Philadelphia Cheesesteak Shop Owner Defends 'Order in English' Policy

Fox News ^ | December 15, 2007 | AP

[stm]

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

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

"This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language," Vento told the commission. "I'm not stupid. I would never put a sign out to hurt my business."

Vento posted two small signs in October 2005 at his shop in a diverse South Philadelphia neighborhood, telling customers, "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING PLEASE 'SPEAK ENGLISH.'"

[stm]

Offensive? Hell, I think he's spot on. In our country you speak our language Paco. Choo doan like eet maing that get the f**k out, we doan want choo here in dee furst place!

[Anti-Bubba182]

"..Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which filed the discrimination complaint."

What bullshit!!!

[MizSterious]

If the libs and illegal invaders had their way, everyone in the country would be required by law to speak Spanish. Just incredible.

[Nea Wood]

The sign is not offensive, but suppose it was? In a free country, you should have the right to put up an offensive sign. (As long as it’s not something obscene or something that will traumatize children, I suppose.) If people don’t like the sign, they are free to refrain from eating there. It irks me that he even has to defend the sign. This is not a free country anymore.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Joe Vento for president.

[zerosix]

"This is AMERICA:....."

THAT is the part that the socialists find discriminatory!

[Abathar]

He owns the place, it’s private property, I say he can put any damn sign out he wants to. This is asinine, I own my own business too and if someone starts talking to me in Spanish I will just stare at them and walk away. I think the burden of translation should be on the talker, not the talkee. Let Pablo bring his own communicator if he wants to order a sandwich with extra onions, its his problem, not ours.

[beaversmom]

The sign is not offensive, but suppose it was? In a free country, you should have the right to put up an offensive sign.

That's correct. It's his damn business. As long as he is running a sanitary place and paying taxes, the government should keep their noses out.

[nathanbedford]

The professorette was presumably sworn in because she was held to be an "expert" whose opinion is by virtue of education or experience somehow special. Her education or experience presumably convinced the tribunal that her opinion, as opposed to yours or mine, should be heard.

When heard, the professorette stooped to explain to us:

"The signs give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded," Charles said.

There is an even worse instance in this account: the lawyer "testified" as follows:

Paul M. Hummer, an attorney for the commission, testified earlier that the sign is not about political speech, but about "intimidation," and that it suggested business from certain individuals was not wanted.

We are not told what qualifies a lawyer to testify. Perhaps the reporter was so ignorant that he did not recognize the distinction between argument and testimony or perhaps the lawyer was actually sworn in and his opinion was received. I shouldn't be surprised if it were the latter.

At least the article gives us some idea of the law:

After extensive publicity in 2006, the commission began investigating whether Vento violated a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodation and housing on the basis of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Well, let's settle what we can because it is simple. Obviously this is a place of public accommodation. But does the sign have anything to do with "race ethnicity or sexual orientation?" On its face to does not. The ability to speak English as opposed to some other language, to my knowledge, does not come as a result of skin pigmentation, tribal affiliation, or hormone arrangement. The ability to speak the English language is a learned skill having nothing to do with race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Let's turn it around and see if by discriminating against people who do not possess this particular language skill, one masks a discrimination against protected classes because the discrimination is actually against "race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation." Again, obviously not. Virtually all American Indians, for example, speak English. Whole swaths of black Africa today speak English. Many whites in Canada do not, while most whites in America do. Clearly, the ability to speak English is no reliable predictor of race. Perhaps a more refined question would be, does the ability to speak English, or more accurately the absence of the ability to speak English, mask a discrimination in the Philadelphia area? If I wanted to discriminate against ethnic Latin Americans, for example, could I effectively do so in the Philadelphia area by discriminating against people who do not speak English? This is an unmeasurable question. On its face it is not a question of speaking English well but only well enough to order from a printed menu. As one who has made his way in many foreign countries, where I do not speak the language, I have always been able to negotiate the menus, order a beer in almost any language, and later find the toilet. One look at me and you will be convinced that I have not starved as a result of my linguistic inadequacies.

The ability to speak English might be said to be a slightly more accurate predictor of ethnicity but it certainly cannot be held to be reliable. Finally, to try to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of the language they speak is a hopeless undertaking and assertions to the contrary can be simply dismissed out of hand.

Therefore, the charge should be dismissed out of hand. But the commission did not do so, to the contrary, it found probable cause to continue the investigation:

for discrimination, alleging that the policy at the shop discourages customers of certain backgrounds from eating there.

The article does not favor us with explaining what "backgrounds" are discouraged from eating at the establishment. The article does tell us that the prohibition is against "discrimination," yet the commission found probable cause because customers of certain backgrounds are "discouraged" from eating there. "Discrimination" on its face would require some sort of affirmative act by the restauranteur but the commission here has reversed the focus and put it onto the customer whose subjective reaction-whose "discouragement" - is now determinative of whether someone else has committed a violation of law.

To camouflage the subjectivity of all this, the commission trots in its witnesses, a professorette and the lawyer. The professorette, sworn in as an expert no less, opined that,

"The signs give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded," (emphasis supplied)

We all know that any old sociology professorette is an expert on feelings.

The final judgment of the commission no doubt will be that Mr. Vento who started "his steak shop in 1966 with just $6 and developing it into a multimillion-dollar business," should be stripped of his property and sentenced to two years in a reeducation camp.

[robertpaulsen]

Choo doan like eet maing, then say hello to my leetle fren.

[stm]

If the sign said “all wetbacks who don’t speak English in my store will be clubbed to death” they might have a legitimate bitch, but here they don’t have a leg to stand on. His store, his rules. PERIOD, END OF STATEMENT.

As long as he doesn’t break any laws he’s free to do whatever he chooses.

[freespirited]

The sign is not offensive, but suppose it was? In a free country, you should have the right to put up an offensive sign.

Well obviously you aren't getting it. The sign is the cause of all the murders in Philly. This being the Council on Human Relations, once they make him take it down, human relations in the city will be wonderful again and there will be no more murders.

/sarc

[Psycho_Bunny]

You don’t need a sign. Just pretend you don’t understand.

[Tax-chick]

If any potential customers did not read (and presumably speak) English, how would they know what the sign said? I assume his menu is also in English?

I fully support the gentleman’s right to make a Statement. I also can’t figure out how anyone could be “discriminated against” by the presence of the sign.

[Lancey Howard]

Philadelphia is a toilet.
Ask the Boy Scouts.

[Keith Brown]

He should have spoken Gaelic during his hearing and demanded an interpreter!

Put it right back in their faces!

[Anti-Bubba182]

Just the idea that he could be up before a “commision” is outrageous. Let the market decide these matters.

[lgwdnbdgr]

The sign said “when ordering...” He’s not saying that you can only speak English in the place (which I’d agree that he should be legally allowed to do, but that’s another topic). If you want to order, you have to order in the language the staff understands.

If I move to Philadelphia, am I going to be sued because I don’t speak Spanish? It’s pure silliness that detracts from legitimate cases of discrimination.

[M203M4]

This is the sign (warning, large image): http://www.brightandearlyblog.com/wp-images/genosbig.jpg

I like this one too :)

[neodad]

How do you say “wit” and “witout” in Spanish, anyway?