Thought this was hilarious...

Breaking from NewsMax.com

ACLU Doesn't Want English Signs

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked officials in a Detroit suburb to reject a proposal that would require businesses with foreign language signs to add English translations.

"We write to strongly urge you to abandon the measure as unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary," the ACLU wrote to the city Thursday in a letter that was also signed by officials with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Michigan and Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development Inc.




In May, Sterling Heights, Mich., Councilwoman Barbara Ziarko asked the city's attorney to prepare an ordinance requiring businesses with foreign language signs to have identifiers such as "bakery" included, the Detroit News reports.

Fire Chief John Childs supported the move, arguing that people passing by the site of a fire or other emergency could inform dispatchers about the location more easily if they could read the signs.

He maintained that the issue has nothing to do with race.

"This is about response time," he said.

The city issued a statement Thursday defending the proposed ordinance.

"Any assertion that the city's public safety effort is intended as a restriction on the expression of cultural diversity is categorically denied," the statement said.


According to the News, Michael J. Steinberg of the ACLU said the proposal is unconstitutional "because it singles out businesses with signs."

EDIT:

Might I prevail upon a moderator to add the missing "t" to the end of the first word in the thread title? :wacko:

The reasoning stated above aside surely you would object to this attempted regulation on private businesses.

This is somewhat different but it amazing that in Chinatown in DC, every business is required to have Chinese signs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

This is somewhat different but it amazing that in Chinatown in DC, every business is required to have Chinese signs.

---

It is the same in all essential aspects.

It's a goose/gander thing.

Actually, vid, Government and it's urge to regulate every little thing (only in the politically-correct way, of course), should just fuck right off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Actually, vid, Government and it's urge to regulate every little thing (only in the politically-correct way, of course), should just fuck right off.

---

Do you not object to the politically incorrect regulatory urges then ? :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Actually, vid, Government and it's urge to regulate every little thing (only in the politically-correct way, of course), should just fuck right off.

---

Do you not object to the politically incorrect regulatory urges then ? :shifty:

---

I think that's what I just said.

Not only is it hilarious, but is really shows the absolute stupidity of the
ACLU. Singles out businesses with signs?????? :blink:

I'd say, "What's next?", but I don't think anyone here is as imaginative as those pricks.

I don't quite understand...

Are these signs printed in some other alphabet or something? Because surely if it was just Spanish or Italian or something people would still be able to read it?

What's the use of being able to say to the fire department ' Yes, it's a shop called Het Zoete Broodje, oh, and it's a bakery, I can see it on the translation sign' ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skweeky

I don't quite understand...

Are these signs printed in some other alphabet or something? Because surely if it was just Spanish or Italian or something people would still be able to read it?

What's the use of being able to say to the fire department ' Yes, it's a shop called Het Zoete Broodje, oh, and it's a bakery, I can see it on the translation sign' ?

---

Ah, but you were inculcated in a multilingual society, kiddo.

This issue is actually an offshoot of the current trend of adding Spanish and other languages to signage that was heretofore English-only, so as to be more hospitable and inclusive-this gives rise to the difficulty of, say, a Spanish-only speaker trying to order a steak-and-cheese sandwich from an English-only speaker, with the attendant frustrations.

It has reached the point where, in some locales, municipal authorities have decided multilingual signage is a condition of doing business, and in many instances, businesses are viewed askance for not having multilingual staff capable of taking orders in other languages.

Now comes the ACLU stipulating that immigrant-owned businesses will suffer no such requirements, and there are many Arab-owned businesses (for example) strung out end-to-end as far as the eye can see-they do not cater to English-only speakers, and they couldn't care less about accomodating them.

Now, I don't read that language, and don't recognize the runes which make-up the signage.

That effectively means I cannot shop there, nor can I indicate what the establishment sells to anyone else, and I certainly wouldn't be able to indicate it's location in an emergency by any means other than gestures.

Damned inconvenient.

Who cares? to be honest a private company should be able to put any signs (apart from safety notices like fire exit) in whatever language it desires. There should be no requirement other than health and safety reasons to have translations in any other language than that desired by the business. It seems to me that if it was in a language other than English in the USA then the company would lose custom of english only speakers...that is their choice and their loss......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Who cares? to be honest a private company should be able to put any signs (apart from safety notices like fire exit) in whatever language it desires. There should be no requirement other than health and safety reasons to have translations in any other language than that desired by the business. It seems to me that if it was in a language other than English in the USA then the company would lose custom of english only speakers...that is their choice and their loss......

