[Leah] Forster’s life as a Jewish lesbian isn’t part of her act, but rabbis from the Vaad Harabanim of Flatbush, the kosher certification organization, still decided hosting her event would be a violation of Torah law.And what about the city's anti-discrimination law? The Commission on Human Rights may look into the problem. Must the restaurant refrain from discrimination and forfeit its kosher certification (and thus be ruined as a business) or does the anti-discrimination law somehow forbid the kosher certification organization from pulling the certification on this ground? Notice how in this case — unlike the Masterpiece Cakes controversy — the business owner does not want to discriminate against the gay person: he wants a private organization to regard his business as properly religious and that organization demands discrimination.
December 10, 2018
"They operate like the mafia. If they pull your hechsher, you are screwed. They tell other places not to give you a hechsher."
Said Chaim Kirshner, the owner of a Kosher restaurant — a "hechsher" is kosher certification — quoted in "NYC kosher cops force restaurants to cancel bookings of lesbian Jewish comic" (NY Daily News).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
98 comments:
When micromanagers collide.
The kosher rating should not have anything to do with the person ordering the food. What if an atheist or a Catholic wants to order kosher food? Is that not allowed? Clearly that is a ludicrous interpretation.
Must the restaurant refrain from discrimination and forfeit its kosher certification (and thus be ruined as a business) or does the anti-discrimination law somehow forbid the kosher certification organization from pulling the certification on this ground?
If i'm a franchiser, and one of my restaurant franchisees wants to do something i oppose (something that, i feel will grossly diminish the value of the franchise), do i have the right to take away their franchise?
I think the organization that gives the hechsher is making a mistake. That said, the owner of the restaurant ought to know better. He maybe can claim that he didn't know the performer was lesbian, as she doesn't make a big deal out of it, but badmouthing the hechsher organization is really dumb. "If they pull your hechsher, you are screwed." Right. That's because in that community keeping kosher is very important, and they are willing to let hechsher organizations intrude into the way restaurants do business.
It's (more-or-less) the same in Baltimore where I live. The Star-K requires a number of things from the restaurants under its hechsher. Not all of them have to do with the kashrut of the food. For instance, you need to prominently display a big Star-K in the window of your restaurant. Partly this makes it easier for consumers, but partly the idea is that the restaurant needs to recognize clearly that this isn't some tug-of-war between them and the kashrut organization. They are operating under the Star-K. The Star-K can't guarantee that their food is kosher unless they have that attitude, because when issues arise - sometimes expensive issues - the owner of the store can't be pulling in the opposite direction. When that happens, no one can trust the food anymore.
Technically, rejecting anything for religious reasons is discrimination. Kosher discriminates against bacon cheeseburgers, but cheeseburger advocates are too busy getting their own feed on.
Hechsher. A new word. Love it. It's not just an avenue.
I got in trouble in high school when I was caught pulling my hecksher.
John Henry
Lesbian comic walks into a kosher restaurant....
If you want to understand how the ordination of women and lesbians destroys religious institutions, read the story of the schism that has riven the Episcopal church.
Any religious institution that actually wants to survive resists the ordination of women and lesbians in any and every way possible.
Ordination of women and lesbians transforms religious institutions into auxiliaries of the Democratic Party, and results in the replacement of Judeo/Christian theology with paganism.
The kosher rating should not have anything to do with the person ordering the food. What if an atheist or a Catholic wants to order kosher food? Is that not allowed? Clearly that is a ludicrous interpretation.
I don’t think anyone objects to atheists or Catholics ordering kosher food - I think the concern (which I do not share) is that the performer’s act - or presence? - is not in keeping with the spirit of Jewish law.
Interesting problem. Can you claim discrimination at a couple of degrees of remove? The Mafia analogy is completely wrong, though. Did you think kosher meant nothing when you branded yourself as a Jewish restaurant? Did you think it was just about the food, as though the label had no wider religious (and hence, inevitably, political) implications?
There was a kosher restaurant in Manhattan that named itself Jezebel. In order to get The most prominent certifying organization (the "0-U") would not give them a hechsher unless they renamed it. Which they did, but ultimately they went out of business anyway.
People and businesses should be free to associate, exclude and banish as they please.
This is the most essential freedom.
Fuck the law. The law is an ass.
"If i'm a franchiser, and one of my restaurant franchisees wants to do something i oppose (something that, i feel will grossly diminish the value of the franchise), do i have the right to take away their franchise?"
What does this have to do with this situation?
