michaeledward
Grandmaster
crushing, the law was written by the community of Philadelphia. I believe I quoted the language of the ordinance above.
crushing said:
I think that is what I said, in my first post .... a while back.
English in the US
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
crushing, the law was written by the community of Philadelphia. I believe I quoted the language of the ordinance above.
I think that is what I said, in my first post .... a while back.
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
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.
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.
My response was to your quoting of the First Amendment.
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
Grandmaster
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.
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
Grandmaster
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
All weight is underside
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?
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?
Of course.
Yes, and what government law or ordinance at any level is violating the First Amendment in this case?
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".
Sure, you have your China towns and Little Italy. Again, it would be nice to be able to communicate with them.
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.
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.
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.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
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
Senior Master
No, the US has no official language. There have been bills introduced to make it so, but none have passed Congress to date.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
How do you think the city, town, would have become aware of this?
MJS said:
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
Senior Master
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)
I guess I misunderstood your reason for quoting the First Amendment in this thread.
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?
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
Senior Master
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
Grandmaster
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.
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.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-