---

Yes, they should, and currently are able to. But I don't want to hear any complaining either when it takes the fire department/ambulance/cop 30 minutes to arrive at the Chinese, Arabic, Vietnamese, or whatever business b/c they couldn't locate it due to the language barrier. Would you know what to look for if someone told you to go to 'Chao mung da den voi to am cua chung toi' ?

The fire department is only trying to help for crying out loud. :ermm:

No one has even asked if the citizens in said district have any problem with this. Perhaps they are OK with it, and this is just another ACLU bellyache.

I wonder what right wingers have against that anti US document....the bill of rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Who cares? to be honest a private company should be able to put any signs (apart from safety notices like fire exit) in whatever language it desires. There should be no requirement other than health and safety reasons to have translations in any other language than that desired by the business. It seems to me that if it was in a language other than English in the USA then the company would lose custom of english only speakers...that is their choice and their loss......

---

Yup that's pretty much what I think.

With the usual rider, same rules for everyone.

If English speakers don't want to put up other language signs (other then H&S) then that's their choice too.

Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me....

---

Is the bill of rights a communist thing then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Who cares? to be honest a private company should be able to put any signs (apart from safety notices like fire exit) in whatever language it desires. There should be no requirement other than health and safety reasons to have translations in any other language than that desired by the business. It seems to me that if it was in a language other than English in the USA then the company would lose custom of english only speakers...that is their choice and their loss......

---

Would it surprise you to hear that I agree?

It is not right-wingers who are making these asinine demands, after all-which leads me to ask:

What are you on about, vid? :huh:

the anti aclu theme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

the anti aclu theme

---

I think they should drop the "A" part.

They are copping legitimacy illegitimately, you see.

Do you take pride in an organization which "fights the good fight" for such as NAMBLA?

Much as a political cartoon I saw recently:

A "representation" of a certain member-country of the Human Rights Council of the U.N., uttering these words-

"It's called the Human Rights Council, not the PRO-Human Rights Council..."

The ACLU has just one client...the bill of rights.... and the last time I checked that was American.
Now we may not like the fact that some people have rights but that's the price of freedom. With your example the group has every right to exist as a group and campaign as they do, even though they are basically scum. What they don't have is the right to sleep with children.
The ACLU is made up of Democrats, real Republicans, not the theocrats or neo-fascists that seem to have taken over, Independents, and every vairiant of political thought in between. It has members of all kinds of religious belief and disbelief. They have one mission, to protect the constitution and they do so no matter whos behalf each case is raised on.

Thanks for explaining Kev

One must ask itself though...

If you're in a neighbourhood with nothing but Arabic/Chinese/Hebrew, whatever language signage, then isn't it safe to assume most of the people in the neighbourhood will speak that particular language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The ACLU has just one client...the bill of rights.... and the last time I checked that was American.
Now we may not like the fact that some people have rights but that's the price of freedom. With your example the group has every right to exist as a group and campaign as they do, even though they are basically scum. What they don't have is the right to sleep with children.
The ACLU is made up of Democrats, real Republicans, not the theocrats or neo-fascists that seem to have taken over, Independents, and every vairiant of political thought in between. It has members of all kinds of religious belief and disbelief. They have one mission, to protect the constitution and they do so no matter whos behalf each case is raised on.

---

Are you an ACLU functionary of some sort?

Do you author their brochurage?

Honestly, while you are a fan of the ACLU, I am a fan only of their charter, and not their tactics.

Besides which, I think you are a bit presumptive appropriating "real Republicans" for duty there without their permission.

I think they'd object, I really do.

This is what happens with all the fucking around about having an official language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me....

---

An interesting thought...

I disagree though, I believe plenty of people in Democracies (of most political persuasions) like their Civil Liberties.

...and most Communist's and Facists (Both extremes) tend not to... so why would the Communists form a Civil Liberties Union?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

They have one mission, to protect the constitution and they do so no matter whos behalf each case is raised on.

---

Are you an ACLU functionary of some sort?

Do you author their brochurage?

Honestly, while you are a fan of the ACLU, I am a fan only of their charter, and not their tactics.

Besides which, I think you are a bit presumptive appropriating "real Republicans" for duty there without their permission.

I think they'd object, I really do.

---

If you read, what I said was that the ACLU protects the constitution. That is the point and the only point of the ACLU. If the constitution can be broken for one group of people then it can be broken for any group. They are protecting the constitution, not nambla or any other scum.
As I said we may not like some of the groups the contitution protects but that's the price of having and protecting the constitution.





