marieToo
Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006 From: Jersey Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle quote:
ORIGINAL: marieToo quote:
ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle I have to disagree with the obligation here. I think the owner of a business should have the right to run his business in any way he pleases. If the public doesn't like the way he runs his business, the public has the right to not patronize his business and thus put him out of business. Harry: I am pretty sure, though not positve that this in incorrect. I think when operating a business that is open to the public, there are certain regulations that they have to abide by. I'm dead certain that there are one whole hell of a lot of regulations they have to abide by. Many of which, although not all of which, I disagree with. My blanket statement quoted above was a bit broader than I intended. Despite what LAM thinks of me, I'm not a totally lazy fairy. Regulations which require that food in restaurants be reasonably safe to eat, that scales in a market be accurate, that merchants not discriminate against people because of the color of their skin, are good. On the other hand, I feel that the State has no business telling bar or restaurant owners that they may not allow their customers to smoke, that they must take orders in languages they don't understand, or a great many other things. Having read the article, I think that the business owner's decision is stupid, but none the less that he has the right to make it. And his competitors have the right to exploit the stupidity of it to their gain and his loss, as they are doing. I am a native of the City of Brotherly Love, although I haven't been there in thirty years. I live in Arizona, sixty-five miles from the Mexian border, where the battle over ILLEGAL immigration is huge. But, regardless of how they feel about it, no businessman around here in his right mind would refuse to serve a customer who speaks only Spanish. In fact, a great many businesses dealing with the public start new employees who are bilingual in English and Spanish at a higher rate of pay because it's such a useful skill. And by the way, my vote was for "Who really gives a rat's ass?" Ah...I understand. Actually you *did* say "I think" in your post....I ran over it a bit too quickely. I agree ...Who gives a rats ass? All I know is if I owned that business, Id have a damn picture chart up if I had to. I'll be damned if Im going to lose business over a trite political statement. Id be more than happy to help someone out, and then Id ask them how to say "have a good day in spanish"; because thats just how I am. Who gives a fuck that someone wont speak English. Freedom is what American stands for. Unless someone is commiting a crime, live and let live. There are alot of cons to *not* speaking the language. Someone who chooses not to learn, will have to deal with the communication gap. Its no one's problem but their own. I have noticed the trend towards bi-lingual as well. You open the paper to look for a job and a large percentage of them now want bi-lingual only. I think its everyone's universe, no one is going to starve if they dont speak english. Maybe its time for all the native-born American cry babies to stop taking it for granted that English was their birth language. English is the most widely spoken language in the world. No wonder its alot easier when we're tourists in Europe. Because half the people in THAT country, speak the language of THIS country. So why cant America be bilingual or tri lingual or whatever the fuck it wants to be? Ok...yeah its hard to communicate with someone who doesnt speak english well, but so what? We gonna hold a gun to their heads and refuse to let them use the toilet or order a burger until they can say "I gotta take a shit" in english???. Whats the point? As long as their paying their taxes and not breaking any laws, let them speak whatever language they choose. If someone doesnt want to serve them, Im sure someone else will be more than happy to take their dinero down the street.
|