Although Prof. Althouse's movement comrades in government are happy to attack Christian businesses, they will never attack a Jewish organization.
"...unlike the Masterpiece Cakes controversy — the business owner does not want to discriminate against the gay person..."
I disagree Althouse. Many people frame "Masterpiece" this way because it puts the owner in the least favorable light, but it is wrong. The owner discriminates against gay marriage, not gay people.
"If you want to understand how the ordination of women and lesbians destroys religious institutions, read the story of the schism that has riven the Episcopal church.
"Any religious institution that actually wants to survive resists the ordination of women and lesbians in any and every way possible.
"Ordination of women and lesbians transforms religious institutions into auxiliaries of the Democratic Party, and results in the replacement of Judeo/Christian theology with paganism."
Ridiculous. Any "ruination" of the organizations has to do with the obduracy of those who refuse to accept lesbian priests. How does the church become "pagan" simply because the priest is a lesbian woman (or just a woman)? It's like the hysterical and irrational opposition to gay marriage, and claims it would "destroy" the institution of marriage. Gay marriage is legal now and the "institution" of marriage seems to be doing just fine.
Insofar as restaurants go, doesn't "kosher" simply certify as the correct preparation of the food according to Jewish dietary laws? What does this have to do with the performers an establishment chooses to hire to entertain diners?"
This just goes to show, again, why it is dangerous to allow religious tenets into the civic realm.
They might have to start making decent food!
Preach it Robert! Leftism is the one true faith!
Kosher agencies have rules related to Jewish law in general, not just the laws related to kashrut. For example, a restaurant cannot be open on the Sabbath if it is Jewish owned. There are many kosher agencies. If he doesn't like their rules, he can look for one that only certifies the food.
More importantly:
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/freed-can-montreal-make-a-delicious-bagel-thats-politically-correct
"Notice how in this case — unlike the Masterpiece Cakes controversy — the business owner does not want to discriminate against the gay person: he wants a private organization to regard his business as properly religious and that organization demands discrimination."
There is a more important point here. The business owner is not discriminating as to whom he will serve, he is discriminating as to whom he will allow to annoy his diners. Is any business owning a stage required to allow any performer who wants to to appear on that stage? Sure, why not. It's a free country.
I don't know why everyone has waited so long to get upset about this. The Federal Government claimed ownership of all private property used in commerce back in 1964. It's just taking them a while to get around to enforcing that claim.
...does the anti-discrimination law somehow forbid the kosher certification organization from pulling the certification on this ground? in proper English would read ...does the anti-discrimination law somehow forbid the kosher certification organization to pull the certification on this ground?
"Preach it Robert! Leftism is the one true faith!"
So...restating the basis behind the "separation of church and state" tenets of our Constitution is "leftist?"
Well...I guess to the new guard of Republicans and right-wingers, it is!
In case we need further proof that Hitchens was right about religion.
"I don't know why everyone has waited so long to get upset about this. The Federal Government claimed ownership of all private property used in commerce back in 1964. It's just taking them a while to get around to enforcing that claim."
How does this have anything to do with the Federal government? (When, BTW, did claim ownership of all private property?)
@Cookie
You're a Marxist and a Stalinist.
You intend to demolish the Judeo/Christian theological foundation. That's a pre-condition to the revolution.
I read your comments with your evil, destructive motives in mind. I've heard your clever rationalizations many times.
You're the enemy. You never let up the pretense, do you, liar? Fortunately, we have the instructive literature of 19th century Russia to turn to. Your stale old lies are the lies that birthed Leninism and Stalinism.
Oddly, you think you're offering up something new. It's the same old evil. And you know it.
You have no good intentions. Your intentions are intentionally evil.
Robert Cook said...
"How does this have anything to do with the Federal government? (When, BTW, did claim ownership of all private property?)"
Not "all private property". All private property used in commerce. Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Robert Cook said...
'So...restating the basis behind the "separation of church and state" tenets of our Constitution is "leftist?"'
Amazing. Cookie has finally found a government he is willing to defend, and it turns out to be the one established by the American Founders.
I like when Robert Cook starts telling Jewish people what their religious designation ought to mean.
Control freaks gonna control.
The crocodile eats in no particular order.
The Commission on Human Rights may look into the problem.
And who cares what they rule? The Orthodox Jews who are the primary customers of a kosher restaurant sure don't.
The restaurant owner really has no choice, except maybe to take his case to a Bet Din (a rabbinic court), and see how they rule in this case. My guess is that he already has a pretty good idea.
