Mulqueen also asserts that the signs discriminated against women, non-Jews and non-religious Jews by making them feel uncomfortable, even though the signs apply to all potential customers....Which means the city is targeting the Hasidic stores because of religion!
We’ve never... seen the city sue a pizza parlor that might post a sign reading “No shirt, no shoes, no service” — let alone fancy eateries like the Four Seasons, which require business attire.
Despicable and stupid.
पोस्ट्स
२८ टिप्पण्या:
Just a local version of big government in action. Somewhat like roping off open air parks in a government hissy fit.
Isn't there a Lawsuits I hope will fail tag? This one by the NYC HRC certainly qualifies.
If ever there was an example of a bureaucracy looking for something to do to justify their existence, this is it.
Forget it, Professor, it's New York.
But, but, big government is good, right ? They're only doing what's best for us. /sarc
The "line" was crossed at the "no low cut necklines." Woman can fall out of their tops at any Pizzeria as well as at the Four Seasons.
The City was pressured by the anti "slut shaming" crowd.
Jews voted overwhelmingly for Bloomberg. As you sow, shall you reap. The New York Hasidim should have paid more attention Proverbs.
Women in NYC have won the right to go topless in public, because men can. (Really)
However in places where men can be required to wear shirts, woman apparently cannot be required to wear tops that accomplish the intended purpose of a "shirts required" rule.
Maybe NYC HRC is here embracing the true religion He was hoping we'd find.
"Isn't there a Lawsuits I hope will fail tag?"
added
thanks
But, but, but....the desire for freedom of association means that they don't believe in civil rights. Just saying
Hari said...
Women in NYC have won the right to go topless in public, because men can.
Have you noticed how flappy those breasts are?
If this is what the NYC Human Rights agency has left to deal with its time to declare victory and come home.
"the signs discriminated against women, non-Jews and non-religious Jews by making them feel uncomfortable"
So differential discomfort equals discrimination now, eh?
The Hasidim's own clothing produces differential discomfort on customers.
Maybe the city should try to force them to dress like everyone else.
The Hasidim's own clothing produces differential discomfort on customers.
Maybe the city should try to force them to dress like everyone else."
Maybe the city should stop telling private businesses what dress codes they should ask of their patrons and instead do what it's supposed to do like fixing potholes.
When I visited the Vatican a few years ago, there were signs announcing a similar dress code for those wanting to enter St. Peter's (I didn't know the Hasidim had taken over the Vatican). There were attendants who passed out paper (I think) shawls to cover women with low cut tops, and paper skirts and trousers for men and women in shorts.
Maybe it's my age, but the idea of seeing topless women walking down the streets of New York would make me "uncomfortable". Or maybe it's the age of the women. Anyway, who do I sue?
I wouldn't be surprised if strictly halal places have similar dress codes. Lots of luck going after them.
Fair minded people only discriminate for liberal reasons (e.g. affirmative action) but never for religious reasons.
I see this as being related to the Oregon cake decorating discrimination case.
The argument there was that if you're open for business you can't discriminate against a protected class, in that case, homosexuals. The argument went that if you wanted the privilege of doing business you had to serve anyone in any of the protected classes.
But now we see that isn't the case. It is exactly the opposite.
If you want the privilege of doing business, you must be in one of the protected classes.
Anyone else is fair game for anybody who is "uncomfortable" with your ideas - whether it be city bureaucrat, random citizen with the money to file a lawsuit, or a bum with a "public interest" pressure group behind you.
Conform! Conform! That's the only way to be an true individual these days.
Ernie brings up a good point. Would people support Muslims who would impose halal restrictions in their stores? I would. It's private property and if they don't care about the customers they would lose, oh well, it's their business. Maybe they could have a few Burkas hanging on hooks that customers could wear while shopping.
Is it racist for a pizza parlor in a black neighborhood to feature pictures of famous Italians on its walls but no pictures of African Americans? Is it racist for the proprietor to require a patron to turn down the volume on his beatbox before he will be served?
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that every single "human rights' / "civil rights" law on the books needs to be wiped out. Whatever good they did in the past, in the present they're causing far more harm than good. Get rid of them all.
If you don't like the way a business behaves, don't do business with them.
By the Commission’s logic, doesn’t a halal food store impose certain rules of Islamic faith when it refuses to sell pork, or when it sells the meat of animals that have been slaughtered in the name of Allah, but not other religions? Doesn’t that make someone in New York feel uncomfortable?
This bit of Martin Amis that Althouse quoted yesterday seems appropriate here:
Since it is no longer permissable to disparage any single faith or creed, let us start disparaging all of them.
I think you've been heard, Martin; now on to the Muslims. Er...
Inga said...
Ernie brings up a good point. Would people support Muslims who would impose halal restrictions in their stores? I would. It's private property and if they don't care about the customers they would lose, oh well, it's their business. Maybe they could have a few Burkas hanging on hooks that customers could wear while shopping.
10/6/13, 12:43 PM
Agreed. One can't change their skin color or their ethnicity but they sure can change how they dress. Like I said before, if this is what the NYC Human Rights commission has to worry about then it's time to close shop and save the taxpayers some money. Or at least use the savings to fix potholes.
So if some bible-thumpin' rubes from flyoverville, U.S.of A., wandered into some off-Broadway play consisting of young gay men buggering each other's dogs while drinking ipecac and vomiting on pictures of Jesus, could they sue somebody because the play made them feel ... uncomfortable?
1. No "shorts" tag? I confess I'm surprised.
I guess there is a "men in shorts" tag. No "women in shorts", though! Differential tagging: a potential human rights violation on the Althouse blog? The sex-specificity might make men feel uncomfortable, after all. Or women.
2. The argument went that if you wanted the privilege of doing business you had to serve anyone in any of the protected classes.
It was actually more stringent than that. The bakery was willing to serve gay and lesbian customers and had never tried to exclude them or said it wanted to. (It didn't want to make a cake specifically for a gay wedding, since the nature of the event went against their religion and they didn't want to be forced to participate.)
It seems to be a general rule that so-called "Human Rights Commissions" always end up using the power of government to violate citizens human rights.
Did you think the Ministry of Truth was concerned with ... truth?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा