There is an interesting controversy out of Winooski, Vermont over a sign for Sneakers diner. As part of a city program, Sneakers helped beautify its street with flower beds and in return was allowed to put up a sign. The diner featured its favorite dish with a sign that read: “Yield For Sneakers Bacon.” However, a Muslim woman who was also a vegan objected that a sign with the word bacon was offensive to her due to her religion’s ban on eating pork products. The diner responded by immediately taking down the sign and personally apologizing to the woman. That accommodation has led to a backlash from others who feel that the diner is yielding to ultra-sensitive individuals and encouraging such demands from others who may be offended by any number of food references and dishes.
The woman who described herself as “a vegan and a member of a Muslim household” made a complaint that called the sign offensive and that led owner Sneakers owner Marc Dysinger to take the corrective action.
It is not clear if the objection was motivated by the woman being a vegan or a Muslim. Regardless of whether this objection was from the perspective of a Muslim or a vegan or a Muslim vegan, there remains the question of whether there can be too much accommodation of such views. While tolerance is greatly (and correctly) valued in our society, there is a countervailing concern over a type of self-censorship where words and signs are increasingly eliminated to satisfy every sensitive group or individual. On a large scale, the Redskins debate has focused on this issue when a board ruled that it did not matter if a small group found a name offensive to be stripped of its trademark protections. The question is whether, despite our desire to protect values of pluralism and tolerance, we also have to protect pluralism in free speech and to resist pressure for common denominators in messages that remove every term or phrase deemed offensive to someone. There is a tendency in a tolerant society to say simply “well, what is the problem? If something hurts someone’s feelings, just change it.” However, in our world of mass communications and messaging, most messages could be deemed to have offensive elements. It requires judgment and certainly creates the danger that you will be viewed as intolerant. However, a reference to bacon — even “yielding” to bacon — would seem to all into a category of unoffensive speech by any objective standard.
This is obviously just a single small sign of a small diner in a small town. However, it is an interesting context to explore the limits of accommodation in speech and the dangers that it presents to the free exchange of ideas, tastes, and viewpoints. We have seen a comprehensive crackdown on the West on free speech under some laws combating hate speech, discriminatory speech, and even disruptive speech. While the first amendment only deals with government action, we have to be concerned about the chilling effect of private action over speech. For example, we have discussed the controversy involving Yale University Press. 
In a shocking decision, Yale University Press published Jytte Klausen’s “The Cartoons That Shook the World” (on the cartoons that led to riots and over 200 killed in protests worldwide). However, Yale removed the the 12 cartoons from the book so not to insult Muslims. Thus, you could read the book but not actually see the cartoons themselves. It was a decision by Yale University Press that is still discussed as anti-intellectual and cowardly in academic circles.
It is unclear how this person in Vermont goes through life surrounded by pictures of pork, including advertisements. The appearance left by these stories is someone who sees bacon in a sign that then stews (presumably vegan stew) for hours and days over the reference. A better lesson for her might have been for the owner to politely say that the sign was not meant to insult her but that she should consider whether she is overly sensitive as a person living in a pluralistic society with many different views and tastes. Tolerance includes the ability to walk through society and understand that you will be exposed to the expression of many things that you might not like. However, we protect your right to live your life as you choose. That does not grant the additional expectation that others will conform to your preferences in their own speech or expressions. It is hard to say that the diner should not have taken down the sign since it seemed to care little about the content of the sign. Yet, the action reinforces a view that businesses and people should yield to such objections regardless of their objective merit.
We cannot have a society where terms, words, and expressions are banished by any objection of any group. That course will drain away the vitality, diversity, and spontaneity of speech in our society. It requires not an act of intolerance but a commitment that there must be tolerance of speech and images in a pluralistic society.
What do you think?
Source: WPTZ
Annie, thank you for you comments. Alas some folks believe life is all about determining what “truth” is and then ” teaching the truth” to others good and hard ! ( And even more amazing… some of them communicate with invisible entities that tell them what “truth” is ) #AmygdalaFantasies
On a different subject….. The “bacon” sign controversy would be reduced if government over-reach was reduced … “ask me how I know”
Steve I hate to burst your bubble but many “leftists” share your religious beliefs.
Annie, right on (oops showing my hippie roots)
Steve H. @ 8:00 pm
“Nick, as I have been mocked, ridiculed, reviled and rebuffed over the years for my belief in God, Jesus, resurrection, and forgiveness by the many leftists in the world, and this blog, I am fully aware that, as a Christian, I deserve no rights, no standing, and no respect. ”
Ah, ye olde persecution complex.