If the owner loses his hechsher, he's done in the Orthodox community. If a rabbinic court rules against him, he's done. It's not like they won't know somehow. They'll know & refuse to patronize his business.
It's unclear from the article if Kirschner (the owner) is himself an Orthodox Jew, or if he just keeps kosher because "of the neighborhood", but I find it strange that two NYC Jews (him & the female comic) could really be so unaware that they were skating on thin ice from the get-go vis-a-vis the Orthodox community.
Where is "separation of church and state" found in the Constitution?
Robert Cook only defends his imagined First Amendment.
And the state actor in all of this is...?
Jews? Lesbians?
This is a job for the Academy!
Kirshner said that he has nothing against the LGBT community
It's not exactly a state secret that the Orthodox do have something against the LGBT community...
Just wondering, are goyim generally allowed to perform in kosher places?
Shouting Tom,
I suggest you read my comments with your tinfoil hat OFF. It's bringing in signals from Alpha Centauri.
"I like when Robert Cook starts telling Jewish people what their religious designation ought to mean."
Where did I tell Jewish people what their religious designation out to mean?
"And the state actor in all of this is...?"
Who said there's a state actor in this?
Robert Cook, mendacious, stupid, or both?
Is the performance an endorsement of the transgender spectrum or a performer who happens to be a transgender/homosexual woman?
That said, there should be civil unions for all consenting adults. Equal, not political congruence ("="), a Pro-Choice doctrine.
You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to ask "how is Kosher like a franchise?"
...the business owner does not want to discriminate against the gay person... in the same way that Beyoncé, Arianna Huffington, Sachin Tendulkar and Hillary Clinton do not want to leave humongous carbon footprints but yeah, sure he is willing to discriminate against gays if it stands in the way of business. Just like Beyoncé et al. he wants to have it both ways.
Difference is, he is just a little schmuck so the media dump on him while giving Hillary and Beyoncé a boost.
The Vaad Harabanim of Flatbush did not respond to calls seeking comment.
Notice in the article that the only true "rabbinic" authority doesn't give its reasons for threatening to pull the hechsher. It's left to the restaurant owner to come up with the reason why -- the performer is lesbian. But, is that really the rabbis main concern?
Now, other on-line groups, who are basically nothing other more than random Orthodox Jews, weighed in. But they certainly do not constitute "rabbinic authorities" in any sense, & they have no capability to declare a restaurant non-kosher.
Hidden in plain sight in the article is another reason the rabbis might have been pissed off:
Leah Forster, 36, whose stand-up schtick features the insular Orthodox world she grew up in...Forster’s life as a Jewish lesbian isn’t part of her act...
Forster is an apostate. Off the Derech is the phrase used in that community. This is, for obvious reasons, a yuuuuuuge problem for the Orthodox. The idea that Orthodox parents would want their kids to go to a show headlined by a performer Off the Derech is just amazingly clueless. It's not like going to see Jerry Seinfeld, who was never on the derech to begin with since he was never Orthodox. This is sending your kids to see an open & notorious apostate. Big difference.
There's an awful lot of poking at the bear here. Too much to be amazed that it's started to growl.
I'm still trying to locate the accrediting agency for the restaurants advertising "Authentic Mexican Food."
This is about cultural traditions and not about laws. Does the kosher board ask about the sexual orientation of the cooks and waiters or cleaners? I doubt it. Would the kosher board forbid serving a gay couple? I doubt it. But IDK.
I think this has more to do with the atmosphere or branding the Rabbis want to maintain in kosher restaurants they give their seal of approval to — conservative and family oriented. I can understand that. But this case is about a couple of special ticketed events where people are choosing to attend. The Rabbis probably don’t like women performing at all, the lesbian is just extra. But this is the US in 2018 and this is our culture. I think the Rabbis on the kosher board have overstepped on this.
Mostly I feel badly for the Jewish comic who has a talent (God given?) and who is being shunned by the people who she loves. She doesn't want to make trouble but she has to fight for her life.
R.J. Chatt,
Mostly I feel badly for the Jewish comic who has a talent (God given?) and who is being shunned by the people who she loves. She doesn't want to make trouble but she has to fight for her life.
What? There's a shortage of non-Orthodox Jews & Gentiles in the NYC area who she can perform for?
Don't misunderstand me. I don't particularly like Orthodox Jews or Judaism, and they sure as hell have no use for lil' ol' gentile me, But, what the Orthodox represent to me is the societal dying of what every American used to understand as part of the American Way of Life -- The Sacred Right to Be Left the Fuck Alone.