As to the repulican comment...I stand by what I said. The party has been hijacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skweeky

Thanks for explaining Kev

One must ask itself though...

If you're in a neighbourhood with nothing but Arabic/Chinese/Hebrew, whatever language signage, then isn't it safe to assume most of the people in the neighbourhood will speak that particular language?

---

Not necessarily.

When I visit Chicago, I see ethnic what-have-you strung out end-to-end, and there are no similar adjoining ethnic neighborhoods; I think they like to sew up certain areas, however, so they can do a lot of their shopping in one locale.

Makes sense to me.

They seem to be a very insular people...my sister-in-law walked into an Arab market looking for some sort of spice she needed, and she couldn't read the signs.

The fellow in attendance waved her to the door, and said something like, "leef!"

So she "leefed", and never went back. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Are you an ACLU functionary of some sort?

Do you author their brochurage?

Honestly, while you are a fan of the ACLU, I am a fan only of their charter, and not their tactics.

Besides which, I think you are a bit presumptive appropriating "real Republicans" for duty there without their permission.

I think they'd object, I really do.

---

If you read, what I said was that the ACLU protects the constitution. That is the point and the only point of the ACLU. If the constitution can be broken for one group of people then it can be broken for any group. They are protecting the constitution, not nambla or any other scum.
As I said we may not like some of the groups the contitution protects but that's the price of having and protecting the constitution.





As to the repulican comment...I stand by what I said. The party has been hijacked.

---

Funny-the ACLU used to help those whose rights had been violated and had no recourse...kind of like legal aid.

Now they go 'round seeking out causes (like NAMBLA) on a pro-active basis.

Kind of like...hijacking.

As to your last, I don't know what you mean-what party has been hijacked?

Hmmm....how is it 'unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary'?
Where does the constitution fit into this?? Anti immigrant? Oh hell.
Unnecessary? Well, as J2 says, how would I tell the emergency operator where to send the cops/rescue/fire/marines...whatever? "Its....uhhh...mune..many....uhhh.... Oh Hell...errr....is that an upside down v? WTF??" CLICK! They best hope I enabled GPS location on my cellphone. If not, burn baby burn. Or at best hope someone else can call and speaks english or that the EO has a translator.....lot of damn hopes. At least give the name and address in the native tongue.
Hell, if I were to 'immagrate' to Italy (for example)I would at least make an effort to learn to read and speak rudimentary Itallian. No hopes for fluency at first, just out of respect for the citizens of the country I'm 'immagrating' too. Gives them a giggle and helps me find a potty and after all, it's their country. I'm just a damn immigrant.
So why is it to much to ask for those immagrating to the US to learn English? Why should I learn Spanish? Or Arabic?
Why dont we round up the ACLU and.....

Later taters,
bone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by longboneslinger

Well, as J2 says, how would I tell the emergency operator where to send the cops/rescue/fire/marines...whatever?

---

The address?:unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me....

---

Is the bill of rights a communist thing then?

---

So what your trying to do is tie the bill of rights to an organization started by admitted communist. An organization that defends group like nambla....LMAO Keep trying... sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The ACLU has just one client...the bill of rights.... and the last time I checked that was American.
Now we may not like the fact that some people have rights but that's the price of freedom. With your example the group has every right to exist as a group and campaign as they do, even though they are basically scum. What they don't have is the right to sleep with children.
The ACLU is made up of Democrats, real Republicans, not the theocrats or neo-fascists that seem to have taken over, Independents, and every vairiant of political thought in between. It has members of all kinds of religious belief and disbelief. They have one mission, to protect the constitution and they do so no matter whos behalf each case is raised on.

---

The ACLU is doing everything in it's undisclosed funding powers to do some major damage in this country. Why destroy from the outside when you can destroy it from the inside. Seems every scumbag that comes down the pike they want to defend. Yes they have rights. But why is the ACLU so intent on putting 40 lawyers on any case that involves a dirt bag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

The ACLU is doing everything in it's undisclosed funding powers to do some major damage in this country. Why destroy from the outside when you can destroy it from the inside. Seems every scumbag that comes down the pike they want to defend. Yes they have rights. But why is the ACLU so intent on putting 40 lawyers on any case that involves a dirt bag

---

You mean the ACLU is protecting the constitution against anti constitutional right wing ideology...yes I have to agree with that..... what is the argument for these right wing judges again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

The ACLU is doing everything in it's undisclosed funding powers to do some major damage in this country. Why destroy from the outside when you can destroy it from the inside. Seems every scumbag that comes down the pike they want to defend. Yes they have rights. But why is the ACLU so intent on putting 40 lawyers on any case that involves a dirt bag

---

You mean the ACLU is protecting the constitution against anti constitutional right wing ideology...yes I have to agree with that..... what is the argument for these right wing judges again?

