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
Insurance companies were the lobbyists most influential in raising the age of majority to 21.
DBQ, More than 2 links is the only cause over which a commenter has any control. Other than that, it is arbitrary and capricious. It is VERY frustrating. Please don’t give up. It goes in streaks and today seems to be “that time of the month” as it were.
Dust Bunny, it was the Supreme Court not I, who said it was a violation. Here is a FOX story on it, since the right bows to Fox:
“Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion, generally, clashes with the ‘understanding, reached … after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens,'” Souter wrote.
In her concurring opinion, O’Connor acknowledged that “we are a religious people,” but said that the separation between church and state was the very thing that freed Americans to practice their faiths.
“At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish,” she wrote.
Interesting the right who excoriates the president for supposedly moving on his own against the law, Scalia said in this case: ” the court’s majority opinion ought to be voided “because the court has not had the courage (or the foolhardiness) to apply the neutrality principle consistently
That’s how an impartial cort works, right? A justice says hey I don’t like the decision so we ought to void it. Thankfully, (to whom or whatever, or no ever) he could not do that.
Karen the Left bows so obsequiously to Muslims,
Really, and what is your proof for that?
that’s one of those asinine statements that has no backfacts or proof other then the right’s ridiculous talking points to paint the other side as black as possible.
That is ne of the problems for the dems. We are not as good at lying and making up facts about the other side.
@ Nick
OK. It would be nice to know what causes a post to be spam bait so that I won’t get caught there. Part two didn’t show up. Sigh. Not worth the work.
Second. Political correctness can be mandated by law or by public actions. Laws regarding hate speech that may have legal governmental punishment….. or retaliatory actions by certain segments of the public to punish “speech” that they disagree with. An example of the last would be if someone gave money to an organization that was anti-gay marriage and then was personally hounded out of his job for having a view that the gay activists don’t agree with. Ever heard of Brendan Eich?
The making of laws about hate speech, which seems to be in the eyes or ears of the beholder seems to be a fuzzy line that can be a violation of the First Amendment. Speech inciting riots or promoting harm to people, I would classify that as hate. However, just saying that marriage is an institution that is between a man and a woman is not hate. It is a valid opinion for some people to hold. If some can’t tolerate a valid opinion that opposes theirs….bacon is good and yummy, then they are not supportive of free speech and are in their hearts intolerant bigots who want to squash the rights of others.
@KarenS
You said; “What puzzles me, is why the Left bows so obsequiously to Muslims, but not to Jews or Christians.”
I think it is FEAR that the Muslims will come after them and do them bodily harm. Therefore, Christians, who are currently pretty well-behaved, are a much safer target.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
So much spam on wordpress still gets through. BLOGGER IS MUCH BETTER!!
DBQ, I just explained to Aridog on another thread. WordPress sucks!! Their spam filter is hinkier than a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. If a comment won’t post, follow up w/ a “HELP, comment eaten” comment. JT or Darren will try and retrieve it. They have a pretty good batting average.
Karen, John Candy was in my book a much bigger loss than Belushi or Farley. I liked both but Candy was special. A gentle giant comedian.
I guess my comment was too long or caught in spam. Let me break it down into parts.
@leejcaroll
Firstly. Establishment of religion is when the government establishes a ‘state’ or official religion and then uses the participation in the ‘state’ religion to determine who gets to be in office, hold office, work for the government and discriminates against those who do not belong to the official state sanctioned government. This was the case in Britain and why the Founding Fathers put this into the FIRST amendment to the Constitution.
“prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”
This is also meant to stop the government from making laws that would prevent people from having diverse religions.
Showing the ten commandments is not establishing religion. It isn’t necessarily an endorsement of Christianity since a version of the 10 commandments are in the Hebrew version which existed long before Christianity and are even quoted in different forms in the Quran. The versions may be slightly different in wording but the intent of the commandments is essentially the same.
Steve H:
“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.”
This is so true. Anyone who does not understand this need casually review various threads on this blog, especially those discussing the latest murder by Muslim extremists. That typically leads to bashing of Christians.
What puzzles me, is why the Left bows so obsequiously to Muslims, but not to Jews or Christians. Considering they support gay rights, and women’s rights, why do they choose radical Islam for their unwavering support? Under Sharia Law, gays and rape victims are murdered. If Hamas wins, one day there will be Sharia Law in Israel, which would be just another Muslim extremist country in the Middle East. I don’t know of any other country that drops leaflets telling the enemy where and when they are going to bomb, begging them to evacuate. But Hamas urges Palestinian families, with children, to stay in place to maximize casualties. I’ve actually seen the video where they do it, praising those who die. And yet it’s Israel many on the Left see as wrong in that scenario. We didn’t drop leaflets over Germany or Afghanistan.
Here’s an update – the sign does not seem to have been replaced, despite national outcry. So . . . even though Sneakers claims to care so much about making everyone happy, they are stubbornly making a huge majority of people unhappy.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2014/08/25/bacon-ad-backlash-floods-winooski-restaurant/14576501/
Mike A: Great post! Wish there was more common sense in the world . . .
The fighting Irish of Notre Dame, does that mean all Irishmen are a bunch of ill tempered drunks? What’s next, The Holy Cross Crusaders? Would this woman have a problem with the Green Bay Packers? Are the New York Yankees to “WASPY”? Are the Dallas Cowboys also racist?