The Orthodox have their ways. Their ways are written down, they are not arbitrary & changing day to day just to piss you off, & they bind mostly them & not us gentiles. They want to schrunch in a corner & build their communities according to what they see is the Will of God.
Now, lots of mischief occurs in those communities, just like mischief occurs at the highest levels of Hollywood or the Catholic Church. They aren't saints. But, to breach the principle of The Sacred Right to Be Left the Fuck Alone for anything but the most societally pressing of reasons (e.g. national security), seems to me to be incredibly socially deleterious. There are just waaaay too many people on the secular side who think they have some direct line to the Little Birdie of Natural Reason, who whispers in their ear & tells them What's Really, Really Right & Wrong for the rest of us. This is, from the viewpoint of any philosophical morality, basically insane, but it happens over & over in modern America.
Do I like the Orthodox? No. But am I glad they exist as one more bulwark against the implacable tide of secular moral arrogance? Bigger than shit, yes.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land for everyone and applies to agnostics, atheists, Christians, Orthodox Jews and Sharia compliant Muslims, etc., in terms of secular areas of life. That's the sacred American right to be treated equally.
@RJ Chatt,
That's the sacred American right to be treated equally.
Oh, suck it, RJ. The American/British Legal system has carved out yuuuuge exemptions for freedom of conscience since Colonial times.
And speaking of which, how I remember from my youth how much the Left loved freedom of religious conscience when it was used against the War in Viet Nam. How the Berrigans were such heroes! How noble were the Christians who claimed conscientious objection because of their faith!
Strange, how there was no worry about "treated equally" then. How, because of one man's conscience, another mother's son would be sent possibly to die in his place. Talk about "not being treated equally"!
Now that faith communities are telling the faggots to go stuff it, because, well, for 2000 years that's what their faith has told them to do, the Left has decided that "freedom of conscience" is just a bother.
A cynic like myself could end up wondering if the Left ever cared about Freedom of Conscience at all, or if it was just a handy stick with which to beat Folks The Left Didn't Like, to be discarded at will.
The Constitution has nothing in it about any separation of church and state, stop pretending it does.
Way down inthe weeds here.
I think the point about not serving in the military because of religious objection is about not forcing a person to commit murder. That's a lot different than discriminating against someone because your religion considers them a non-believer.
nothing in it about any separation of church and state
That's true. It only limits Congress's ability to explicit reasoning. However, under the Twilight Amendment, and establishment of the Pro-Choice Church, Americans are forced to implicitly endorse violations of human rights and fund elective abortions (e.g. selective-child) for social progress. As well as social justice adventures, notably unsecured, that open abortion fields and force immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises). Then there is political congruence (a.k.a. political correctness) that rules in favor of politically favorable special and peculiar interests and against or ignores others.
"A popular Jewish comic ..."
"She sold 20 tickets at $80 a pop last month"
For New Years Eve.....
How about, nearly unknown comedian....
Althouse says: "And what about the city's anti-discrimination law? The Commission on Human Rights may look into the problem. Must the restaurant refrain from discrimination and forfeit its kosher certification (and thus be ruined as a business) or does the anti-discrimination law somehow forbid the kosher certification organization from pulling the certification on this ground?"
The way to end this whole megilluh is to get rid of laws prohibiting private businesses from deciding who they will serve or employ. I recall from when I lived in NYC that there were plenty of kosher restaurants. There were also plenty of clubs and other venues at which "edgy" performers could perform. If a particular restauranteur decides that, to avoid offending his Orthodox clientele, he won't feature a particular performer who is offensive to that clientele, there are plenty of other venues that would welcome that performer for just the reason that she's regarded as offensive. The government should leave it alone.
Federal "public accommodations" laws were enacted to deal with the particular problem of anti-Black (or, as they said in those days, "anti-Colored") discrimination in the South. That discrimination was the product of governmental coercion as well as private bias, and it was reasonable to think that some degree of coercion was necessary to address it. There is no need for such coercion to deal with the "problem" of lesbian performers in kosher restaurants in New York.
@YoungHegelian said... "What? There's a shortage of non-Orthodox Jews & Gentiles in the NYC area who she can perform for?"
True. She has to break out regardless of how this case goes if she wants to be successful financially. If she weren't so attached to her family and religious community, and looking for their approval, it's doubtful she would have bothered with those venues. I can't really fault her for that.
"Robert Cook, mendacious, stupid, or both?"
Neither. Hahaha!
