Last night I posted a blog in which I addressed “Shelli’s” comments about Geno’s in Philly.  She was upset and expressed herself rather forcefully, which I rebutted.

Today she wrote me in response, and took the time to express what she disagrees with in a much clearly manner.

I’m glad.  As another commenter said, ” It’s nice when, every once in a while, someone who leaves nasty comments realizes that perhaps they did not phrase their opposition properly, and returns to discussing rather than arguing.”

I agree. 

But that goofy mind of mine was still churning and it occurred to me that perhaps there is a disconnect here we are ignoring.

Simply put, Shelli disliked the fact that Joe’s sign was in essence discriminatory.   I kind of agree.

Now, in my response to her today, I noted that there was what is essentially a tongue and cheek element to the sign asking people to order in English, that being that if you don’t understand English to a degree, how would you know he wants you to order in English?  It isn’t as if he posted his request in 14 common languages.  He posted it in English.

I think his sign was geared to those who speak English but prefer to order in (for example) Spanish.  He prefers they do not.  His sign was really primarily addressed to immigrants, and likely illegal immigrants.

Was it discriminatory?  Perhaps it was, though he does take the time to teach anyone the English phrases necessary.   So it is not like anyone has actually been refused.

But then a stray thought occurred to me.  Why is being discriminatory bad?

We shy away from any suggestion that we discriminate, but our society is filled with discrimination.

I would argue that the word discrimination gets a bad rap.

Let’s say we decide Joe has discriminated against us by not letting me order a cheese steak in Farsi. How is that a violation of any law but the laws of courtesy?  Oh yes, we pass anti discrimination laws, and some of them make sense, such as housing laws.

But in order for their to be a law to ban discrimination, we have to decide that it violates some kind of right.  People of course trot out the Constitution, but I submit to you Greg, it does not apply.

The Constitution does not protect from people being offended by other people.

The Constitution lays out the foundation of our government, the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, and the powers and rights of the states.

In other words, it was intended to protect the people from the government, and to keep the government accountable to the people.  

So I think the freehanded way in which people use the constitution against other people and against businesses is a problem.

One of the biggest problems is our lack of thick skins.  Since when is there a constitutional right to not be offended?   There is no amendment to protect from hurt feelings.

And this then runs onto the philosophy that really offers correction:  The Free Market.

If people observe your business and find one of your practices offensive they have the ultimate power of impact by choosing not to be a customer.  If enough people agree with them, you lose business and either go out of business, in which case the problem is solved, or you correct the offensive practice, and the problem is solved.

Do the math.

If you try and legislate and litigate every controversial practice, you waste time and money and even create a martyr.

And, if, the majority of your customers support or approve of your practices, then the person complaining has their remedy, going elsewhere.

I understand why some industries and essential services face higher scrutiny, such as housing.  But this is a restaurant, and for Pete’s sake, there is a competitor across the damn street.

And has the typical “We reserve the right to refuse service….” sign up too.  I figure if he can refuse you service for being a jerk, why not for trying to order in Tagalog?

In other words, you have no intrinsic right to a sandwich at Geno’s.  He has the right to serve you or not to serve you.

Now of course, people will insist that race and such be exempted.

I don’t.  If you want your business to be known for its bigotry, I think you have the right to the scorn and disgust you will generate, and nearly all communities will be happy to ignore you and your products and drive you out of business by refusal to patronize you.

Yes, in our world of uber correctness, that is a harsh reality, but reality it is.  Joe’s world famous Philly Cheese Steak is not guaranteed.

And never forget, our society is not free from discrimination.  All manner of businesses exercise their exclusive elements.  Curves only allows women in its facilities, that is discrimination by Gender, is it not?  

Our drinking laws discriminate by age.  If you can vote and fight in Iraq, you should be able to drink a lousy American beer.

I can go on but you get the point.

The real problem is not whether someone like Joe draws a line around his national pride and makes a stand.  and vi

The real problem is that we have created an entitlement and victim culture that thinks it has a right to “fair”, “nice” and “inoffensive”.   Sorry.  As Denis Leary says:  “Life Sucks, get a helmet”.

So save your discrimination complaints for government actions, and let businesses be damned or blessed by their own actions.  The free market works.

Thats just my 2 cents, sitting here late one night.

 Trackposted to ST, MM, Hot Air, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Beauty Stop, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Pursuing Holiness, ARISTO_GATTA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Miss Beth’s Victory Dance, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , , Right Voices, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Phastidio.net, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS