There is no semblance of freedom of speech allowed in Ohio.
A man posted a sign in his personal place of business that he bought, paid for, and works at daily. The sign said, "For Service, Speak English."
The Ohio "Civil Rights Commission" has ruled that it is illegal and he must take it down. I know what my response would be to the "Civil Rights Commission..."
I don't understand how anyone can actually argue that asking someone to speak English is a violation of anything. Is there anyone who can make even a semi-logical argument that there's something wrong with posting such a sign?
I'm betting Mr. Tom Ullman (the owner) doesn't speak any language other than English -- so he's asking people to communicate with him in a language he understands -- and that's ILLEGAL? I wonder if they will next complain about the fact that he doesn't actually speak his customer's own languages.
Will he be forced to learn the languages of every customer who comes into his shop? If he doesn't speak their language, is that also a violation of their so-called "civil rights?" What civil right is it, exactly, that is being "violated" here?
1
Come on this is Ohio we are taking about here, it's the armpit of Michigan.
Hee hee hee
Posted by: Machelle at December 19, 2005 09:03 PM (ZAyoW)
2
Unbelievable. Why is it illegal to ask patrons to your own business to speak English?? Crazy...
Posted by: Raven at December 20, 2005 01:42 AM (XWFXC)
3
Unbelievable.. indeed !
May Peace
Hope and Love
be with you
Today
Tomorrow
and Always
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Avik at December 20, 2005 12:41 PM (02qzV)
4
This is pathetic. Okay, so when some patron comes in that only speaks Russian and he turns them away because he can't assist them, will he be jailed then?
Posted by: Contagion at December 20, 2005 01:41 PM (Q5WxB)
5
Well, here is a very logical argument for not posting the sign (although nothing to do with it's legal or moral appropriateness);
If you can't speak English, odds are you can't read the sign.
Seems kinda silly, like putting up a sign that says "Don't throw stones at this sign".
Posted by: Rob G at December 20, 2005 07:12 PM (VV/c8)
6
But the sign said "For Service, SPEAK English."
Nothing about whether or not one could read English. I took it to mean that if English is your second, third, or twenty-ninth language, kindly employ it because that's what we speak here.
So now, let's see. In the wonderful world of U.S. civil liberties we now have Christianity, Christmas trees (which are in their strict sense and history actually secular, if anybody would bother to learn that), and Christmas itself under siege. Add to that, hmmmm, pedophiles' civil rights and NAMBLA are more important than protecting little kids and young people from sexual assault and ruin; and, gosh, now the English language. I could cite lots more but my mind would melt.
People have got to start doing something about this, ahem, STUFF, on their own local levels, not only on the national level. Fight back and fight hard.
Posted by: Laura at December 20, 2005 11:08 PM (ot2zs)
7
Heck, San Fran has a Civil Rights commission.
Posted by: William Teach at December 21, 2005 02:44 AM (AkiXU)
8
Unbelievable! This is America and a privately owned business should have the right to require their prospective clients to communicate in the official language of the country. I'll wager the majority of business owners speak only or predominantly English and wouldn't be able to proficiently communicate in multiple languages on a regular basis. If they enforce rulings such as that one, the next logical step is to require people to be multilingual. I have a hard time being REQUIRED to learn an additional language. It may sound silly to fight this, but this fight should be fought!
Posted by: Kurt at December 21, 2005 03:04 AM (n0m/E)
Posted by: Laura at December 21, 2005 03:04 AM (ot2zs)
10
oops. Previous directed to Teach's comment.
Posted by: Laura at December 21, 2005 03:05 AM (ot2zs)
11
Laura, the sign implies that if you can't speak English, you will not be served. Is it legal in Ohio to refuse service to a non-English speaker? If so, I guess you could refuse service to anyone you choose.
Also, regarding Christmas. Is anyone stopping you from celebrating it? This just sounds like more of looking for outrage where there is none. I love Christmas, and celebrate it joyfully with my family. I couldn't care less whether some store puts up "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" or nothing at all. They only put stuff like that up to sell more. That ain't what the season is about.
Finally; a Merry Christmas to all.
Rob
Posted by: Rob G at December 21, 2005 02:49 PM (VV/c8)
12
Why can't a store refuse service to anyone they chose?
Posted by: Mindflame at December 21, 2005 05:25 PM (kJZEb)
13
Because, mindflame, this is America. And you're not allowed to do anything that might offend anyone. At all.
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 03:01 AM (dPyQ0)
14
Ha!
Back in the late 1970s/ early 80s, a friend and I were sitting in a bar in Homestead, Fla, a neat, J. Buffetty kind of place over a stream where they rented boats, when a Cuban family walked in and one of them started speaking Spanish to the bartender.
The owner actually came out of the back waving a pistol, yelling, "We speak f----n' English here, if you don't wanna speak English, get your asses outta my bar!"
It seemed these folks suddenly developed a pretty decent command of the English language.
Posted by: Seth at December 22, 2005 03:09 PM (1oHTa)
15
And today he's be jailed for those actions.
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 04:05 PM (s2+Ck)
16
This is so stupid. Since when is it against the law to be rude? This sign is not nice, but it isn't illegal to be mean.
Or it shouldn't be.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at December 22, 2005 06:26 PM (vR7Sl)
17
Good correction at the end there, Birdwoman. It SHOULDN'T be.
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 07:55 PM (s2+Ck)
18
Well Seth, I doubt that sort of behaviour would do much for the tourist trade. Or is it only acceptable when directed at hispanics?
Would it be acceptable to you if you were overseas and had a proprietor respond to you that way? Or is it only Americans who have the right to act threatening and boorish?
Posted by: Rob G at December 22, 2005 09:55 PM (g2D0g)
19
All people have that inherent right. In America, that right is protected by the Constitution. However, as illustrated in the main post here, many are trying to supress the right to be free and to actually own property.
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 10:08 PM (s2+Ck)
20
Rob G
I don't suppose you lived in, or spent any time in, South Florida right after the Mariel Boat Lift?
The people Castro spewed onto our shores were not "tourists" in any accepted sense of the word. And trust me, I have many Hispanic friends, here and abroad, and have spent a lot of time in places where Spanish is spoken, and while my fluency in that language has expanded and contracted with exposure, I bust my ass trying to speak it when I'm on their "property".
The mood down there was expressed rather well back then in the form of a tee shirt bearing an American flag and the words,
"Will the last American to leave Miami please bring the flag?"
Posted by: Seth at December 23, 2005 05:58 AM (1oHTa)
21
Fair enough, Seth. The context does make it more understandable, but still, pulling a gun out? You don't think that's a potentially dangerous overreaction?
Posted by: Rob G at December 23, 2005 03:37 PM (VV/c8)
22
I think it's an effective reaction.
Posted by: Ogre at December 23, 2005 06:09 PM (s2+Ck)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