Insofar as restaurants go, doesn't "kosher" simply certify as the correct preparation of the food according to Jewish dietary laws?
No. There's no nicely-marked "dietary laws" section of the Torah or the Babylonian Talmud. So a hechsher from a halachic organization requires compliance with whatever the rabbis in charge of the halachic organization determine Jewish law requires for them to grant certification.
And, on the secular legal matter, it's quite well-established First Amendment law that government authorities are not allowed to substitute their judgment for that of religious authorities on questions of what adherence to a particular religion's laws requires. No government agency can tell the organization, "Actually, you still have give the restaurant a heschsher even if they do (X)".
Now, there can be a law requiring a restaurant to do (X), in which case there's a possible legal case against the restaurant for not doing it, depending on how the RFRA arguments parse out. But even if the restaurant is required to do (X) by secular law, the government still cannot require that the halachic organization give the restaurant doing (X) a heschsher.
Steven,
Thank you for your explanation of the provisional (or interpretive) nature of determining what is kosher.
I understand secular law has nothing to say about how religious faiths validate food as being acceptable (or not) for consumption by the devout among them.
Young Hegelian @2:07
My like cup floweth over.
Three offered options.
You answer neither.
Mendacious and not stupid is no longer an option.
You asked if I were one thig, another thing, or both, and I said neither. Obviously, I answered your third choice with the correct answer.
So, which are you, mendacious, stupid, or both?
My guess is...mendacious!
(Deleted and reposted to correct formatting error.)
alanc709 said...
"The Constitution has nothing in it about any separation of church and state, stop pretending it does."
Not following you here. Are you saying that the Amendments are not part of the Constitution? Or that the First Amendment does not address a separation of church and state?
Seriously, a guy who thinks "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution...
And a guy who thinks no state action is required under the Constitution...
And a guy who cannot see a list of three things is a list of three things...
Seriously, Robert Cook, you are an idiot.
Jupiter,
You can read the First Amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
Amendment I
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.
If they had a female singer, they would have also lost their hechsher.
Wow! You miss a Lot traveling into the ozarks.
And the state actor in all of this is...?
The state actor is the state telling the kosher agency what they can certify.
The franchiser is the kosher agency
The restaurant is the franchisee
Sorry, gilbar, this is a private religious entity judging whether to give its seal of approval.
There is no state actor in that part of the decision.
Pay attention!
IF the courts rule that they Have To give kosher certification to this place, there will certainly BE a state actor
Notice how in this case — unlike the Masterpiece Cakes controversy — the business owner does not want to discriminate against the gay person: he wants a private organization to regard his business as properly religious and that organization demands discrimination.
You're definitely thinking about it more deeply than I would, but I'm glad to see it being presented as a problem. I'd assume the ultra-orthodox wield too much power there to not get away with withholding certification, but who knows.
Do I get to propose a hypothetical, too?
Did you note my verb tense? HINT: I used present tense.
Let's agree that I am currently correct and in an alternate universe that does not exist, you are correct.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
(per Birkel).
Say your "religion" involves sacrificing virgins...
OTOH it's good that one religion gets to use peyote. We all should have that kind of freedom, though.
Some religions involve polygamy.
Some states prohibit it nonetheless.
So a hechsher from a halachic organization requires compliance with whatever the rabbis in charge of the halachic organization determine Jewish law requires for them to grant certification.
The good thing about Judaism is no central authority can prevent another group of rabbis from going their own way and enforcing their own standards.
The bad thing about Judaism is that this rarely results in a more liberal/progressive stream having more sway.
Each hasidic sect competes to be more insane and restrictive than the next. Until their kids grow up and decide that they want to have normal lives. It's almost like Breaking Amish. Sad.
Integration shouldn't be such an issue.
Do I like the Orthodox? No. But am I glad they exist as one more bulwark against the implacable tide of secular moral arrogance? Bigger than shit, yes.
Lol. This is an interesting coda to end on after enumerating the many, often deleterious strands of their own arrogance.
Communities small enough to be meaningful (which Jews have) are helpful. Cloistering and anti-social ritualistic conditioning are not.
Those college bull sessions are really paying off.
Let us know when we are supposed to send your graduation gift.
Also, nobody's religion calls for sacrificing you.
Mainly we point and laugh.
Try thinking for a change, Bickle.
Must polygamy be legalized by the state? It's permitted in more than one "religion."
You develop a single original point.
That is your challenge.
This is a crock. Lesbianism isn't even prohibited in the 613.
