct their business in English, this is, primarily an English speaking country.
According to the CIA's World Factbook 82.1% of Americans speak English.

Here's the thing, no thinking person gives a damn if you speak Swahili, Urdu, Farsi, or Pig Latin in your home or among your friends. However, if you choose to do business in this country, even as only a consumer, you should speak and read English fluently. Because that is what we do here. In a country where English is not the main language spoken, France for example, by all means, speak French. But, here, we speak English. To claim that is discriminatory is foolish. I am sure Mr Vento wants everyone's business (that is how businesses make money), however, his employees speak English, so ordering in Spanish, Turkish, or Arabic is not going to get you speedy service, in all likelihood,  all that would get you is a frustrated employee asking "Do you speak English" loudly and slowly. We get along with each other better when we all speak the same language,even if our only interaction is to order a sandwich, that is far more easily accomplished if everyone speaks the language of the realm. 
In short: don't whine, adapt.
The constant comparison, usually by the left, of every little thing to civil rights is more than a little nausea inspiring. 
I live in central California, to be exact, in Sanger, twenty odd miles East of Fresno. When I buy things at the little liquor store around the corner I am impressed that the cashier, who is a Sikh, speaks SEVEN languages, but, being a businessman, he speaks English to his customers. He doesn't try to conduct  the business of his shop in Pashtu or Urdu or Punjabi, because the vast majority of his customers don't speak any of those languages.


----------



## kuntawguro (Dec 15, 2007)

AMEN!!!!!  It amazes me when I watch COPS on tv and see how many people they pull over who cannot speak english  or even have "ANY" Identification.


----------



## bydand (Dec 15, 2007)

I agree.  While it may seem on the surface a bit harsh, I'll make no apologies.  Prime example is the family I have known almost as long as my own, both parents were born in Mexico. They came across legally and worked very hard to gain citizenship here.  Spanish was the primary language in the house, but nobody in their family was supposed to speak Spanish outside the house because "We live in the US, we speak English."  When I went for overnights from kindergarten on, the family spoke English in the house even, because I didn't speak Spanish.  This was *all *conversation in the house and not just the part directed toward or about me. I tried to get them to teach me Spanish but they wouldn't because they felt it was wrong for me to learn a different language in my own country.  Last Aug. on vacation, my family was visiting Ma and Pop Castillo during one of the families special occasions because "you are part of the family, you belong with us."  One of the Daughters (mid 50's) said something to Ma C in Spanish and Pop C (has to be pushing 80) came unglued, and reminded her one of the family doesn't speak Spanish so nobody speaks Spanish.  She laughed and said that she keeps forgetting I don't understand everything said, because I've been around for so long and really am part of the family. Even though I do understand some, and speak a little, even I am banned from using it around Ma and Pop.

In one generation that is a quaint and outdated concept it seems.   Up here it is sometimes the other way around.  Many stores here are owned by French speaking families and if you are speaking English, half the older folks have a very hard time understanding what you want.  These are people born in the US, raised in the US and have lived here their whole lives.  That really burns my shorts for some reason as well.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 15, 2007)

Some years ago, there was a law proposed in Colorado that all employees of the state must speak and read English at a specified level of proficiency - the stated purpose of the law was to reduce costs, as if all employees could speak and read English at that level, the state would no longer have to print state government notices (worker's compensation, employees' rights, etc.) in Spanish as well as English, which is currently done because of the number of employees who are not conversationally fluent - much less literate - in English. It was badly-misnamed the "English Only" amendment by its opponents (most of them Spanish speakers with varying levels of English proficiency, or members of the Hispanic community).  It failed, due more ot the negatively-slanted comments that the uninformed listened to rather than read the proposal themselves than to anything else.

The amount of time, effort, and - yes - money that is spent in this country to ensure that all people have access to information is incredible, and incredibly wasteful.  As a teacher in a school with a high percentage of ELL (English Language Learner) students, I would like to differentiate between two groups of students whose primary language is not English:  those who immigrated here, and those who were born here.  In general (not always, but usually) the students who immigrated here learn English quickly, and are highly motivated to get out of the ELL classes, while those who were born here - in many cases, second, third, even fourth generation Spanish speakers whose parents, grandparents, and other extended family members never learned English beyond a very basic level, if at all - are often unmotivated to learn English, because they see no need to do so.  Only when the members of these communities are integrated more fully into the mainstream - which is going to take effort from both within and without the communities in which they live - will there be any incentive for them to learn English at a more proficient level.  This is a significant social problem which often gets swept under the rug by generalities and stereotypes about members of certain groups... which is why I differentiate between the most common things I see in the students at my school and the realization that even within a group that size (about 1/3 of the 700 students at my school are ELL students of some level, in primary languages ranging from Spanish to Hmong to Russian) there are still a wide range of differences.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 15, 2007)

Are you sure you speak English? :rofl:





Sorry, couldn't resist! shoot me down now LOL!


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 15, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Are you sure you speak English? :rofl:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  At least we don't have a silly accent!

Ok - back to topic.  

This is why I like the military, there ARE language requirements.  Non-native speakers must pass a language proficiency test before entering the military and before getting certain jobs.  I had an airman who was an outstanding performer and wanted to be an officer, but they wouldn't take him because he couldn't pass the language proficiency test.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2007)

This is just a part of the wedge issue that doesn't like brown people.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2007)

Two issues...  and I'm not even doing more than bumping into what should be done with illegal immigrants.

First...
English as the daily language of business.  I do agree; I shouldn't have to order in Spanish to be sure to get what I want at a restaurant.  Cops shouldn't have to try to figure out how to ask someone for their driver's license in 80+ languages on the side of the road.  (FYI... CDL holders are, by law, supposed to be  reasonably fluent in English.  If they aren't, cops can get the CDL revoked.)  I think you should have to speak English to get a driver's license.  While some road signs are uniiversal symbols, many signs -- especially emergency or temporary signs like detour and road closed -- are in English.  How the hell is a person who speaks only Japanese or Swahili or Klingon or whatever supposed to know what the sign says?  In stores, it pisses me off when the staff is so busy yacking (in any language) with each other that they can't serve me.  (I've been known to screw with them... for some reason, people don't look at me and assume I'm reasonably fluent in Spanish.  Wanna see some red faces when they realize I probably 
understood what they were saying?)

Second issue...
Advocacy groups.  I was particularly irked by the slogan of some recent "immigrant rights protests" in this area.  "Si se puede."  Yes we can.  As in, "yes we can stay.  Yes, we can work without visas.  Yes, we can demand the rights and protections of the law while blatantly violating by our mere presence.  Yes, we can speak Spanish and refuse to learn English.  And we'll do this all while marching behind the flag of our native country."  I personally think that a lot of these advocacy groups foster more dislike and more disagreement than they help.  I can't stand most of them.  (It's interesting... other groups were fighting just as hard... but providing language classes and helping their clients become competent in US culture.)  I just don't get the entitlement idea that so many of these immigrants, legal or illegal, in the US or abroad (recall the riots in France recently?  And I know there are problems in England, too.) seem to have.  They come into another country, and expect to be able to still do things their way, while gaining all the protections of the new place...

Side issue...
Language as heritage.  I don't have (and, actually I encourage!) preserving a language within the family as part of cultural heritage.  But that's not the same as refusing to learn the new language.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> This is just a part of the wedge issue that doesn't like brown people.


Bullhockey.

The US is a nation of immigrants.  Hell, there are plenty of brown people who are native citizens.  Sure, most people and cultures have a touch of xenophobia... but that's a far cry from the expecting that people be functionally able to communicate in the dominant language of the nation and culture in which they're living.  Sure, tourist areas do cater to visitors, if they're smart.  But, I'd be a moron to go to Japan to live, and expect them to cater to me since I don't speak Japanese.  I'd be an idiot to go to France, and expect the government to adapt to me.  If I'm trying to live in another culture, I should try to acquire enough basics in the language to function; I'm not suggesting true fluency, but I should be able to get the idea of what's going on.  And the more I want to function and move in the society, the more of the language I'll need.

Please, explain to me just how exactly I'm discriminating against someone if I dare to expect them to speak the language that I use, and that is the dominant language in the culture and nation.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> This is just a part of the wedge issue that doesn't like brown people.



My wife is a 'brown people'. My kids are half 'brown people'.  I think the borders should be open to whomever wants to come here.  I think the borders should be manned by civil servants handing out social security account numbers to anyone coming in, not armed guards to try to keep the out.  But a spanish-english dictionary would be a good idea as well


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> This is just a part of the wedge issue that doesn't like brown people.



Just gotta play that card, huh?


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 15, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> If I'm trying to live in another culture, I should try to acquire enough basics in the language to function;




Exactly!  It is called assimilate into the primary culture and society of the region!


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 15, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> (FYI... CDL holders are, by law, supposed to be  reasonably fluent in English.  If they aren't, cops can get the CDL revoked.)



FYI, same for a pilot's license.  Must be able to read and speak English.


----------



## MJS (Dec 15, 2007)

IMHO, I think that you should be required and able to speak the language in the country that you're living in.  Now, if I took a vacation to France, I don't speak the language, and although I'd be there for a short time, at the least, I'd attempt to get some basics, even if it was from a book or tape.  However, I'm not going to learn the full language, if I'm not planning on living there.

I work with a guy whos parents are from Poland.  Sure, they all speak Polish, but they know English as well.  I know many people who are from other countries, that now live here, and speak English.  Nothing says they can't speak their native language, but again, when you move out of that country, you should learn the new language.  Personally, I see no discrimination in that.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 15, 2007)

I never understood people not trying to learn english and integrate.  If you go to all the trouble to get to the US, one think you would go the extra couple of steps and learn the language right.  It's kind of a self centered world view where you show up somewhere and local custom and language has to conform to you not you to it.  I've lived in 4 countries in my lifetime and in all cases if the language was not english I went to the trouble of learning it even though I knew I would not be there for more than a year or so.

I remember once in high school there was a girl whho told me she was going for her drivers license exam over in NJ, I asked her why since we live in NY.  She told me that it's because over there they had the written part of the exam in her native Russian.  My question is, after you've passed the written test in Russian, do the roadsigns magically change for you so you can see them in Russian?


----------



## bydand (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> This is just a part of the wedge issue that doesn't like brown people.



Nope, try again.  

I have counted as my best friend for almost 40 years someone who *you *would label a brown person.  He is not, he is as close as a brother without sharing the same genes.  I call his parents, Ma and pop and have for 40 years (I don't even call my in-laws that.)   To me there are really no color issues, just people issues.  I don't give a flip if it is a  tall, buxom, blond haired, blue eyed beauty from Holland.  If she wants to live here, please learn the language.  Please follow legal immigration procedures to live here as well.   They followed the proper procedures and learned the language before they applied for citizenship.  What was good for them, and the millions who have come before (Including all of my ancestors who made the trip to the US for a better life from Ireland, Scotland, and the Netherlands.)  They arrived legally and we all speak english (Ooops, sorry Tez, we speak American,) not their native tongues. That is not driving a wedge,.  If the ones who do not want to live within our society can't live with that; well then, it is time they go back to the country they still feel attached to and call home.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> This is just a part of the wedge issue that doesn't like brown people.


BULL. This has nothing to do with what people look like. My sister's ex-husband came here, legally, from Colombia, and when he came, he came speaking and reading English. Not thirty miles from me is a little town with a large number of Russian immigrants, while the vast majority of them DO speak English, they aren't brown people are they. Your insistence this is about race shows you for the racist you are.


----------



## kuntawguro (Dec 15, 2007)

If an American goes to Singapore and spits on the sidewalk- ($500 fine) or chews chewing gum (15  lashes with a cane)  they cannot expect to  be immune from the laws/ customs/ and ideosycncrities of the country they vist. So, if a person wants to come here from planet Melmac and will expect to have intercourse on any table they come accross because that's how it is done on Melmac-  they are mistaken. Come to america
 do as americans do. If you want to practice your beliefs in private- fine. If you want to have sex on "Your" household tables- fine. But don't expect me to ignore you when you try to do it when visiting MY house.
 Sheesh


 Immigrants are  legal assimilations into our society- illegal immigrants  decide to by pass the law- that is why they are illegal! Don't expect me to say- well, that's ok!


