A couple of years ago I as I was walking down Williamsburg’s famous shopping district of Lee Street, I recall seeing a sign in one of the stores that had a message written in both Yiddish (Hebrew characters) and English. The English sign said “Closed”. The Yiddish sign said “Offen” – which is Yiddish for “Open”.
I smiled when I saw it. How clever, I thought for this
storeowner to avoid “unwanted” customers. But that smile was immediately
followed by the realization that not only was he guilty of Geneivas Daas (deception), he
may very well have been guilty of ethnic prejudice.
I thought that
the store owner wanted to avoid the ethnic minorities that share the wider
Williamsburg neighborhood with him. Among the 45,000 Satmar Chasidim that live
there are significant numbers of Black and Hispanic people.
But perhaps it was something other than prejudice. Maybe the
issue was one of modesty in dress.
A sign was posted recently posted in one of those stores that
read in English, “Please… do not enter in immodest clothing (i.e. short sleeves
pants…)”. This was obviously directed towards women.
That sign has caused quite a controversy. In these hot summer
days where people tend to dress as comfortably as they can - modesty by Orthodox
Jewish standards goes “out the window”. If one is not Orthodox one would hardly
be expected to cover themselves up by Orthodox standards of dress. So when these
signs went up, cries of “discrimination” were heard.
This is not discrimination. Requiring that patrons observe a
dress code does not discriminate against a class of people. People have a right
to require dress codes for their establishment. A restaurant for example is
well within their rights to require jackets for their patrons. As long as it is
all patrons and not just - say... black patrons. The same thing should be true of dress
codes for religious reasons.
I therefore side with the Chasdim on this one.
But still... in the back of my mind is that deceptive sign from
a couple of years ago: “Closed” in English – “Open” in Yiddish. Was it
prejudice or modesty that motivated them? That there was deception involved
makes me wonder what the real motivation is. Is this just a legal way of eliminating
unwanted patrons?
Who knows?
But the way the sign reads now, there is certainly
nothing wrong with it. Not any more than if I would put up a sign saying that only
people wearing underwear on their heads would be allowed in the store.