There's phrases about laying with another man as with a woman and wasting seed or whatever but nuthin' about chicks luvin' chicks.
These rabbis are just makin' stuff up.
Arguing with Bickel is like arguing with a parrot.
And after you've done so much to burnish your own reputation?
It is a wonder that all you receive is mockery.
Ponderous.
If you wanna get really strict about this shit, check out the Samaritans. They prohibit breaking the sabbath to save a life and allowing women outside of their own rooms while they menstruate and recover postpartum.
Now that's some real old school hardcore shit.
It also might explain why their numbers dropped to barely more than 100 early last century and the remainder have high rates of inherited deafness and neurologic disorders.
All life is a balance. That's what life is all about.
The retention of pre-temple and post-temple practices is interesting, but there's a reason people don't live those lifestyles any more generally.
Sephardic Jews believe that Ashkenazim got their uptightness from a Catholic influence that emphasized rules over the continuity of life.
Birkel want a cracker?
So, nothing original is the best you can do?
Maybe ask an adult for help?
Parrots get lonely when their masters neglect them.
Bird brain leaves comments.
Thinks himself funny.
@Steven said: "Insofar as restaurants go, doesn't 'kosher' simply certify as the correct preparation of the food according to Jewish dietary laws? No. There's no nicely-marked 'dietary laws' section of the Torah or the Babylonian Talmud. So a hechsher from a halachic organization requires compliance with whatever the rabbis in charge of the halachic organization determine Jewish law requires for them to grant certification."
This is a misleading comment and to my mind is giving false information. No, there is no chapter heading in the Torah called "Dietary Laws" but the rules of what is kosher, or suitable to eat, are clearly delineated in various places in the Torah, mostly located in the Book of Leviticus, Chapter 11. The basic rules are not made up by a halachic organization. How a restaurant proves their compliance that their food and kitchen have never been in contact with non-kosher food is up to the organization guaranteeing the certification. See: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/food-laws-in-the-bible/
PS -- the reason for the reposting is that I was trying to figure out how to do a blockquote to avoid having to go into quotes to substitute single quotes for double quotes, but failed. Better luck next next time.
"Seriously, a guy who thinks "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution...
And a guy who thinks no state action is required under the Constitution...
And a guy who cannot see a list of three things is a list of three things...
"Seriously, Robert Cook, you are an idiot."
No. I am a genius, and you are a dunce.
Birkel said...
"Jupiter,
You can read the First Amendment."
I can indeed. And I have to admit, it does not say "The church and the State must be separate." Is that what you're on about?
Jupiter: "Is that what you're on about?"
I never took you for a 'living, breathing Constitution' sort of commenter. What I'm on about is the Constitution properly restricting the behavior of government when it intrudes into the things it is forbidden to enter. I am on about a properly limited government. I was unaware that you felt differently.
But type the word and I'll place you in the appropriate column on my mental rolodex.
Robert Cook, soopergenus, can you provide the quote from the Constitution that supports your point? I know what the Warren Court said. But is it in the Constitution?
Old thread, hope someone is still reading this...
This case illustrates a tension that exists within the Orthodox world. The more liberal (small-L) side is more open and engaging with general society, while remaining true (in its opinion, at least) to the binding nature of Jewish law. A person in such a community would eat out only at kosher restaurants, but would have no problem listening to a transgressive ("Off the Derech") lesbian Jewish comic (or a non-Jewish one, for that matter). Chaim Kirshner (whom I don't know) probably belongs to this community or at least wants to serve it, and this community probably feels that a kosher certification organization should limit its concern to the food preparation (and likely the Sabbath-observant) status of the establishment being certified.
The more conservative (small-C) among the Orthodox (not to be confused with Conservative Judaism, which is altogether to the left of all of Orthodoxy - confused yet?), to which most kosher certification organizations (and certainly the Vaad Harabbanim of Flatbush) belong, take a more holistic, shall we say, approach in their view of kosher certification. When it comes to restaurants, and especially those that host performers of various kinds, there are numerous other areas of Jewish law that come into play - laws about socialization, especially of unrelated men and women together, laws about exposure to inappropriate cultural content, laws (or at least norms) about respect for Torah and its scholars (at which, as acknowledged, Leah Forster's act takes potshots), et cetera, ad infinitum. Since the hechsher is on the establishment and not merely on the food, the certifying organizations feel it appropriate to include all areas of Jewish law in its criteria, leaving the more liberal Orthodox Jews high and dry when looking for food and fun.
Post a Comment