----------



## Kacey (Dec 15, 2007)

I have a friend who  was born in this country and is Orthodox Jewish, and it is important to her that her children speak Hebrew - which they do, fluently.  The entire family is completely bilingual in English and Hebrew - because it was important to the parents, and they taught their children Hebrew at home, sent them to additional schooling to ensure they were literate as well as able to converse - all while they were speaking English interchangeably with Hebrew at home and within the Jewish Orthodox community in which they live, and solely English when in the company of those who did not speak Hebrew (me, for example; I went to Hebrew school as a child, but it was limited to the liturgical Hebrew needed for my Bat Mitzvah).

I have several students at school whose parents are immigrants, from countries all over the world.  They are all learning English as quickly as they can; those who were already literate in their native language generally have an advantage learning to read once they have a certain level of conversational fluency, but they all want to learn - and their parents are right there with them, learning as much as they can, if often not as quickly as their children, who are immersed in English all day at school - along with the fact that all other things being equal, children (the younger the better) generally learn languages more easily than adults.

I have several students at school whose parents - and grandparents - were born in the US, into Hispanic communities.  The parents and grandparents speak little, if any, English, and the children resent being told that they must learn English - especially written English - to succeed in school.  They don't speak English at home; they don't speak English in the community - in fact, several have told me over the years that their families go out of their way to _not_ speak English if they can possible avoid it, even when it causes them problems.  They go out of their way to bring interpreters even when they _do_ speak fluent English, to prove that they have the _right_ to speak Spanish, even when it makes the situation more difficult... and they tend to get really angry at teachers who _do_ speak Spanish, and call their children on rude comments made in Spanish - because they should only get in trouble if the comment is in English; that's why they taught their kids to make their rude comments in Spanish in the first place.  In addition, the parents who are least interested in learning English are generally the ones who are the least literate in Spanish as well - leaving their children at a disadvantage when learning English when compared to children whose parents read to them in _any language_ from a young age.

As I said before, this is a societal problem that needs to be dealt with at a societal level - and it is, IMHO, tied into the issue of illegal immigration, if only because such a large percentage of the illegal immigrant population is Hispanic and native Spanish speakers, making that the most visible concern.  But I also think that lumping everything into 


> Originally Posted by *michaeledward*
> 
> 
> _This is just a part of the wedge issue that doesn't like brown people._


shows a distinct lack of both understanding of the issues and the multiple cultures involved... something that occurs all too frequently of late, as does the other side, the claim of persecution based solely on cultural background.  Yes, the issue exists strongly within certain cultures that claim they want to preserve their identity, but it can be done - but I also think it is due to a lack of acceptance from the larger community; it is easier to covertly accept the lower tax-free wages that illegal immigrants work for while declaiming their presence than to pay for the higher wages of legal immigrants or citizens born in the country, much less pay the higher cost necessary to actually deal with the problem in the first place.  Too many people base their opinion on themselves on being better than someone else - and illegal immigrants or other low-socioeconomic minority groups are often who they compare themselves to... but that's a whole other discussion.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 15, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Just gotta play that card, huh?


 

Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## dart68 (Dec 15, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Are you sure you speak English? :rofl:


 
Actually, I think we speak *americanese*.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Just gotta play that card, huh?


 
Seems to me the original poster is 'playing that card'. This is a minor lawsuit that should be thrown out of court. Why is a Pennsylvania lawsuit even known to someone in Sanger California, if it wasn't the 'that card'? 

And, when I worked in a small business, we lived by the maxim, 'The Customer is Always Right'. And the dollar was the language of business. 

But everybody can keep right on demonstrating how THEY are not possibly prejudiced against 'The Other'. Was it Shakespear who said, "methinks the lady doth protest too much". 

I once travelled through Quebec province. You know, it is damn awkward to not speak the native language. Fortuneately, nobody in Canada attempted to have me drawn and quartered for speaking in my native tongue.


----------



## kuntawguro (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Seems to me the original poster is 'playing that card'. This is a minor lawsuit that should be thrown out of court. Why is a Pennsylvania lawsuit even known to someone in Sanger California, if it wasn't the 'that card'?
> 
> And, when I worked in a small business, we lived by the maxim, 'The Customer is Always Right'. And the dollar was the language of business.
> 
> ...


Then you weren't in Quebec- They  refuse to serve you if you do not speak French! I was married to a Canadian and even the  non  french speaking  ontario people get the shaft when in Quebec.


----------



## MJS (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Seems to me the original poster is 'playing that card'. This is a minor lawsuit that should be thrown out of court. Why is a Pennsylvania lawsuit even known to someone in Sanger California, if it wasn't the 'that card'?
> 
> And, when I worked in a small business, we lived by the maxim, 'The Customer is Always Right'. And the dollar was the language of business.
> 
> ...


 
Well, if I gave the impression that I'm prejudice, thats simply not the case.  I don't see how asking someone to learn the language in the country that they're now residing in, is asking too much.

Let me give you an example of why I think its important to know the language.  I believe I've mentioned to you that I work as a dispatcher for a PD.  I've taken many 911 calls from frantic people who did not speak English.  I have to put this person on hold, and call a number for a translation service.  I have to give the person some information and then tell them what language I need.  They then connect me with a person who speaks the language.  I then connect the other person and together, try to figure out what the problem is.  

This task is not as easy as it sounds.  There have been many times when the person originally calling hangs up.  Now, I have no idea as to what the emergency is, and which service to send.  The house could be burning down, someone could be having a medical issue, or there could be a disturbance.  I'm sending services in blind, because I can't give them any info, because the original caller cant speak English.  I have to go with limited information, and hope that I'm doing the right thing.

Then, there have been times when the only person that speaks English is a child.  Now, I have to go thru a child to translate to their parent and hope that the child is understanding me.  Fortunately, more times than not, things have worked out.  

So, basically Mike, that is why I feel that its important to know the language.


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> But everybody can keep right on demonstrating how THEY are not possibly prejudiced against 'The Other'. Was it Shakespear who said, "methinks the lady doth protest too much".




_* Everyone is prejudiced*_ to some degree, including those that protest too.   It is only natural!  

However, that wasn't the point of this thread!


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 15, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> _* Everyone is prejudiced*_ to some degree, including those that protest too. It is only natural!
> 
> However, that wasn't the point of this thread!


But it will quickly become the issue with little effort if allowed to.  Very few debates in this country get very far before terms like racist, prejudiced, x-phobic get tossed around.  We're so afraid of being labeled something negative that we're not that we'll knuckle under, bow our head and drop the argument.

I drive for a living and can't count the number of warning signs, info signs and others that don't have a picture to go with them that are in english only.  How do you safely operate a vehicle in this country without knowing the language?  I couldn't do it in Italy or Russia or Japan.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Seems to me the original poster is 'playing that card'. This is a minor lawsuit that should be thrown out of court. Why is a Pennsylvania lawsuit even known to someone in Sanger California, if it wasn't the 'that card'?
> 
> And, when I worked in a small business, we lived by the maxim, 'The Customer is Always Right'. And the dollar was the language of business.
> 
> ...


 
Except that the customer isn't always right, and very few businesses that don't understand that -- and know how to convey effectively, not offensively, when the customer is wrong will stay in business long.

But, I suspect, as seems to be your common tendency, you simply tried to rile people up.  What's it matter why the OP knew about it; maybe he's got a small business, and this issue was circulated as a warning to them.  Maybe he knows one of the parties.  Or maybe he's just interested in the topic.

Maybe you think there's something wrong with my thinking that there's a problem when I have to speak a different language to deal with and help the people living in my community -- or when there are days that go by where I almost don't speak my native language IN MY NATIVE COUNTRY.



Kacey said:


> I have several students at school whose parents are immigrants, from countries all over the world. They are all learning English as quickly as they can; those who were already literate in their native language generally have an advantage learning to read once they have a certain level of conversational fluency, but they all want to learn - and their parents are right there with them, learning as much as they can, if often not as quickly as their children, who are immersed in English all day at school - along with the fact that all other things being equal, children (the younger the better) generally learn languages more easily than adults.
> 
> I have several students at school whose parents - and grandparents - were born in the US, into Hispanic communities. The parents and grandparents speak little, if any, English, and the children resent being told that they must learn English - especially written English - to succeed in school. They don't speak English at home; they don't speak English in the community - in fact, several have told me over the years that their families go out of their way to _not_ speak English if they can possible avoid it, even when it causes them problems. They go out of their way to bring interpreters even when they _do_ speak fluent English, to prove that they have the _right_ to speak Spanish, even when it makes the situation more difficult... and they tend to get really angry at teachers who _do_ speak Spanish, and call their children on rude comments made in Spanish - because they should only get in trouble if the comment is in English; that's why they taught their kids to make their rude comments in Spanish in the first place. In addition, the parents who are least interested in learning English are generally the ones who are the least literate in Spanish as well - leaving their children at a disadvantage when learning English when compared to children whose parents read to them in _any language_ from a young age.


 
It constantly amazes me that people would rely on their children to communicate and translate for them.  I once ticketed an Asian woman for disregarding a highway sign ($30 fine); her friend was translating for her at court.  Well, I happened to write two tickets that month to Asians with the surname "Lee" (or whatever it was).  She comes up, her friend "translates" what the judge says, and her answers.  She pleads guilty.  To speeding, with a fine of around $150.  I know (though I can't prove) her friend simply said "plead guilty" to her.  Fortunately, for her, I guess when she went to pay, the error was caught.  And I was still close enough to the courthouse to come in and have the right hearing.

I deal with lots of Hispanics, because I do speak Spanish, passably if not fluently.  I get a laugh when they try to play the "no habla" game...  until I speak Spanish.  Then they answer my questions (asked in Spanish) in English!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 15, 2007)

One thing that makes this country great is that we don't ask people to leave their cultural heritage behind.  We have our Chintowns and Little Italys and what not.   But we ask people to bring their culture into our own to make it a part of the larger culture they are now a part of.  We do not force people to speak english in their cultural niches, yet we do expect them, when dealing with the culture at large, to be a part of the culture at large.  Our language becomes on of those intersection points where those of us of Mexican or Chinese or Irish or French or Russian or Korean decent become Americans with each other


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 15, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> One thing that makes this country great is that we don't ask people to leave their cultural heritage behind.  We have our Chintowns and Little Italys and what not.   But we ask people to bring their culture into our own to make it a part of the larger culture they are now a part of.  We do not force people to speak english in their cultural niches, yet we do expect them, when dealing with the culture at large, to be a part of the culture at large.  Our language becomes on of those intersection points where those of us of Mexican or Chinese or Irish or French or Russian or Korean decent become Americans with each other



They didn't assimilate.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> But, I suspect, as seems to be your common tendency, you simply tried to rile people up.


 
Well, that is just about the most insulting thing you could say. 

That an opinion strongly held could be different from yours is so outside your comprehension that you claim it is only to 'rile people up'. 

Heil! Heil! Heil! 

Strength through Purity, Purity Through Faith


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 15, 2007)

_Well, that is just about the most insulting thing you could say_

Don't call people racist and then feign offense when they call you a trouble maker


----------



## MJS (Dec 15, 2007)

Guys, this is obviously a hot topic.  Lets try to keep things civil, and continue on with a good discussion.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Seems to me the original poster is 'playing that card'. This is a minor lawsuit that should be thrown out of court. Why is a Pennsylvania lawsuit even known to someone in Sanger California, if it wasn't the 'that card'?


*
Projection*:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Projection
*11.**Psychology.* *a.**the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.*How do I know of a minor lawsuit in Pennsylvania? The same way I know of damn near every weird news story I see; I'm an internet junkie, a weird news junkie. That is how I know. Why is it of interest to me? Gee, I don't know, why are big chested,long haired brunettes of interest to me? Does THAT make me a racist too? 

People like Michael Edward, call them liberals call them socialists, cannot stand to be wrong, and when they are wrong on an issue, must project some nefarious reason; i.e., racism, sexism, bigotry, etc, to deflect the aura of wrong onto their opponents.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Well, that is just about the most insulting thing you could say.
> 
> That an opinion strongly held could be different from yours is so outside your comprehension that you claim it is only to 'rile people up'.
> 
> ...


And comparing me to Hitler is not insulting?

You threw one line out, insinuating that racist views were the only reason a person might have been aware of the case that prompted this thread or posted on it.  You tarred everyone with that brush of racism if they felt that if someone is living here in the USA, you should try to acquire a functional knowledge of English.

I offered several rational reasons, other than racism, why someone might be aware of the case.  Nor have I ever suggested you don't have the right to disagree with me.  You're absolutely entitled to disagree; hell, it'd be a boring world if everyone thought like me.  I take that back... it wouldn't be boring.  It'd be downright scary.

How about offering some input to this thread, instead of accusations?  How is it a good thing for people to refuse to learn the language of the culture where they live?  How is it beneficial for them to be unable to read the street signs?  Why should the government have to provide many different translations of all it's paperwork for people who expect services, but won't learn the language?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jks9199*
> 
> 
> _But, I suspect, as seems to be your common tendency, you simply tried to rile people up._





michaeledward said:


> Well, that is just about the most insulting thing you could say.
> 
> 
> > It is also absolutely on target from what I have seen of your behavior here.
> ...


 Uh, Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law 


> Strength through Purity, Purity Through Faith


Accusing people of racism and now, apparently some kind of religious bigotry too? For the record, language has nothing whatsoever to do with race. I may be a big white guy, but, I don't speak German, Flemish, or Russian. My little sister is a tiny blond but, she does speak Spanish, because she chooses to. 
The  people who limit any discussion of English in the US as applying only to Hispanics are the ignorant bigots who think the ONLY reason anyone opposes Illegal  Immigration is a hatred of Mexicans. Mostly, these bigots are known as democrats.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 15, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## RED (Dec 15, 2007)

Guys back off the Japan thing. I lived there for a while. And yes you can get around the country without speaking a word of Japanese, and the Japanese do go out of thier way to cater to your needs, generally speaking. I did run into a few people who refused to talk to me because I'm obviously American, but they where older. This probably has a lot to do with America occuping the country after WWII. You can even drive because the road signs are in Kangi and english. In England I ran into a french waitor that gave me a rough time because of my Red hair. I wish I thought of the "Gingerism" card, I'm sure Pizza Hut would have settled quickly for a lot of Money. 

My In-laws family immagrated here in the '30s. Their English was poor, but they refused to speak Italian because they worked very hard to become Americans and sacrificed a lot. Even through WWII. These are the people who when asked what their nationality is their respondes are "Americans". They never thought of coming to America as an easy thing. I would like to be able to ask what Mr. _*Vento*_ what his Nationality is? This guy seems to be everything the left hates. Successful, self made American.

Or simply remove the sign and everytime he can't understand what is being ordered put salt and pepper on the chees cake. (just kidding)

I work with a bunch of people from Africa. They work hard, they speak the language very well. Many are here going to school to better themselves. They get frustrated when I ask them to repeat theirselves for the 5th time but they have yet to tell me to learn their language. Why isn't the civil rights groups casing me around? ...I don't have any money for them to steal in a law suite. Like Mr. Vento.

If you want to find the real motive behind the lefts missions follow the money.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

To elaborate a little:
Speak all the languages you want, speak two, speak 6, speak 9. I'll applaud that, I'll envy you that. But, if you are going to be a part of American society, you need to speak English.
Like I said before, Congress doesn't conduct it's business in Farsi, or Italian, or Flemish. Likewise, if James Vento wants to conduct his business in English, because ALL of his employees and 82% of the population speaks English he should not be penalized because there are whiners who CHOOSE not to speak English.

Like I said, my sister's ex-husband was Columbian. I asked him how hard it was for him to learn English, he said English was very hard to learn (he also speaks Portuguese and Italian) What made it hardest was our American tendency to use slang constantly.
Why did he learn to speak and read four languages? Because it benefited him to do so. He is now an RN and where he works, RN's who speak two languages are paid more than those who speak one. His speaking four adds considerably to the not insignificant pay he gets already.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> _Well, that is just about the most insulting thing you could say_
> 
> Don't call people racist and then feign offense when they call you a trouble maker


 
I don't believe I called anyone who posts on this board a racist. Perhaps you could find I did, and point that out to me. 

I said that this issue ... the lawsuit and its propagation on Bill O'Reilly and Michael Smirconishs' radio programs, ... is being using as tool to separate "The Other". 

The accusation I did make, is that some people are willing to blindly accept what bile is fed to them through Oceania's Ministry of Truth; just as was done in 1930's Germany, or more recently in fiction in the movie 'V for Vendetta'. 

Should the resturant owner be exempt from local laws? 

And, really, people, we are talking about ordering lunch. We are not talking about prescription medication, police reports, or legal documents. This lawsuit is about ~ literally ~ a ham sandwich; (with provolone (is that English?))


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't believe I called anyone who posts on this board a racist. Perhaps you could find I did, and point that out to me.


No, you implied I was a racist, because you lacked the courage to make the accusation like a man. 





> I said that this issue ... the lawsuit and its propagation on Bill O'Reilly and Michael Smirconishs' radio programs, ... is being using as tool to separate "The Other".


 Encouraging people to assimilate is a tool for separating them? How does that work?





> The accusation I did make, is that some people are willing to blindly accept what bile is fed to them through Oceania's Ministry of Truth; just as was done in 1930's Germany, or more recently in fiction in the movie 'V for Vendetta'.


What the hell? Please put that in a form people without cranial rectal inversion can read 





> Should the resturant owner be exempt from local laws?


 Should local laws preempt a restaurant owner's right to free speech?





> And, really, people, we are talking about ordering lunch. We are not talking about prescription medication, police reports, or legal documents. This lawsuit is about ~ literally ~ a ham sandwich; (with provolone (is that English?))


Do you feel a need to be wrong about everything?
It's a steak sandwich, hence, Geno's Steaks.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't believe I called anyone who posts on this board a racist. Perhaps you could find I did, and point that out to me.
> 
> I said that this issue ... the lawsuit and its propagation on Bill O'Reilly and Michael Smirconishs' radio programs, ... is being using as tool to separate "The Other".
> 
> ...


So, let me see if I've got this straight.

Because I, in my personal experience involving many high stress contacts with people of a variety of language backgrounds, as well as my routine day to day contacts with many of those same people, find it rather frustrating that I have had to use a foreign language to communicate with people in my home nation and community, and because I felt that it was stupidthat a complaint alleging that a business owner who posted a sign that English use was the preference in his business (which you too agreed really had no merit) actually went forward, and I guess because I disagree with you...  You've decided that I've blindly accepted whatever is being fed through the media?

Please, what local law did the business owner violate?  He's accused of violating an anti-discrimination code, but this is the first case that I'm aware of where language was an alleged basis for discrimination.  From the scant information here, it's not even clear if he ever actually refused anyone service because they didn't speak English!  We have a college professor (here is her bio at the school) alleging that a sign, again apparently without any evidence of actual implementation and definitely without the support of laws, is the same as the Jim Crow laws!  That's almost as much a reach as your implications that those of us who feel that if you're here -- you should make reasonable efforts to learn English are being manipulated by Bill O'Reilly or anyone else, and are blindly accepting whatever is being sent down the media (which does tend to have a rather more liberal bias, in my experience, and certainly doesn't fear to challenge press releases and statements rom the federal or state government, especially under the current Presidential administration).

The issue at hand, reading the original post, is this: 





> Here's the thing, no thinking person gives a damn if you speak Swahili, Urdu, Farsi, or Pig Latin in your home or among your friends. However, if you choose to do business in this country, even as only a consumer, you should speak and read English fluently. Because that is what we do here.



And I'll stand by all my statements here; I don't understand why anyone chooses (and I most definitely *have* encountered people who made deliberate choices NOT to learn English or encourage their kids to learn English) not to learn enough English to function.  I think it's perfectly reasonable for any business to expect that customers would be able to deal with them in English, not have to provide a translator.

Is that really such a bizarre expectation?


----------



## Kacey (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't believe I called anyone who posts on this board a racist. Perhaps you could find I did, and point that out to me.
> 
> I said that this issue ... the lawsuit and its propagation on Bill O'Reilly and Michael Smirconishs' radio programs, ... is being using as tool to separate "The Other".
> 
> ...



So... I can sue the owner of the Chipotle I ate at recently where _none _of the staff taking orders spoke English?  After all, I don't speak Spanish - and the only reason I spoke to the owner was to complain that my order - given in English - was completed incorrectly because the employee _could not understand me_.  

The owner's answer to my complaint:  I should learn to speak Spanish, because the only applications he had for positions in his Mexican-themed restaurant were from people who don't speak English, so he had to hire what he could get - and the customers should learn enough Spanish to order from them; he was trying to get them to learn English but they stated clearly that they *saw no reason to learn English*, so the best he could offer was a list of Spanish translations of menu items - and no, he did not see any reason to refund or replace my incorrectly-prepared meal.

You may rest assured that I will not be returning to that particular establishment - not because I'm racist, but because I see no reason to frequent a restaurant where my order is filled incorrectly because the employees do not understand me when I am speaking the dominant language of the country, and where the owner sees that as a problem on my part rather than on his staff's abilities.

And as you type your response, please remember that this is _exactly_ the same situation, simply from the other side.  As far your statement that "We are not talking about prescription medication, police reports, or legal documents." - well, perhaps we should be.  The attitude demonstrated by my recent experience - that there is no reason to learn English simply because one lives in an English-speaking country - leads to serious problems, such as patients who neither speak nor read English, who overdose on medication which should be taken once daily, because they confuse the English word "once" (meaning "one time") with the Spanish word "once" (meaning 11).  But hey... it's a simple mistake, just like the error in my meal.  Sadly, the consequences of such simple mistakes can be deadly... and that includes mistakes in food preparation; I know far too many people who are deathly allergic to edible items commonly sold in restaurants, including a child who died of an allergic reaction to butter (violent allergy to milk products) - his mother ordered his oatmeal without butter, but the employee misheard or misunderstood (never got a straight answer on that one, even when it went to court) and served the boy oatmeal from a prepared pot that included butter... but hey, it was just a meal, nothing important.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2007)

Kacey, you can sue anyone you wish. That's the way it works in our country. The guy who owns the resturant, he can be a jerk if he wants to. But legally, he is accused of violating Philadelphia's Fair Practices Ordinance. Did he violate the city rules ... who knows. 

The fact is ... these types of disagreements ARE settled in the courts in this country. The process is working exactly as it is designed to work. 

But, if people can use this silly little, local dispute, to put a bad spin on 'those people' ~ in this case, 'those people' are assumed to be non-English speaking  ~ the unspoken accusation, the code words, the dog whistles are that those who won't or can't place their orders in English are "Illegal", "Crimaliens". 

This issue is getting traction because people want to use it as a wedge issue. The way societies have always separated 'us' from 'them'. It is an ugly, ugly issue. It is a very sad behavior, and it speaks poorly about our country.

And, maybe it is not just an 'us' and 'them' wedge, but it is also the carnival barker trying to distract us from those things that are much more serious; such as our health care, the value of the dollar, and the world market's decision to move away from the dollar and toward the Euro. 

Bread and Circuses.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 15, 2007)

Ah, I see you totally missed my point... but then, you appear to be interested only in the point you wish to make; no one else's opinion appears to matter to you.

I have no desire to sue anyone; I was attempting to point out that the issue goes both ways... and I find the sue-happy nature of many people in this country to be repugnant - I would much rather earn my money honestly.

I notice that you did not respond to the parts of my statement that addressed yours directly:  the concerns with errors in medication, and the death a child, both due to language problems.  Or perhaps you don't have an answer, and that's why you did not respond to those portions... well, you wouldn't be the only person who doesn't have an answer for those issues - both of which are part and parcel of a larger issue, which includes the one which started this thread, the issue of whether or not people living in this country should learn to speak English.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

http://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/us-citizenship-application-form/#specificReq


> Additional Requirements:
> 
> 1. Demonstrating that you have good moral character;
> 2. Demonstrating knowledge of U.S, government and history (civics);
> ...


Forgetting for the moment that you, Michael Edward, are the only one to bring up illegal immigrants in this discussion, One of the requirements for a foreign national to become a citizen, is as you can see above "An ability to read, write, and speak English" Why is that included? Perhaps because even most fools can see (Obviously at least one cannot) that when everyone can understand each other it is easier for everyone to get along.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 15, 2007)

Let me add what I feel to be an important point to this topic.  A point which was CONVENIENTLY left out of the news report (not the fault of the OP at all), this is a major contextual issue that everyone seems to fail to see.

Geno's Steaks and Pat's King of Steaks are directly across the street from each other (actually, across the point, as the two are at an intersection of diagonal streets).  They are generally accepted to be the "Home" and "Birthplace" of Philly Cheese steaks.  They are both open 24 hours a day and trust me....I've been there at ALL hours.  The lines go around the block at most times.  Both of these businesses base their cash flow on customers ordering quickly and moving out of the way.  They are literally the ORIGINAL soup nazis.  In fact, they both have rules posted on HOW to order.  They specifically state that you will have you MONEY READY, know your order, and state it in a specific order and way.  Pat's used to have the rules on their website, but the site is down for construction.  Geno's still has it as a blurb at the bottom.  http://www.genosteaks.com/about.html
I have PERSONALLY been refused service because I didn't follow the rules.  I was of course intoxicated at the time and was sent to the end of the line.  That's just how it is there.  If you don't like it, don't go there, they've been doing it that way for years.

SO, this sign was up there (I've seen the sign) to facilitate FAST ordering.  To get people in and out and keep the line moving.  What the site says is true....no sooner is your money taken than your order is being put out the next window....it is BY FAR the fastest and most efficent service I have EVER had.  BUT, both places have not built their reputations on customer service or being nice.  The workers are short, abrupt, and sometimes mean.  They don't want small talk, they don't want anything that takes more time than "Provoline, with" and that is LITERALLY an order for a regular cheese steaks with provolone cheese and onions.  If you want fries, you tell them at the next window.  Drink, same thing.

So personally.......I think that the whole thing is being WAY blown out of proportion (in the case cited), the sign was there because that is how the place does business!

Now.....that was a bit off topic, because I do still think that the topic at hand is very important.  I do believe that people in this country should learn the language.

I have traveled extensively to many foreign countries.  Luckily, most of the countries I've been to have spoken basic english, because it is taught in all of their schools.  But let me tell you - you have never seen such delight on an OLD Korean's face as when you make the attempt to speak to them in their own language.  They truly appreciate it.

American's simply expect and demand it.  Of course, other countries are totally different situations....Korea, Germany, Kuwait, etc aren't the melting pot that this country is.  The majority of the population is native speakers.  But if you don't speak the language and they don't speak english, you're SOL and they really don't have a lot of sympathy!  America is made up of different cultures.  Most of which have LEARNED the language, just as my great great great grandparents did and probably most of yours.


----------



## MJS (Dec 16, 2007)

Kacey said:


> The owner's answer to my complaint: I should learn to speak Spanish, because the only applications he had for positions in his Mexican-themed restaurant were from people who don't speak English, so he had to hire what he could get - and the customers should learn enough Spanish to order from them; he was trying to get them to learn English but they stated clearly that they *saw no reason to learn English*, so the best he could offer was a list of Spanish translations of menu items - and no, he did not see any reason to refund or replace my incorrectly-prepared meal.


 
And my asnwer to him would have been, "Well, regardless of that fact, this is a Mexican restaurant in America, so perhaps the workers should learn enough English to communicate with non-Spansih speaking customers.!"  Then I would have gotten up, and left!  Sorry, if I am supposed to learn enough Spanish, they can learn enough English.

Now, had I been dining in Mexico, sure, I could justify the situation you mention.  As I said in an earlier post, if I were to visit a foreign country, I'd do my best to learn some basics.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 16, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS - SECOND AND FINAL WARNING

Keep the conversation polite and respectful, stick to debating the topic without personal attacks. See posting rules, particularly no "Flaming". Disregard for posting rules and/or mod warnings could result in the issuance of infraction cards. 

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator *


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 16, 2007)

> This is just a part of the wedge issue that doesn't like brown people


 
I actually view this in the exact opposite.  I feel that those who wish all people LIVING (as opposed to someone on vacation) in this country want them to be able to succeed on their own.  If they are taught spanish in schools so "they can learn" and then give them a high school diploma have we helped them to succeed?  NO, we haven't the job of school is to educate and prepare people to go out on their own and get a job or if they chose to get more education for a job.

If you allow them to never learn english they will always be relagated to "second class" citizenship and jobs.  This is not an issue of them not being hard working or intelligent, do you think a fortune 500 company is going to hire them if they can't communicate in english to their fellow coworkers or employees? NOPE, not gonna happen!

There is a push for all things in the US being bi-lingual.  Why?  Again, you are actually seperating them from the vast majority of the country and making it so they HAVE to rely on the government to help them out.  

My Great-grandfather came over from Greece and married a German woman.  Our family was disowned because greeks are so ethnocentric and could not believe he didn't marrry a pure blood greek woman.  He came to his country because he wanted to come to a better place and had a rule that "We are Americans now, we will speak english and learn to be american".  He did not allow greek to be spoken outside of the home and learned the language.  

If I moved to another country, I would learn the language.  I wouldn't expect them to learn mine just so I could feel more at home.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I notice that you did not respond to the parts of my statement that addressed yours directly: the concerns with errors in medication, and the death a child, both due to language problems. Or perhaps you don't have an answer, and that's why you did not respond to those portions... well, you wouldn't be the only person who doesn't have an answer for those issues - both of which are part and parcel of a larger issue, which includes the one which started this thread, the issue of whether or not people living in this country should learn to speak English.


 
Kacey, I do not believe that medicine and emergency services are "part and parcel of a larger issue" ... And I don't really see a need, in this instance, to expand from the issue at hand. In fact, doing so, I think is counter productive to the point I wish to make. 

This is a silly little lawsuit. It should be receive zero attention from everyone. 

If, as MBuzzy indicates, Geno's Steak House is a tourist attraction ~ if it is renouned as the "original Soup Nazi's", then maybe visitors to the City of Brotherly Love (where they only love those who speak English, apparently) would want to visit. But, I guess we don't like visitors from other countries any more. I guess the reputation we have earned, most recently from Canada, that we are not a "safe" country to visit has merit. 

The United States of America does not have an official language; regardless of the requirements for Naturalized citizens. There are no laws dictating that we are a nation that speaks English. Does this create problems, sure. But, this lawsuit is not one of those problems. 

To me, this lawsuit, and the oxygen it is sucking out of the national media, is like the marriage amendments during the last election cycle. It is designed to scare people into action; "Every body be afraid of people who don't speak English". This lawsuit is silly, and petty. And I believe there are much bigger concerns to which we should all be giving our attention.

Now, Kacey, there are laws in our cities, states, and federal agencies that do mandate language concerns; such as courtrooms needing to provide translators to accused persons. The existance of these laws certainly do create burdens on communities. One way to counter those burdens is to establish an official language. But, we haven't done that yet. That can be a part of a reasoned discussion. Attempting to claim this lawsuit is part of that reasonable discussion is ridiculous.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

An interesting discussion! A few things took me aback though, cheese and steak? That and it's true about Britain and American being divided by a common language! someone said they took _offense_ which to me means they are going on the attack as I would have taken _offence,_ to us the two words are different and using one or the other changes the meaning of the sentence.
I live in a tourist area and in the summer we get parties of Americans (why do they travel in packs btw I've noticed this in other countries too) and they have a tendancy to talk loudly and slowly at us as if we cannot understand what they are saying. Oh yes we get the quaint comment a lot lol! That and astonishment the police don't carry guns.
Am I right in thinking that historically parts of America could be thought of as not English speaking? the parts originally populated by French and Spanish people? what is the language of Hawaii? I know us Brits didn't colonise all of the country! 
As for the gingers ( pronounce this to rhyme with ringers! use a hard 'g') I'm afraid England is rather prone to pick on them. Not in Scotland though which is probably why the English pick on gingers!
A few years ago we invited an American fighter onto one of our shows, Skip Hall, lovely guy and his wife Sally. Ever since we have received a lovely letter from her every Christmas and a lot of it we don't understand purely because it's full of terms we don't understand. I don't mean customs etc I mean the use of words that we use to describe one thing and you use to describe something else. for example if something goes a bomb here it's a rousing success, to you it's the opposite! I think we overlook the fact that to us really America is a foreign country every bit as much as China or Japan. That's not an insult btw!
 This is leading to the thought I had that many people have emigrated to America (and the UK) 'unwillingly', they may have had to leave to escape poverty, persecution whatever and still love their original country so are unwilling to let go of their language and customs.
I know the argument is that they are in an English speaking country now and should learn the language but many people regard this as a temporary only (even if it isn't) they long to go back to their 'old' country. This isn't an excuse but a rather tragic reason for many old folks not learning English.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Now, Kacey, there are laws in our cities, states, and federal agencies that do mandate language concerns; such as courtrooms needing to provide translators to accused persons. The existance of these laws certainly do create burdens on communities. One way to counter those burdens is to establish an official language. But, we haven't done that yet. That can be a part of a reasoned discussion. Attempting to claim this lawsuit is part of that reasonable discussion is ridiculous.



You may think it is unreasonable, and on the face of it it may be - but until such time as people make an issue of it - and this lawsuit is doing just that - people will put up with it, because it's not worth the individual effort to most people.  Without such lawsuits - and news stories about the medical and legal concerns - bringing this issue to the forefront so that it is in people's awareness, it will continue to be an issue.  Only when enough people raise the issue, and assert their preferences, will the issue be resolved instead of discussed on the sidelines.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The United States of America does not have an official language; regardless of the requirements for Naturalized citizens. There are no laws dictating that we are a nation that speaks English. Does this create problems, sure. But, this lawsuit is not one of those problems.
> ...
> Now, Kacey, there are laws in our cities, states, and federal agencies that do mandate language concerns; such as courtrooms needing to provide translators to accused persons. The existance of these laws certainly do create burdens on communities. One way to counter those burdens is to establish an official language. But, we haven't done that yet. That can be a part of a reasoned discussion. Attempting to claim this lawsuit is part of that reasonable discussion is ridiculous.



There's quite a difference between providing and requiring certain translation services for court and some other government functions, and filing a discrimination complaint because a restaurant specifies that it's customers order in English.  Even were we to declare a national language (not something I'm actually in favor of), we'd still have to provide many of those translation services in the interest of fundamental fairness.

But is it a really discriminatory for a business to specify the way it accepts orders?  Won't the market likely determine and punish a practice like that if it truly drives customers away?  Isn't the comparison between a single sign and business and the Jim Crow laws quite a stretch?  I looked at the menu for the restaurant; all the English required to make a complete order there would be a total of 15 words (and the ability to count US money, something I find that immigrants - legal or otherwise - learn amazingly quickly), and I bet those words are posted on a menu.  

You say that this particular case is insignificant, yet it's generated 4 or 5 pages on this thread, and counting.  You suggest that it's being used to distract people for real issues...  I disagree.  I think that the issue, put into strong contrast by this case, of assimilation versus what I can only call occupation is a major issue and crisis for our nation.  I grew up being taught about the "American Melting Pot", where immigrants become part of the US culture, but today, that doesn't happen.  Instead, we see immigrants coming here, refusing to become part of our society and refusing to allow their children to assimilate, either.  We no longer have a melting pot, or even a salad bowl...  We're turning into a buffet line, with each immigrant culture remaining untouched by others, unless someone actively seeks to "put that culture on their plate."  I've personally dealt with immigrants (legal and illegal) from several different countries who were shocked that they would be held to obey the same laws and common standards of behavior as native US residents!  Because something is accepted and normal in their culture (whether it's spousal abuse, child abuse, 30 year old men dating 13 year old girls, or just things like only the head of the family being allowed to talk, and more...), they feel it should be OK here.

Language is a key issue; let's just look at the DMV issue.  In some cases, they allow a person to bring their own translator, who is (in theory) reading the questions and answers, and letting the license applicant make the choice.  But... there's NOTHING (or less than nothing) preventing someone from simply telling them which answer to choose.  So, we hope that any deficiencies show up in the "road test", which is not even being done on the road in many cases anymore!   I've personally encountered people who were amazed to learn of basic rules of the road, like yielding to pedestrians, or stopping for emergency vehicles!  Again -- I'm not limiting this to Latinos.  But, you say, this is "only" about ordering a meal in a restaurant.  OK...  How could could a language disconnect be a problem there?  How about a food allergy?  I used to work with a guy who was so sensitive to caffeine that a single cup of coffee would hospitalize him; peanut allergies are another issue.  Kacey's experience at Chipotle is a great example of where this language barrier caused a problem.

Finally, I simply ask again WHY should those of us who were born and raised here, speaking English as the dominant (not exclusive or official) language of commerce and daily business, find ourselves having to defend the idea that people who come here to live and work should acquire basic functional competency in English?  Why should we be compelled to adjust to a newcomer's native language in our own home towns?


----------



## Ray (Dec 16, 2007)

The business of the gov't should be conducted in English.  Ballots, bills, court orders, etc.  No compulsion to translate them into other languages.  Traffic signs should be icons where possible.

People who are charged with a crime in the US who are not fluent in English should have a translator.  If they cannot afford their own, then one should be provided to them.

Businesses should be allowed to conduct their business in any language they so desire.  A french restuarant should be able to keep the language and atmosphere that makes it what it is; as should a mexican or indian resuarant.  The market's reception to those business will help mold the languages that they choose to use.

High school students should have two years of a foreign language.  Hopefully the schools can provide at least a couple of choices.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2007)

Kacey said:


> You may think it is unreasonable, and on the face of it it may be - but until such time as people make an issue of it - and this lawsuit is doing just that - people will put up with it, because it's not worth the individual effort to most people. Without such lawsuits - and news stories about the medical and legal concerns - bringing this issue to the forefront so that it is in people's awareness, it will continue to be an issue. Only when enough people raise the issue, and assert their preferences, will the issue be resolved instead of discussed on the sidelines.


 
Kacey, there was a time, not too long ago, in our country, where the sign might have read 'Whites Only'.  Is that an area where it is reasonable for people to assert their preferences?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Finally, I simply ask again WHY should those of us who were born and raised here, speaking English as the dominant (not exclusive or official) language of commerce and daily business, find ourselves having to defend the idea that people who come here to live and work should acquire basic functional competency in English? Why should we be compelled to adjust to a newcomer's native language in our own home towns?


 
My wife was raised in a French speaking household in the State of New Hampshire in the late 60's and early 70's. Her mother is a natural born citizen to this nation. I am certain there are thousands and thousands of examples of people speaking a variety of languages around our country; and the reasons for why are absolutely irrelevant. It is a fact that it goes on; even with citizens. You can find Catholic Masses around the country in many different languages. One priest friend of mine left the church I was raised in to take a post in a Polish speaking church. 

Nobody is forcing any one to defend compentency in the English language. Geno's Steak House is choosing to make this a point of contention. The lawsuit is silly, but on the other hand, the solution is as close as some windex and a razor blade. 

Personally, I would decide with my dollars. Knowing the owner's position, I would not spend my money at Geno's. Others might prefer to spend their money at Geno's because of his position. I guess the idea of the 'Free Market Place' doesn't quite go so far in this regard, huh?


----------



## Kacey (Dec 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Kacey, there was a time, not too long ago, in our country, where the sign might have read 'Whites Only'.  Is that an area where it is reasonable for people to assert their preferences?



Based on race?  No.  Based on the ability of the customer and business to understand each other?  Yes.  I know too many people - like the boy I described who died because the waitress either misunderstood or placed no importance on the special order, like my aunt who specified "no eggs" and landed in the hospital when it was ignored, like a former student whose mother misread a prescription printed in English (since she only spoke Spanish) and overdosed her child, who ended up with brain damage - who have been injured or died because of language problems - some translation, some understanding, some because people don't pay attention to details.  That is not based on any type of prejudice - it is based on personal experience with the negative outcomes of a variety of language problems, of which not speaking the same language is a significant piece.

You consider requiring a common language to be prejudicial, on the same level as racial discrimination - that's pretty evident, and that's your choice.  My opinion, based on my personal experiences, is different than yours, and that is my choice.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2007)

Although the sign is probably a bit silly, should the business owner have the right to have that sign up?

And that is the real question. This isn't about racism or anything else. It's really about the question of whether or not business owners should be allowed to run their business the way that they want.

Frankly, I am tired of people in this country trying to dictate the behavior of others. People need to worry about themselves. If this owner wants to put up a sign or not, allow smoking in his building or not, require a dress code to shop there or not, or whatever, let him.

And if someone is offended buy the sign, then that person doesn't have to shop there, and can take business elsewhere. 

But nooooo. Instead let's sue him...


----------



## Ray (Dec 16, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Although the sign is probably a bit silly, should the business owner have the right to have that sign up?
> 
> And that is the real question. This isn't about racism or anything else. It's really about the question of whether or not business owners should be allowed to run their business the way that they want.
> 
> ...


I grew up in an area with many spanish speakers.  Many biz's had signs saying "si habla espanol"  "abierto," etc.  Kind of a nice way to let the spanish speakers know that they could communicate with that establishment.  

A sign in English saying "order in english only" is not going to do the non-english reader much good.  Perhaps a sign in the the other languages with significant speakers saying "We speak English only" may have been more beneficial to the potential customers.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2007)

Ray said:


> I grew up in an area with many spanish speakers.  Many biz's had signs saying "si habla espanol"  "abierto," etc.  Kind of a nice way to let the spanish speakers know that they could communicate with that establishment.
> 
> A sign in English saying "order in english only" is not going to do the non-english reader much good.  Perhaps a sign in the the other languages with significant speakers saying "We speak English only" may have been more beneficial to the potential customers.



Right.... which is 1 of the reasons why I think the sign is sort of stupid. But my point is, if the owner wants to have a stupid sign in his window, that really is his right.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Kacey, there was a time, not too long ago, in our country, where the sign might have read 'Whites Only'.  Is that an area where it is reasonable for people to assert their preferences?


Once again, since you missed it the first ten times, Language and Race have NOTHING to do with each other.
I know there is a liberal compulsion to compare absolutely EVERYTHING to the civil rights struggle, but not all things are comparable. The one thing that is the same in this issue and in the civil rights struggle of the 50's and 60's, the liberals are on the wrong side of the issue again.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Again a difference of opinion on the English language, it would be nice if those of you who use the words _liberal _and _socialist_ as insults would bear in mind that to the rest of the word they aren't.
Great Britain along with a fair few other countries in the world is a socialist country and a great many people describe themselves as liberals which doesn't seem to mean the same thing in America as it does outside. Socialism doesn't mean communism to us, that's something different. 

While I understand the arguments I'm afraid race and language have everything to do with each other. Until relatively recently here in the UK the Welsh, Scots,Irish and Cornish were forbidden to speak their own languages in an attempt to make everyone conform to one identity by speaking English. You'll find the same of the Aborigines in Australia. while that may or not be the case in this argument, you cannot separate race and language so easily as to say there is no connection.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> My wife was raised in a French speaking household in the State of New Hampshire in the late 60's and early 70's. Her mother is a natural born citizen to this nation. I am certain there are thousands and thousands of examples of people speaking a variety of languages around our country; and the reasons for why are absolutely irrelevant. It is a fact that it goes on; even with citizens. You can find Catholic Masses around the country in many different languages. One priest friend of mine left the church I was raised in to take a post in a Polish speaking church.


 
Yet, I'd bet your wife is fluent in both English and French, and that much of her daily business growing up, outside the home, was in English.

I've never advocated (in fact, I said the exact opposite) doing away with foreign languages.  I am saying that, first, requiring a customer to order in English is most definitely not discriminatory, and that people who come here to live and work should acquire basic competency in English.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 16, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Yet, I'd bet your wife is fluent in both English and French, and that much of her daily business growing up, outside the home, was in English.
> 
> I've never advocated (in fact, I said the exact opposite) doing away with foreign languages.  I am saying that, first, requiring a customer to order in English is most definitely not discriminatory, and that people who come here to live and work should acquire basic competency in English.


Exactly!

I've never liked the "Melting Pot" analogy, to me, American culture is more like a refinery, keeping the best parts of every culture, and tossing away the dross. Over and over, continuously until the result can be called nothing but, American.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Exactly!
> 
> I've never liked the "Melting Pot" analogy, to me, American culture is more like a refinery, keeping the best parts of every culture, and tossing away the dross. Over and over, continuously until the result can be called nothing but, American.


 
oooh that's a contentious statement! the best being what? and the dross being? I sense a new thread coming on lol!


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> oooh that's a contentious statement! the best being what? and the dross being? I sense a new thread coming on lol!



Well, it's easy to say when you aren't the one expected to "melt" or "refine".  In practice, most Americans don't really believe in the melting pot (or refinery).  We see this in the expat communities overseas.  Not all American expats, but most, construct their existence around their old country identity.  They socialize mostly with other expats.  They mostly drink at expat bars, and so forth.  No doubt, the culture warriors of their host countries wonder why those damn insular Americans only want to hang around their own kind and only speak their own language.

It's a human tendency, to prefer the familiar, and to be lazy and not challenge yourself.  Americans are no better on this score than anyone else.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 16, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> oooh that's a contentious statement! the best being what? and the dross being? I sense a new thread coming on lol!


Now, you wouldn't be instigating anything would you?:wink2:

Tez, I understand your concern for the use of the words "liberal" and "socialist" as adressed in this thread, however, as the thread topic is concerning English (I know, I know) in the US those words should be used as they are in the American vernacular.  I've often had to scratch my head for a moment or two when reading posts from our members in the UK and Australia to figure out particular idiomatic expressions.  It's one of those things that can be fun if taken with an eye to the differences in dialogs of this one umbrella language that we're using.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Right.... which is 1 of the reasons why I think the sign is sort of stupid. But my point is, if the owner wants to have a stupid sign in his window, that really is his right.


 
No doubt, the owner of Geno's feels that he does have such a 'right'. 

A member of the community of Philadelphia, apparently, disagrees. 

Philadelphia has an ordinance (that would be a law) that prohibits discrimination in employment, public accomodation, and housing on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. 

Someone in the community apparently feels that the policy of Mr. Vento is discriminatory in "public accomodation" based on "ethnicity". 

What is the correct venue for this disagreement to be settled?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's my thoughts on this...

When the people insisting that we should accept the fact that we need to speak a language other than the one primarily spoken here realize that this country is made up of people from Europe, Russia, Africa, Asia, Central and South America, and about every other place on the planet... and THEY learn each and every langauge spoken here... well.  Yeah.

If I own a buisness, not speaking Spanish, and I sell... amongst many other things Chicken on a Pita, and a spanish speaking person comes in, and Orders "Pollo en el pan plano", should I be required to know what they ordered?  What if it was someone NOT spanish who ordered "Pollo su pane piano" it sounds similar, but should I understand THAT, even if I know English AND Spanish? What about the next guy who comes in and orders "Huhn auf flachem Brot?"  It's simply not possible for most people to speak that many languages.  