Independent Bob – I am going to petition the NCAA to force Notre Dame to change their mascot. It preys on a stereotype of drunken fighting Irish. As an Irishman I see it as racist and deeply offensive.
Jerry – loved that video! John Candy was a loss. . .
David, when a Ten Commandments monument is court ordered to be put into a closet because it is deemed offensive to people, No that was not why. It is because it is an establishment of religion by the state but your PC for the right demands you couch it in the words that PD on the right requires.
Funny I never heard ‘support gay’ is protected speech but you can’t say ‘I am anti-gay’. And “sexual morality” is not protected? It is if it is speech and you are not forcing your interpretation of morality on others, you know like they do in say, Iran, Iraq you can say what you want. Add threats or action to it that is illegal then it is against the law.
@leejcaroll – For a plaintiff to have standing in court, they must demonstrate “injury-in-fact.” The injury cannot be conjectural, hypothetical, or philosophical. The injury must be concrete and particularized as well as actual and imminent. This means the Ten Commandment cases usually have the plaintiffs complaining about how offensive the monument is. In the most recent case in New Mexico, the defense actually tried to argue that one plaintiff had only read the monument one time and that simply seeing the monument while driving by, when he could not even read the message on it, would not constitute actual injury. The judge ruled that simply seeing the monument while driving by was offensive and caused injury to the plaintiffs. They did not have to read the message on it. Following is from that poorly reasoned court decision:
“Plaintiffs complain of the visual impact of regularly seeing the Ten Commandments monument, which Plaintiff Felix has read on at least one occasion and which Plaintiff Coone takes offense at based on his independent knowledge of what the Ten Commandments are.”
The wrangled reasoning of the SCOTUS Lemon Test is bogus and it is never applied the same in every case. As Scalia has opined, the court simply pulls it out of the hat whenever it suits them, and leaves it lying asleep when it doesn’t.
The truth is that government is run by individuals, some of whom are religious. Therefore, it is foolish jurisprudence to imagine that the government is going to be completely neutral in matters of religion. It has never happened. Even President Obama prays after every State of the Union speech. Every President’s first act as President has been a prayer after taking his oath of office. What we attempt to do is allow various religions to make their case without threats of punishment for what they believe. We elect people to office without any religious test. We attempt to establish laws without any respect toward one establishment of religion over another. These are good principles, but the Lemon Test is a horrible principle, impractical, and simply does not work.
The Ten Commandments is a reminder that laws originate and emanate from the Supreme Lawgiver, who will be your judge even if you happen to escape the judges of this world. The same lawgiver who commanded us to acknowledge him in the First Commandment, is the same one who also said you shall not murder, you shall not steal, and you shall not bear false witness. The Ten Commandments is a reminder that civil law originates historically from a basis in theism rather than secularism. This is one motivation behind so many who like to establish these monuments around the local courthouse.
Some people today mistakenly think we have a secular government. That lie has been repeated so often, most people think that Congress wrote that down somewhere, that we are a secular government. But the founding document of this nation, the Declaration of Independence, makes it very clear that our foundation is based on theism, not secularism. We date the beginning of our nation from July 4, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by Congress, not from 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, and not from 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Secularism came later and is not the foundation for the civil laws of this country. It is revisionist history that claims we are a secular nation based upon secular laws.
The secularists falsely claim that the Ten Commandments establish a religion, but it does no such thing. Name what religion these monuments establish! You can’t do it because it does not establish any particular religion. It certainly does not establish Judaism, the religion from which the commandments originated. The Ten Commandments is acknowledged and respected by thousands of religions, but it establishes no specific religion. It is simply a historical reminder of the very longtime tradition of some of our civil laws, and of the historical connection between the Creator and our civil laws.
david – the reasoning in the New Mexico case is like “I have read Lady Chatterley’s Lover several times and each time I read it I am offended. It must be banned.”
Don, PC doesn’t work on “respect.” It works on guilt and fear. Respect is a positive emotion. Guilt and fear are negative. It’s all about motivation. Is the motivator positive or negative. And, then there’s that small issue of the FIRST AMENDMENT. This woman was perverting the freedom of religion part of the Constitution @ the cost of freedom of speech. So, two aspects of the First Amendment are corrupted.
David, Great comment. PC started and thrives in our liberal colleges and universities. That’s what makes it so frightening. They’re teaching kids this unconstitutional, hateful, “philosophy.” We need to take back our education industry from people who hate the foundation of this nation, the US Constitution.
Spot on, David.
Why should it be a problem for the woman to request to take the sign down if she was offended?
Why shouldn’t the store be able to make its own decision one way or the other on whether or not to take the sign down?
Why? (Or to ask the question in a language Beldar can understand: “Porkuois?”)
The requesting woman is free to express her feelings that she is offended by the sign. The store is free to take the sign down. Or not. No one forced the store to remove the sign. If the requesting woman had complained to the city and the city had forced the restaurant owner to take the sign down, there would have been a problem.
By my standards, the requesting woman is far too sensitive. And I probably would not have taken the sign down had I been asked to do so. But I’m not them and they are not me. And it seems crazy to me that the restaurant is suffering such negative backlash for removing a sign of this type out of apparent respect for this woman’s wishes. Each of us makes our own decisions where we draw the line between paying respect to someone’s wishes and refusing to give in to perceived political correctness. Sometimes, a decision in either direction is worthy of respect. I think that this restaurant’s decision was one of those decisions.