But you’re right about bacon — I’ll give you that.
http://i.imgur.com/vxHPzhH.jpg
Let’s not neglect The War on White People.
Nick, as I have been mocked, ridiculed, reviled and rebuffed over the years for my belief in God, Jesus, resurrection, and forgiveness by the many leftists in the world, and this blog, I am fully aware that, as a Christian, I deserve no rights, no standing, and no respect. Muslims, however, are a protected class because, despite the mass murder they have brought to every continent THIS YEAR ALONE, they got a bad rep from the few hours of insanity on Sept 11, 2001.
BTW, I love bacon. Bacon makes everything better.
http://www.snorgtees.com/either-you-like-bacon-or-you-re-wrong
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/newshounds/legacy_url/20953/war_20on_20xmas.jpg?1321495341
Hold on tight, Nick! Only three more months until you can start using the War on Christmas again. I’m sure it must be exhausting to find faux reasons for White Christians to claim offense/victimization this time of year.
fiver – the war on Xmas affects all Christians, not just the white ones. And plenty of offense is given, there is no need to gin it up for the season. This year I think I am going to put up a Hannakuh (sp) bush to celebrate both important holidays with my friends. I don’t want anyone offended.
Annie he may be a laughingstock but the repubs are very good at getting out their base. Hopefully he won’t be another perfect example of the “stupid party” (Gov Jindel’s name for the GOP, not mine) coming to play in the House.
Thanks Darren.
Nick ‘get my mind ‘right” No thanks. I prefer being on the left (: At least the left of the right wing and tea party.
Mike A Thank you for saying it so well.
No wait, I meant Amen! I believe in God and the power of prayer. So yes, Amen. Wow, that was liberating. But, I really hope no one is offended.
AMEN!!! Oh wait, that might be insensitive to nonbelievers. HUZZAH!
As a true progressive, I reject the notion that there are words which must not be said, that there are opinions which must not be spoken, that there are groups who must not be offended or that there are religions which must not be mocked. I must respect your right to believe, but not your beliefs. I must respect your right to speak, but not what you say. These notions are essential in a society which purports to be pluralistic and they are fundamental to any meaningful definition of freedom.
Steven H, As a Catholic, not only you not a member of a protected class, you can be mocked and ridiculed w/ impunity. Come on man, you know that.
This Liberal likes the Second Amendment. America would still be under the British yoke if average humans did not have rifles and band together to kill the Redcoats. But, as to bacon. And Muslims. And face scarves and head scarves. There must be some corner of America where free people can go out to a restaurant and order raw monkey brain and not offend the locals.
But, I am in New Orleans. One can order pork and that includes bacon without some Muslim intrusion. One can also hear great music at a large number of venues around town. New Orleans is to be my home base. I will open a satelite office in Ferguson, Missouri. Beldar has been given a two year assignment to North America and is writing a book on North American Creatures.
We are from France.
Beldar – you being from France explains it all.
I am offended by your use of the terms “Muslim” and “Islam”. As a Catholic I do not believe in amputating hands for stealing or in stoning women to death for being in the company of a man who is not a close relative or in the rape of underaged girls who are given to middle-aged men as “wives”.
Please refrain from using the terms “Muslim” and “Islam” again.
Felix, Just think how much support a non PC restaurant would get. It is a golden opportunity. You could have funny menu items like Haj Scrapple omelet. Mackerel Snapper casserole.
Great, intelligent comment, DBQ.
Coming late to this party. I think that the restaurant caved to intolerance and gave into political correctness head games. If they had put up a sign that was derogatory towards the woman’s religion, creed, nationality or otherwise was offensive, then I would agree that the sign should come down.
They did none of those things. The mere display of the word “bacon” is not offensive and has no religious connotations in and of itself.. To cave in like this is a bad precedent as it gives rise to all sorts of other faux offense claims that can be used to further advance intolerance.
If this poor woman has the fantoid vapors over the word “bacon” just imagine the fits she would have looking at a television advertisement for a bacon cheese burger. How can she possibly live in a multicultural society and adapt herself to many different viewpoints. I guess she can’t survivem unless we all kow tow to HER. Evidently…..HER view is the only one that is valid.
Bad bad precedent.
The correct response to a PC complaint, so far, is for other patrons who are
offended by the restaurant’s craven response, to the complaint, is to stop
patronizing the restautrant and to let the owners know why they are doing so in no uncerteain dterms.