Search This Blog

Sunday, October 6, 2013

NY POST EDITORIAL Says City's Modesty Case Is "Discriminatory" Against Satmar Shop Owners

New York, NY - Saying that the city’s Human Rights Commission has exhibited a “complete lack of common sense” in bringing a discrimination case against seven Williamsburg Satmar shop owners over modesty signs, a NEW YORK POST EDITORIAL calls on Mayor Bloomberg to do all New Yorkers a favor, and “drop this case.”

POST editors say “It was a bad idea when the city’s case was first filed. An it’s a bad idea now.”
The editorial comes on the heels of a decision last week by an administrative law judge clearing the way for the case to be heard at trial in January.

The POST questions the logic behind Human Rights Commission general counsel Cliff Mulqueen’s claims that the shop owners’ signs imposed “certain rules of the Jewish faith” on patrons, calling Mulqueen’s charges “silly,” and stating that the signs applied to all patrons, and not just women as Mulqueen has previously stated.

Editors say, “Our guess is that most New Yorkers recognize these signs as no different from any other dress code imposed by a restaurant, hotel or any other place for reasons of “propriety” rather than “modesty.” 

We’ve never even seen the city sue a pizza parlor that might post a sign reading “No shirt, no shoes, no service” — let alone fancy eateries like the Four Seasons, which require business attire.”

Taking it a step further, POST editors write, “Most people probably take these for granted. So when a group of Jewish-owned stores are singled out and treated like the KKK, we have to wonder if there are other agendas at ­work here.”

In conclusion, editors state, “The Human Rights Commission is right about one thing: There definitely is discrimination involved in this case. But the real discrimination here is being levied against these shops, not ­by them.”

No comments:

Post a Comment