At what point do I as a buisness owner have the right to refuse service?  Because, When I cannot provide the service to you because I dont understand what you request, how CAN I provide you service?

With that in mind, this country is PREDOMINATLEY English speaking... so why is it so wrong then to ask other people to integrate to english, but NOT wrong to insist that an english speaking person learn a non-english language?

Neverminding the fact that in my past, my Heritige is Irish and German, I was born and raised an American, where MY cultural uprining was English.  Why should *I* surrender MY culture, but a Spanish speaking person shouldn't have to surrender theirs?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Philadelphia has an ordinance (that would be a law) that prohibits discrimination in employment, public accomodation, and housing on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
> 
> Someone in the community apparently feels that the policy of Mr. Vento is discriminatory in "public accomodation" based on "ethnicity".
> 
> What is the correct venue for this disagreement to be settled?


 
I challenge that Mr. Vento is being discriminated against for Speaking english.  It should be "Public Accomodation" that people trying to obtain a service from him be able to speak the language of his heritage.  In fact I wonder if every english speaking person should sue every Mexican restaraunt in Philidelphia that lists "Pollo" on their menu instead of "Chicken" because there is no "Public Accomodation" for english speaking people trying to order mexican food... You would support THAT lawsuit as well, right Mike?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 16, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Again a difference of opinion on the English language, it would be nice if those of you who use the words _liberal _and _socialist_ as insults would bear in mind that to the rest of the word they aren't.
> Great Britain along with a fair few other countries in the world is a socialist country and a great many people describe themselves as liberals which doesn't seem to mean the same thing in America as it does outside. Socialism doesn't mean communism to us, that's something different.
> 
> .


 
I'm sorry, Tez, but to us, in the last century which in many ways shaped our country the two big enemies we had were the Nazis ( National *Socialist* Party) and the former Soviet Union (Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics). 

That word will NEVER shed that image to us, sorry.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> If I own a buisness, not speaking Spanish, and I sell... amongst many other things Chicken on a Pita, and a spanish speaking person comes in, and Orders "Pollo en el pan plano", should I be required to know what they ordered?



Only if you want their money.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 16, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Only if you want their money.


 
So it should be my choice then, who I am willing to accept money from?  Doesnt that idea violate Philly's law tho?  And... couldnt your statement go the other way?  They should only NOT be able to order "Chicken on a Pita" if they dont want my product?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 16, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Again a difference of opinion on the English language, it would be nice if those of you who use the words _liberal _and _socialist_ as insults would bear in mind that to the rest of the word they aren't.
> Great Britain along with a fair few other countries in the world is a socialist country and a great many people describe themselves as liberals which doesn't seem to mean the same thing in America as it does outside. Socialism doesn't mean communism to us, that's something different.



Very well put, Tez. I appreciate the way you explained this.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I'm sorry, Tez, but to us, in the last century which in many ways shaped our country the two big enemies we had were the Nazis ( National *Socialist* Party) and the former Soviet Union (Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics).
> 
> That word will NEVER shed that image to us, sorry.



That's just silly.  The Brits fought the same enemy, remember?  Perhaps they have the intelligence to realize that if they got into a war with a Democracy, let's say, that says more about the country at hand than it does Democracy itself.  Same for Socialism (nevermind that the NSDAP was socialist in name only).  What would you ever do if you had to fight a war with some other country named America?  Or if some guy you hated more than anything was named Andy? :idunno:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 16, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> That's just silly. The Brits fought the same enemy, remember? Perhaps they have the intelligence to realize that if they got into a war with a Democracy, let's say, that says more about the country at hand than it does Democracy itself. Same for Socialism (nevermind that the NSDAP was socialist in name only). What would you ever do if you had to fight a war with some other country named America? Or if some guy you hated more than anything was named Andy? :idunno:


 

Tez asked why most of us view the term "socialist" or "liberal" as dirty words. I explained to the best of my ability. That was all. You are off on some whoooooooole other planet.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> So it should be my choice then, who I am willing to accept money from?



Yep.  Personally, green is a universal language to me.  If I'm running a business, I'll communicate in pantomime if I have to to obtain some of that universal green.



Cryozombie said:


> They should only NOT be able to order "Chicken on a Pita" if they dont want my product?



Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Well, it's easy to say when you aren't the one expected to "melt" or "refine". In practice, most Americans don't really believe in the melting pot (or refinery). We see this in the expat communities overseas. Not all American expats, but most, construct their existence around their old country identity. They socialize mostly with other expats. They mostly drink at expat bars, and so forth. No doubt, the culture warriors of their host countries wonder why those damn insular Americans only want to hang around their own kind and only speak their own language.
> 
> It's a human tendency, to prefer the familiar, and to be lazy and not challenge yourself. Americans are no better on this score than anyone else.


 
Ah but I know a lot more about assimilation than you imagine, I'm only a first generation Brit. My parents were Dutch concentration camp survivors. They thought they were assimilated, turns out they weren't by the Germans standards. You may imagine Britain as one country, it isn't. The alliance between the countries isn't a willing one and is certainly an uneasy one. Scotland, Ireland and Wales are gradually leaving this alliance. There is much bitterness in our history that still affects how we see things now. The need to speak one language and be one people wasn't what all the people felt. We also have a great many immigrants into this country to add to the mix, some are from Commonwealth countries others are from Europe. The speaking of a common language is of concern here too, official forms are now in at least 6 languages if not more.

Andy, it's strange isn't it that two parties holding opposite views can both call themselves socialists? Nazis were fascists and the USSR were communists with neither of them being what the rest of Europe thinks of as socialists!


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Tez asked why we view the term "socialist" or "liberal" as dirty words. I explained.



Yeah, and I explained why your explanation was silly.  



Andy Moynihan said:


> You are off on another planet.



Well, nothing new there.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 16, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but I know a lot more about assimilation than you imagine, I'm only a first generation Brit. My parents were Dutch concentration camp survivors. They thought they were assimilated, turns out they weren't by the Germans standards. You may imagine Britain as one country, it isn't. The alliance between the countries isn't a willing one and is certainly an uneasy one. Scotland, Ireland and Wales are gradually leaving this alliance. There is much bitterness in our history that still affects how we see things now. The need to speak one language and be one people wasn't what all the people felt. We also have a great many immigrants into this country to add to the mix, some are from Commonwealth countries others are from Europe. The speaking of a common language is of concern here too, official forms are now in at least 6 languages if not more.
> 
> 
> 
> Andy, it's strange isn't it that two parties holding opposite views can both call themselves socialists? Nazis were fascists and the USSR were communists with neither of them being what the rest of Europe thinks of as socialists!







I know. Nonetheless their actions have become what defines the term for us.


Much the same way no one can look at a swastika anymore and ever see it for anything but a Nazi symbol despite it being at least one Native American tribe's symbol as well, or that it was in Teutonic mythology as one of Thor's weapons. Such was the impact they had. like it or not.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but I know a lot more about assimilation than you imagine, I'm only a first generation Brit.



No doubt, but I was making a more general point, I wasn't trying to say anything in particular about the UK.  I'm well aware of the contentious history underlying the whole concept of "United Kingdom", as well as current tensions from Asian (your usage of the term) and Muslim immigrants.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Yep I was trying to stir things up a bit but more in the direction of getting away from people having a go at each other. Just to slightly change the topic a bit to make it less personal or more throw things at the cheeky brit rofl?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Tez asked why most of us view the term "socialist" or "liberal" as dirty words. I explained to the best of my ability. That was all. You are off on some whoooooooole other planet.


 
The terms socialist and liberal are not dirty words in America because of a couple of wars that ended decades before you were born. 

They are dirty words because Frank Luntz said they were. That was spun through the Rush Limbaughs, the Bill O'Reilly's, the Fox News Channels, the Cato Institute, the Laura Ingraham's, the Michael Savage's, Ronald Reagan, the lobbyists for the Healthcare and Pharmacuetical industries, the Newt Gingrich's, Regendy Publishing and many other outlets until our fellow citizens were so afraid of 'liberals' and 'socialists' that they gave up reason.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> No doubt, but I was making a more general point, I wasn't trying to say anything in particular about the UK. I'm well aware of the contentious history underlying the whole concept of "United Kingdom", as well as current tensions from Asian (your usage of the term) and Muslim immigrants.


 
I didn't use the word Asian nor Muslim. The tension at the moment actually in this country is about the Romas and the old Eastern Bloc immigrants coiming into the country, mostly illegally.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 16, 2007)

I think we may need another thread to discuss the idea of socialism as a term and its lack of shared meaning.  I woudl definately have a lot to add on that.

But back to the topic....To me, it is simple.  When I go to other countries, if I can't communicate with them, because I don't know enough of the language, they smile politely and shake their head.  If I can't find someone to translate, I'm SOL.  And can anyone tell me what would happen if I would have tried to file a lawsuit in Korea because they didn't speak English?

I respect other countries enough to learn enough of their language to get by while I'm there.  If I had moved there for an extended period of time, I would respect their culture enough to learn it fluently.

But, the immigrants here DO NOT respect us enough to learn our language and instead expect us to learn theirs - and are usually fairly indignant about it.  If they fail to respect us, I will fail to respect them.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't use the word Asian nor Muslim. The tension at the moment actually in this country is about the Romas and the old Eastern Bloc immigrants coiming into the country, mostly illegally.



No, I know, I was bringing both those up to add to your point about tensions in the UK. I know you didn't mention them.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> But, the immigrants here DO NOT respect us enough to learn our language and instead expect us to learn theirs - and are usually fairly indignant about it.  If they fail to respect us, I will fail to respect them.



As I mentioned upthread, American expats as a group are just as bad.  It's not a Korean thing or an American thing, it's a human thing.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 16, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Much the same way no one can look at a swastika anymore and ever see it for anything but a Nazi symbol despite it being at least one Native American tribe's symbol as well, or that it was in Teutonic mythology as one of Thor's weapons. Such was the impact they had. like it or not.


 
Or a wheel of life symbol in Japan...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 16, 2007)

Good call. Forgot that one.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> No, I know, I was bringing both those up to add to your point about tensions in the UK. I know you didn't mention them.


 
Those particular tensions are old ones we have been used to since the days of the old Empire (when things were handled badly) though they may have been upped a little by the current war. Asian and Muslim immigrants aren't nearly as numerous as you may think. Many came from Uganda not Asia when Idi Amin expelled all non Africans. He kept their businesses and assets though. 
The real tensions are in towns like Dover (the white cliffs of) on the south coast. They are under siege from immigrants coming across the channel from Romania, Bulgaria, the Balkans etc.they are coming in illegally and flooding the towns which  are finding it increasingly difficult to cope. For most part they are not looking to work, nor learn English. If they do work it's illegally. Kent police have asked for more money to cope with a rise in crime. Begging on the street quite often with menaces has become an everyday hazard to avoid.  
There is also increasing number of what they like to call economic refugees coming from Afghanistan, Sudan and other war torn and poor countries.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Or a wheel of life symbol in Japan...


 
When it's facing the other way it's Indian.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> No doubt, the owner of Geno's feels that he does have such a 'right'.
> 
> A member of the community of Philadelphia, apparently, disagrees.
> 
> ...



On the streets, fisticuffs style would be the best way to settle it. 

Well, court is probably the place it should be settled. But the fact that someone would waste their time and $$ sueing someone else over a sign simply demonstrates where we have gone in this country with certain things. Since when is it anyone's right (where one would in their right mind even think it would be enough to take it to court) to try to bully someone else over what that person can have displayed in their place of business or home?

That leaves this question: is the sign discriminatory on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation? I think that requiring that a person speak a certain language (although kind of dumb) is not discriminatory on the basis of any of those things.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2007)

The only sure thing is.... it's good being a lawyer!


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> On the streets, fisticuffs style would be the best way to settle it.
> 
> Well, court is probably the place it should be settled.


 
OK. So it is a silly lawsuit. But the courts are "probably" the place where the disagreement should be settled.

If we are in agreement on this, I see only one question remaining, which begs to be answered .... 

Why on Earth is this silly little lawsuit, being addressed in the correct venue, receiving publicity and public comment on television and radio in our country today? 

Cui Bono?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> OK. So it is a silly lawsuit. But the courts are "probably" the place where the disagreement should be settled.
> 
> If we are in agreement on this, I see only one question remaining, which begs to be answered ....
> 
> ...



We are in agreement on court being the correct venue. However, it is silly because someone would have the audacity to take someone to court over this in the 1st place. Why not just boycott the place, or send a letter to the editor or two and give him a little bad press, or just let the sign speak for itself as to what kind of establishment the place is? For a person to have the audacity to think that his opinion of someone elses sign should be enforced through the legal system seems so ridicules to me.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Dec 16, 2007)

I have a question that may or may not be relevant to the subject at hand.  Is English the legal official language of the United States?  I was under the impression that it was not.  Down here it is the nation's official language, so all immigrants have to have a certain degree of fluency to earn their papers.  Of course it has been massively circumvented in recent years by refugee immigration, particularly from Asia.

My point in asking is that if English is not an official language the sign could easily be discriminatory.  Of course once in court the commonlaw position that the language has should see the case dropped, but it probably won't be.  Much more likely is a settlement that will see the business go under because of mental trauma and cultural distress.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> We are in agreement on court being the correct venue. However, it is silly because someone would have the audacity to take someone to court over this in the 1st place. Why not just boycott the place, or send a letter to the editor or two and give him a little bad press, or just let the sign speak for itself as to what kind of establishment the place is? For a person to have the audacity to think that his opinion of someone elses sign should be enforced through the legal system seems so ridicules to me.


 
I will quote for you the First Amendement to the Constitution of the United States of America.



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


 
Are you suggesting that a person give away his First Amendment Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances because you believe the lawsuit is "silly"?

And, we still haven't address the idea of 'Who Benefits' by this being in the media. Cui Bono?


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2007)

I still find it interesting why people think that its wrong to ask someone who is living in a country where the native language is English, to learn some basic English skills.  I mean really, we give free medical service to people who can't afford it, so I'm sure there're free language classes.  Why are people not taking advantage of them?


----------



## crushing (Dec 17, 2007)

What congressional law was passed that created the grievance that the lawsuit is petitioning to redress?

Who benefits?  If the media and their friends can effectively turn it into "them v. brown people" or outright call those that would like a 'common business communication standard' racists, then it would appear the real wedge people benefit.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> I still find it interesting why people think that its wrong to ask someone who is living in a country where the native language is English, to learn some basic English skills. I mean really, we give free medical service to people who can't afford it, so I'm sure there're free language classes. Why are people not taking advantage of them?


 
Michael,

Who are you describing? 
Who thinks it is wrong?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2007)

crushing said:


> What congressional law was passed that created the grievance that the lawsuit is petitioning to redress?


 
crushing, the law was written by the community of Philadelphia. I believe I quoted the language of the ordinance above.



			
				crushing said:
			
		

> Who benefits? If the media and their friends can effectively turn it into "them v. brown people" or outright call those that would like a 'common business communication standard' racists, then it would appear the real wedge people benefit.



I think that is what I said, in my first post .... a while back.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Dec 17, 2007)

In my city Miami it is heavily Spanish. Signs are both in English and Spanish. The things I have experienced living in Miami is that most Spanish people who do not speak English and approach you speaking Spanish expect you to understand them and speak Spanish if you do not they will call you stupid or some other word in Spanish. When I lived in Japan I had to speak Japanese( Sometimes my wife would translate difficult things and sometimes I spoke some very basic English and point alot lol) My Wife being from Japan had to learn English to live in America. The point is whatever the language of the country is learn to speak it or have a translator the world does not revolve around you as the saying goes.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 17, 2007)

Wouldn't the _native_ language of America actually be the languages spoken by the Native Americans? English, Spanish and French are all imported languages brought in by colonists.


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Michael,
> 
> Who are you describing?
> Who thinks it is wrong?


 
Mike,

Do I really need to answer this?  Now, I'm far from perfect, and this is the internet and God knows, posts have a  tendancy to be misunderstood, so if this is one of those cases, please forgive me.  However, I get the impression from some of your posts that you think that its ok for someone to be exempt from learning the language of the country they're residing in.  

Now, I'll admit, you and I agree on at least one thing... the lawsuit is stupid, and could have easily been avoided, for the reasons that I've already said in my posts here.

Again, if I was wrong in assuming your point in your posts, I appologize in advance.


----------



## crushing (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> crushing, the law was written by the community of Philadelphia. I believe I quoted the language of the ordinance above.


 
My response was to your quoting of the First Amendment.



michaeledward said:


> I think that is what I said, in my first post .... a while back.


 
My apologies, I thought you were claming other people as using it as a wedge issue.  I didn't take it as an admission.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2007)

Michael,

I do not think it is wrong to ask people to learn basic language skills in the country in which they live. But, we live in a big country. There are many regions and areas in the country where what we call 'English' is treated pretty poorly. There are other areas where the 'local dialect' is Spanish. I imagine some areas of the country, there are still 'native' languages being spoken. 

What I am arguing is that the City of Brotherly Love passed a law saying one can not discriminate in "public accomodation" based on "ethnicity". I can understand an argument being raised that the owner of Geno's is violating the letter of that law, even if he is not violating the intent of the law. 

As I pointed out earlier, a couple of years back, I attempted to order a 'double cheesburger' and a 'chocolate shake' at a McDonalds, and was met with a blank stare. That McDonalds ~ the most American of Franchaises ~ was in Baie-Comeau, Quebec. I was travelling through the town, but what if I had just moved there? How long do I get to learn?

This is a Philadelphia news story. I can understand it getting play in the local papers. But, that the original post came from Sanger, California. And that the Story has been publicized on BillO's radio show by Michael Smirconish (he is a commentator, not a reporter), begs the question ~ why is this news. 

My arguement is to discern between the wheat and the chaff. And this is chaff. I see two reasons why this could be news outside SouthPhilly; to distract the public from greater problems, and/or as part of the wedge aimed at the 'illegal immigrant' concern. 

I truly believe the widespread media reports have very little to do with Cheesesteaks in Philadelphia, due to the fact that a very small portion of us are likely to travel there in the next year.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2007)

crushing said:


> My response was to your quoting of the First Amendment.


 
crushing, the Amendments to the Constitution work all the way down our society. Protections granted by the Amendments can not be negated in law by the States, or Local Governments. 

If a citizen has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievences at the federal level, he also has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievences at the state level, and at the local level as well. 

As for the lawsuit - the grievence being argued is that Geno's steakhouse is violating the local ordinance of 'public accomodation' based on 'ethnicity'.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 17, 2007)

Not taking a stand either way here but what I find interesting is that the majority of people I know from East Asia (China, Japan, Philippines, Vietnamese) that live in the US and the majority of people I have meant and known form Europe and Russia that live in the US all tend to speak at least some English, unless of course they were in their 70s and then generally they had a family member that spoke English for them. And if they are in business they are either fluent in English or have a family member or associate that can translate. None I have known have expected anyone in the US to understand what they are saying in their native language and in some cases they have used that to their advantage.

It use to be in the larger Chinatowns in the US you could have a rather large population of people that did not speak English, but then they really did not need to, they never left Chinatown. I am not sure if that is still the case since many mainland Chinese (under 50) speak at least some English.

So who is this aimed at or who is the complaint from?


----------



## crushing (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> crushing, the Amendments to the Constitution work all the way down our society. Protections granted by the Amendments can not be negated in law by the States, or Local Governments.



Of course.



michaeledward said:


> If a citizen has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievences at the federal level, he also has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievences at the state level, and at the local level as well.



Yes, and what government law or ordinance at any level is violating the First Amendment in this case?



michaeledward said:


> As for the lawsuit - the grievence being argued is that Geno's steakhouse is violating the local ordinance of 'public accomodation' based on 'ethnicity'.



It isn't ethnicity, but language that is the issue.  I agree with you that the lawsuit is silly.

I wonder what the thoughts would be if his sign stated, "This is America, when ordering, please speak Italian".


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Michael,
> 
> I do not think it is wrong to ask people to learn basic language skills in the country in which they live. But, we live in a big country. There are many regions and areas in the country where what we call 'English' is treated pretty poorly. There are other areas where the 'local dialect' is Spanish. I imagine some areas of the country, there are still 'native' languages being spoken.


 
Sure, you have your China towns and Little Italy.  Again, it would be nice to be able to communicate with them. 



> What I am arguing is that the City of Brotherly Love passed a law saying one can not discriminate in "public accomodation" based on "ethnicity". I can understand an argument being raised that the owner of Geno's is violating the letter of that law, even if he is not violating the intent of the law.


 
If he was in fact violating a law, why did it take this to bring it to light?  You'd think that the city, town, etc., would have been aware of this.



> As I pointed out earlier, a couple of years back, I attempted to order a 'double cheesburger' and a 'chocolate shake' at a McDonalds, and was met with a blank stare. That McDonalds ~ the most American of Franchaises ~ was in Baie-Comeau, Quebec. I was travelling through the town, but what if I had just moved there? How long do I get to learn?


 
Point taken.  However, and I said this in a few posts, if one is going to visit a place, learning some basics would be a help.  I said to my wife the other day, that I think it would be awesome to take a trip in the future, to Italy or some other country.  She agreed.  Then I commented on the language issue.  So, when that time comes, learning how to find some of the basic necessities may be a wise move. 



> This is a Philadelphia news story. I can understand it getting play in the local papers. But, that the original post came from Sanger, California. And that the Story has been publicized on BillO's radio show by Michael Smirconish (he is a commentator, not a reporter), begs the question ~ why is this news.


 
Not quite sure how this fits into this debate.  I've posted things that have happened in Ca., ie :the thread I started on the fires.  I live in CT.  Its news, so again, I'm a bit confused on what this has to do with anything.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 17, 2007)

MJS, if you do go to Italy please don't go to MacDonalds!


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2007)

crushing said:


> Of course.
> 
> Yes, and what government law or ordinance at any level is violating the First Amendment in this case?
> 
> ...


 
crushing, I don't understand what it is that you are asking. 

A citizen in Philadelphia feels the resturant owner, by posting that sign, violates the ordinance. Because he feels the sign violates the ordinance, he is petitioning the government for a redress of grievences. 

The ordinance isn't violating the first amendment. The person suing Geno's because he believes that the steakhouse is violating his rights under the ordinance, and is practicing his first amendment rights to find a legal answer to the question. 

Perhaps the lawsuit should be dismissed because 'ethnicity' and 'language' are not synonomous. But it is a court of law that should make that decision.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 17, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Is English the legal official language of the United States?



No, the US has no official language.  There have been bills introduced to make it so, but none have passed Congress to date.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> If he was in fact violating a law, why did it take this to bring it to light? You'd think that the city, town, etc., would have been aware of this.


 
How do you think the city, town, would have become aware of this? 



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> Not quite sure how this fits into this debate. I've posted things that have happened in Ca., ie :the thread I started on the fires. I live in CT. Its news, so again, I'm a bit confused on what this has to do with anything.


 
The question is, 'WHY' is this news? 'Why' does this lawsuit have some people so riled up that they use our broadcast airwaves to spend an hour talking about it? What is the purpose and motivation of the people like Michael Smirconish who choose this topic to make news?


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> crushing, the Amendments to the Constitution work all the way down our society. Protections granted by the Amendments can not be negated in law by the States, or Local Governments.



Maybe this is nitpicking at this point, but this isn't entirely true.  Only amendments incorporated by the Supreme Court are held to be binding on the States on down.  For instance, the 2nd hasn't been incorporated, so until the SC says differently, states could in theory ban firearm ownership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)


----------



## crushing (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> crushing, I don't understand what it is that you are asking.
> 
> A citizen in Philadelphia feels the resturant owner, by posting that sign, violates the ordinance. Because he feels the sign violates the ordinance, he is petitioning the government for a redress of grievences.
> 
> ...


 
I guess I misunderstood your reason for quoting the First Amendment in this thread.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 17, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Maybe this is nitpicking at this point, but this isn't entirely true. Only amendments incorporated by the Supreme Court are held to be binding on the States on down. For instance, the 2nd hasn't been incorporated, so until the SC says differently, states could in theory ban firearm ownership.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)


 

Exactly.  And to add to that, as is also referenced by your link, that the Bill of Rights was put into place to limit the amount of infringement that the government (state, local, or federal) could have on the individual.  

That being the case, MichaelEdward, the right to redress grievences would be the right to hold the *government* accountable, not individuals.  So in this case, I believe your interpretation of the First Amendment is incorrect.

One other thing also though.  Based on this interpretation, doesn't this local ordinance infringe upon the business owner's right to free speech?  Therefore, shouldn't it be the business owner who should be sueing the government for trying to take away his freedom of speech, which ever side of the argument you fall on?


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 17, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Maybe this is nitpicking at this point, but this isn't entirely true. Only amendments incorporated by the Supreme Court are held to be binding on the States on down. For instance, the 2nd hasn't been incorporated, so until the SC says differently, states could in theory ban firearm ownership.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)


 
This is going off topic... but I'd say that you're wrong.  The 14th Amendment has been held to apply the Bill of Rights at all levels.  The exact interpretation of the Second Amendment has been disputed, as have the interpretations of other amendments.  Prior to Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the protections in the Bill of Rights only applied at the federal level.  Local police could do what they wanted, within the laws of the state, and pass illegally and unconstitutionally gathered evidence along to federal agents.  I'd need a stronger source than Wikipedia for this argument.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 17, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I'd need a stronger source than Wikipedia for this argument.



Although these appear to be law and/or university sources, I can't vouch for their total veracity.  All three do concur with the essential points of the Incorporation wiki.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7578/Incorporation-Doctrine.html
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Media Readings/Incorporation_Doctrine.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2007)

These last several posts are interesting. 

crushing, do you understand how I brought the first amendment into the discussion now? My point was that if we, as a society prohibited a person from suing over the stupid little sign, we would be preventing him from seeking a redress of grievences. Even if it is a stupid lawsuit, we all have the right under the first amendment to file it. 

I think, 5-0 Kenpo, that the first amendment does not require a grievence to be against the government in order to have the protection of the First Amendment. Although that is an interesting way of looking at the subject. If we look to some other high profile lawsuits ~ say against the tobacco industry ~ do we citizens have the right to file lawsuits against business under the First Amendment, or not? Or could there be a law that exempts an industry, or person, from a lawsuit; let's say, no one can sue the pharamcuetical industry for heartfailure caused by blood pressure medicine. 

As for Empty Hands argument that the Bill of Rights, without being tested, does not apply ~ or at least may not apply. I haven't heard that before, but, I could agree with the idea. I can't imagine anything would drive the Gun Owners of America more crazy than this. My civics history tells me this is not the case ... but it is not something of which I am in any way certain. It seems just kooky enough to be true.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As for Empty Hands argument that the Bill of Rights, without being tested, does not apply ~ or at least may not apply. I haven't heard that before, but, I could agree with the idea.



It was surprising to me too.  It should tell you something that it took a former judge to bring it to my attention.  It isn't exactly common knowledge amongst the masses, even the educated ones.


----------



## crushing (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> These last several posts are interesting.
> 
> crushing, do you understand how I brought the first amendment into the discussion now? My point was that if we, as a society prohibited a person from suing over the stupid little sign, we would be preventing him from seeking a redress of grievences. Even if it is a stupid lawsuit, we all have the right under the first amendment to file it.


 
They have been very interesting.  Yes sir, I did misunderstand the reason behind the First Amendment quote.  Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> MJS, if you do go to Italy please don't go to MacDonalds!


 
LOL, no worries.  If I'm going to travel that far, I'm going to experience the cooking in that country.  No fast food for me.


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> How do you think the city, town, would have become aware of this?


 
Well, not every violation warrants a lawsuit does it?  I mean, how do the town officials and police find out about liquor stores selling to minors?  Just hard to believe that this is what it took..a lawsuit, for someone to realize he had a sign requesting people to speak English in the business.




> The question is, 'WHY' is this news? 'Why' does this lawsuit have some people so riled up that they use our broadcast airwaves to spend an hour talking about it? What is the purpose and motivation of the people like Michael Smirconish who choose this topic to make news?


 
Because it caught the eye of the papers, tv, etc., and it was the current flavor of the moment.  Like other things, it'll die down.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I will quote for you the First Amendement to the Constitution of the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, I am not arguing against the right to take this up in court because one definatily has the right; I am just criticizing the audacity.

And you keep saying Cui Bono, implying a hidden motive on the part of the media. So, what might that motive be?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think, 5-0 Kenpo, that the first amendment does not require a grievence to be against the government in order to have the protection of the First Amendment. Although that is an interesting way of looking at the subject. If we look to some other high profile lawsuits ~ say against the tobacco industry ~ do we citizens have the right to file lawsuits against business under the First Amendment, or not? Or could there be a law that exempts an industry, or person, from a lawsuit; let's say, no one can sue the pharamcuetical industry for heartfailure caused by blood pressure medicine.



The Bill of Rights, or issues contained in the Constitution are not the only things one can sue over.  There is the Business and Professions Code (or whatever it is called in other states) which one can use, and is usually regarding tort issues, not civil rights issues.  

If you look at every other section of the Bill of Rights, and the interpretations thereof, they are all regarding the limitations of government.  For instance, only the government (and its agents), not individuals, can violate a person's Fiurht Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, not every violation warrants a lawsuit does it? I mean, how do the town officials and police find out about liquor stores selling to minors? Just hard to believe that this is what it took..a lawsuit, for someone to realize he had a sign requesting people to speak English in the business.
> 
> Because it caught the eye of the papers, tv, etc., and it was the current flavor of the moment. Like other things, it'll die down.


 
I think that the town health inspectors could have inspected the resturants processes and not noticed the window sticker as a violation. The liquor commission could have seen the sticker and not noticed it as a violation. It is a silly lawsuit.

But the lawsuit, itself, I think, can be seen as a way to determine if the window sticker does violate the ordinance. The language of the law is not as clear cut as 'don't sell booze to someone until they are 21'. The courts will decide if the sticker is a violation, and then the legislative bodies can clarify the ordinances to meet the will of their constiuencies. 

Yes, it is the current flavor, but it is part of a meal that is being served up in our country. When the leading candidates for President are trying to show that each is tougher than the next on illegal immigrants, (sanctuary cities, sanctuary mansion), I think some citizens are going to get rolled up with those they are attempting to evict.  



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> Hey, I am not arguing against the right to take this up in court because one definatily has the right; I am just criticizing the audacity.
> 
> And you keep saying Cui Bono, implying a hidden motive on the part of the media. So, what might that motive be?


 
I think audacity can be a good thing. I think it was Ghandi that said, "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Doesn't the first part of that idea, define audacity? 

As to motive, I see three; fear, blame, distraction. Perhaps a bit of each. To instill fear of the undocumented taking power from the citizen. To blame the undocumented for problems in schooling and healthcare. To distract the citizens from government policies weakening our economy and transferrring wealth and power to corporations.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The Bill of Rights, or issues contained in the Constitution are not the only things one can sue over. There is the Business and Professions Code (or whatever it is called in other states) which one can use, and is usually regarding tort issues, not civil rights issues.
> 
> If you look at every other section of the Bill of Rights, and the interpretations thereof, they are all regarding the limitations of government. For instance, only the government (and its agents), not individuals, can violate a person's Fiurht Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.


 
Yes, the Bill of Rights spells out limitations of the goverment. Although the language is complex and now two centuries behind us, I think one can read the first amendment, as related to this issue as: 

_Congress shall make no law respecting ... or prohibiting ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievences._

There are five specific rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. I have omitted some of the language; appropriately, I believe, to show that this amendment means that government can't write laws that prevent citizens, who feel slighted, from seeking a resolution in the court system. 

He is not suing over a violation of the first amendment. But rather, the first amendment gives him the right to bring this lawsuit. And our government can't do anything to stop him from doing so.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 18, 2007)

> The City of Philadelphia brought a discrimination complaint against Mr. Vento via the HRC. While some find it offensive, Mr. Vento maintains his First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
> Mr. Weiss said Mr. Vento's case is unusual, since the HRC has no history of bringing a case against someone without a complainant.
> In May 2006, Democrat City Councilman Jim Kenney raised the issue of the Geno's sign in City Council, calling it "inappropriate" and "negative."
> Mr. Vento said the sign has been up since September 2005, but the councilman, a longtime patron, never said a word. It was only after the International Olympic Committee looked at Philadelphia that Mr. Kenney suggested he take it down.
> ...


 
Here's another point in this particular case.  Obviously the bigger issue here is not necessarily the sign, but the fact that we have a large number of immigrants who do not speak English.

But to me, the fact that the case was NOT brought about by a complaint, but by a councilman, and is being brought by the Commission on Human Relations makes a big different.  To me - no matter what he says.....its political.  Just another result of the PC movement, can't offend anyone or make anyone upset!


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2007)

That is pretty interesting. It is not quite in line with the first article, which having just re-read, indicates that a member of the commission was the original objector. But, a Olympic motivation may very well make sense. 

The International Olympic Committee comes to town to scope out a bid. How would they interpret the sign? And, notice that the commissioner first suggested the sign be removed. 

But why can't a complaint be filed by a member of the commission, or a councilman? 

Yes, it is, still, a silly lawsuit. But that is still the way we settle disputes, Politically Correct disputes or other kinds, as well. And, if the IOC is involved, the stakes are much higher, aren't they? (pun intended).

But, on the other side, Mr. Vento's claim of a First Amendment Free Speech is just as silly. Does the business have the right of Free Speech?  If Mr. Vento wants to make that claim for himself, put the sign on his front lawn.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Yes, the Bill of Rights spells out limitations of the goverment. Although the language is complex and now two centuries behind us, I think one can read the first amendment, as related to this issue as:
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting ... or prohibiting ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievences._
> 
> ...


 

Ultimately, you may be right.  After all, it's how the Supreme Court looks at it.  But every interpretation of the Bill of Rights that I have seen, including the first amendment, relates to the government, not individuals.  So I don't know why we would go ahead and change that now.

For further ingo, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/21.html#1


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think that the town health inspectors could have inspected the resturants processes and not noticed the window sticker as a violation. The liquor commission could have seen the sticker and not noticed it as a violation. It is a silly lawsuit.
> 
> But the lawsuit, itself, I think, can be seen as a way to determine if the window sticker does violate the ordinance. The language of the law is not as clear cut as 'don't sell booze to someone until they are 21'. The courts will decide if the sticker is a violation, and then the legislative bodies can clarify the ordinances to meet the will of their constiuencies.
> 
> ...



See, I disagree with you on the motive though. Basically, the media is a business (for better or for worse). I think that the story is audacious (which we both agree on), a little outlandish, and therefore will attract attention and an audience. The larger the audience, the higher the ratings, the more the ad dollars, and, well, you know; capitalism at work. I don't think that there is a grand scheme against the 'undocumented.' I think that illegal immigration is a hot topic and attracts attention, but I don't think that the media has a grand plan when they chase extravagant stories.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think that the town health inspectors could have inspected the resturants processes and not noticed the window sticker as a violation. The liquor commission could have seen the sticker and not noticed it as a violation.



I am curious how a sign that has nothing to do with either health or liquor, and, btw, I don't think that place sells intoxicants that aren't meat based, would fall under the purview of either the Health inspector or liquor commission.


----------

