Centerfield

So now the city is going to force him to hire a bilingual worker just to serve people who dont speak English? He has done nothing wrong. He even says that they are more than willing to help people order in English by teaching them the words. Why is this wrong?

Posted by: Dan at June 14, 2006 07:34 AM

Well, I don't have to think it's ridiculous--but I do. He's not oppressin' anyone.

Posted by: Tully at June 14, 2006 09:16 AM

In general public commerce, outside of say court rooms and doctors offices, no one has the right to be understood regardless of the language they speak, and that's not really a matter of principle, but rather a matter of pragmatism. Personally, I think the way the sign is worded is a bit unfortunate, since it suggests that you must speak English because you're in America. As though it should be a rule. The real reason you need to speak english is because you want a sandwich.

The bottom line is simply that it MAKES HUGE SENSE to learn to speak the predominant language of the area you live in, and that you shouldn't expect the world at large to bend to meet you. Expecting that, you're bound for disappointment.

I think it makes sense that courts, police, doctors, and so on are expected to make extra efforts to communicate with people who can't speak English, because of the stakes. But even as this occurs, none of us should lose sight of the fact that the system is going out of its way and working extra hard to accomodate someone who is not well-enough equipped for the demands of the world they've placed themselves in.

We should NOT view it as a right that people who can't speak english are entitled to be accomodated in their native language. Instead, we should regard such practices as the sort of thoughtful diligent kindness that a place like America routinely grants. Meanwhile, the ill-equipped should view the learning of the predominant language of their chosen area as a serious responsibility.

Now it's a lucky accident of history that many Americans can get away with feeling entitled to be spoken to in English abroad. Often, they'll be able to do just fine, because the rest of the world does often bend to meet us, IMO mostly for commerical reasons. But #1 reasonable American travelers should expect disappointment on that count from time to time and from place to place, and #2 the fact that we can get away with traveling ill-equipped does not change the basic dynamic that expecting the world to bend to meet you is generally a seriously suboptimal strategy.

Posted by: bk at June 14, 2006 09:49 AM

At the end of the day, it's a free speech issue. AS far as we can tell, he's not actually denying service to anyone.

Tully:

You're right, of course you don't actually HAVE to, but I'm glad you do. It was an expression.

bk:

I agree completely.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 14, 2006 11:19 AM

"I'm really saddened by these individuals who are upset by having to be tolerant."

This is the heart of the issue. If you "have to," then it isn't tolerance, it's constraint. Now, we have plenty of things we are constrained to be. But let's not call that inclusion -- rather, it's exclusion of certain attitudes, like English-only.

I'd be surprised if the courts upheld any requirement that a private business must serve to a given language. There is a Spanish-only restaurant where I live. I don't speak a word of Spanish, he doesn't speak a word of English. I want my enchilada and they want my dollars, so we do the best we can. But if there was a law that forced the guy to serve in English, the Multicult Brigade would scream about disrimination.

You can't have it both ways. Allow the restaurant to set their rules, provided they don't stop people from coming in the door. If the restaurant's practices are unacceptable to the locale, it will fail.

Posted by: Greg63 at June 14, 2006 11:38 AM

I know Rafique, I'm a smartass. This is why I don't hang out in bars. That, and not being either single or a major drinker.

Posted by: Tully at June 14, 2006 11:41 AM

It shouldn't be against the law to be, arguably, a little rude. I personally wouldn't put up such a sign if I owned a cheesesteak place, but, on the other hand, I don't think I would be filling orders very well if I couldn't understand them. What's really going on here is that the city is afraid of foreign tourists being scared off by this, as though Nicoli and Zdravka from Bulgaria won't visit Philadelphia on their way from NYC to DC because of it. As they say in South Philly, "PUH-LEEZE!"

One thing that strikes me funny about this is that at least some of the people who work at Geno's still speak Italian and can therefore likely understand Spanish well enough to get through a sandwich order. Most of the pizza joints in the Philly area are owned by italians who employ workers from Latin America. They speak back and forth very easily in Spanish or Italian or both, you can't really tell. But you know it's one or the other, a combination of the two, and that it's very fast and easy for them to communicate.

I think Geno's steaks (and Pat's for that matter) are overrated. But I don't think that it's okay to force someone to speak any particular language to make a living to avoid forcing somone else to speak any particular language to order a sandwich.

Posted by: WHQ at June 14, 2006 11:51 AM

At the end of the day, it's a free speech issue. AS far as we can tell, he's not actually denying service to anyone.

...And, even if he were, it's not readily clear to me that Genos would be "violat[ing] the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which bans businesses from discriminating on the basis of nationality or ethnicity," as the city asserts. Even prima facie, it isn't readily apparent that a ban against "discriminating on the basis of nationality or ethnicity" can apply, by its own terms, to a situation where persons may be discriminated against on the basis of language. There is a disconnect here: requiring patrons to order in English does not prevent a hispanic or a Mexican from getting service, it merely requires them to have sufficient English to be able to answer the question "do you want onions with that."

But looking more closely, I am even less pursuaded. The closest that I can find to a Philadelphia "Fair Practises Ordinance" is contained in Title 9 §1100 of the City Code, "Fair Practises." But that ordinance applies, by its own terms, only to persons being "discriminated against in employment opportunities, public accommodations and obtaining adequate housing facilities," §9-1101. To be sure, businesses are banned from discriminating "because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, handicap, or marital status with respect to tenure, promotions, terms, conditions or privileges of employment or with respect to any matter," §9-1103, but that ban applies only to employees, not customers.

Posted by: Simon at June 14, 2006 11:57 AM

So is it illegal in Philly not to hire someone because I cannot communicate with him?

I didnt see language in there. Geno's is over rated, been there a few times, good, but not the best. I have had better in Newark.

I do see Genos' point though. And he is willing to help his potential customers - he is trying to make a stand for something he believes is. He does not say "if you speak Spanish, leave" he is saying "order in English" and then helps them do that. I bet non-English speaking customers feel a little bit better about themselves having learned a new word in English.

Posted by: Dan at June 14, 2006 12:44 PM

What's really going on here is that the city is afraid of foreign tourists being scared off by this

That might play a small part in it, but I tend to think there just might be two greater factors: multiculturalism is under attack, and must be defended by power-grabbing stalwarts such as Lawton, and there might also be the involvement of business groups or far-left groups that support illegal immigration.

Posted by: TLB at June 14, 2006 01:03 PM

Not only is the owner expressing a view that from what I read is very popular, but also he is getting a ton of free advertising. I saw the same report twice on CNN and Headline news. Both of the reports on the news had a lead-in that looked like a cheese steak commercial and then discussed the controversy while showing very appealing pictures of the place. The sign causing all the fuss is small and barley noticeable, and is generating more views than if he sponsored a NASCAR team.

Posted by: Bernie at June 14, 2006 02:51 PM

Simon,
You agree with denying service in the above situation?

Posted by: maxtrue at June 14, 2006 04:41 PM

Denying service? Geno's says that no one is refused service, and no one is discriminated against. They remind their customers of their geographical location, and ask that they place their order in English. They just don't say "please."

Posted by: Tully at June 14, 2006 04:53 PM

Max,
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me if I support the right of a business to refuse to serve a patron who is incapable of communicating with the business in a mutually-agreed language? Of course. Even if viewed as a purely practical matter, it should be self-evident: what's your alternative - demand that in order to do business in Philadelphia, a businessman must be able to understand an order in ever potential language? That would be absurd. Businesses have the right to choose their customers and to define terms on which they sell their products.

Posted by: Simon at June 14, 2006 05:03 PM

Now I coulda sworn there was at least one restaurant in "The Godfather" where they ordered in Italian. What gives!!

Posted by: c3 at June 14, 2006 11:41 PM

Now I coulda sworn there was at least one restaurant in "The Godfather" where they ordered in Italian. What gives!!

Yeah, but look how that turned out... Posted by: Greg63 at June 15, 2006 10:32 AM