---

A person who fervently believes the U.S. Constitution to be under attack from the Right but not the Left is a liberal, dyed-in-the-wool.

Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

You mean the ACLU is protecting the constitution against anti constitutional right wing ideology...yes I have to agree with that..... what is the argument for these right wing judges again?

---

A person who fervently believes the U.S. Constitution to be under attack from the Right but not the Left is a liberal, dyed-in-the-wool.

Fact.

---

I made no such argument, but it seems that the only reason the ACLU is attacked and called traitors and communist is by right wingers when their unconstitutional ideology is tackled.
The bill of rights is not partisan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

A person who fervently believes the U.S. Constitution to be under attack from the Right but not the Left is a liberal, dyed-in-the-wool.

Fact.

---

I made no such argument, but it seems that the only reason the ACLU is attacked and called traitors and communist is by right wingers when their unconstitutional ideology is tackled.
The bill of rights is not partisan.

---

The ACLU, as an organization, has an absolute liberal bias-so much so, in fact, that to attempt to argue otherwise accomplishes naught but to reveal the arguer as...a liberal.

Fact.

Period.

End of sentence.

No debate necessary.

As I said, they should drop the "A", then petition for U.N. auspice.

You know it makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The ACLU, as an organization, has an absolute liberal bias-so much so, in fact, that to attempt to argue otherwise accomplishes naught but to reveal the arguer as...a liberal.

Fact.

Period.

End of sentence.

No debate necessary.

As I said, they should drop the "A", then petition for U.N. auspice.

You know it makes sense.

---

Ah .....so anyone that supports the bill of rights is a liberal and thus not American.


Boy those founding fathers....what a bunch of commie traitors.


Btw.they are sooo liberal and thus not american that the supported that well know leftie and un-american, rush limbaugh when his privacy rights were being abused.... Good job that right wing judge (sorry, true american judge) was there to ensure Rush's rights were violated.


COuld it be that conservatives are mostly the ones violating the bill of rights so those are the ones brought to task?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The ACLU, as an organization, has an absolute liberal bias-so much so, in fact, that to attempt to argue otherwise accomplishes naught but to reveal the arguer as...a liberal.

Fact.

Period.

End of sentence.

No debate necessary.

As I said, they should drop the "A", then petition for U.N. auspice.

You know it makes sense.

---

Ah .....so anyone that supports the bill of rights is a liberal and thus not American.


Boy those founding fathers....what a bunch of commie traitors.


Btw.they are sooo liberal and thus not american that the supported that well know leftie and un-american, rush limbaugh when his privacy rights were being abused.... Good job that right wing judge (sorry, true american judge) was there to ensure Rush's rights were violated.


COuld it be that conservatives are mostly the ones violating the bill of rights so those are the ones brought to task?

---

The Founders knew what the words of that document meant; they wrote them, as I recall.

They did not look upon it as a convenient item to have in one's grasp when struck by any old urge to bend, fold, stretch or otherwise mutilate something.

The ACLU has the same expansive ideas as every other liberal group.

Once again...fact.

I'm still not sure why the word "liberal" is so dirty in the US. Surely Lincoln would've been considered "liberal" in his time?

Please note I'm also very drunk and stoned.

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

I'm still not sure why the word "liberal" is so dirty in the US. Surely Lincoln would've been considered "liberal" in his time?

Please note I'm also very drunk and stoned.

:shuriken:

---

The word liberal is fine.

The word progressive is likewise fine.

It's what people have done by choosing them as labels that has soiled them so.

You see vidcc disavow the label even more quickly than if someone called him a conservative...:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The Founders knew what the words of that document meant; they wrote them, as I recall.

They did not look upon it as a convenient item to have in one's grasp when struck by any old urge to bend, fold, stretch or otherwise mutilate something.

---

Indeed the founders did know. How many are alive today?

To me it seems the founders wrote the document to ensure freedom for minorities as well as majorities would be protected.

conservatives wish to ignore this...unless it's their freedoms being abused....fact.

conservatives are expanding government restrictions on private concerns...and private lives...fact.

conservatives are the big government group...fact.

liberals are for freedom...conservatives are for anti freedom controls....fact.

It's the "land of the free"...not the "land of free to do only what conservatives approve of"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The ACLU has the same expansive ideas as every other liberal group.

Once again...fact.

---

expanding freedom...hmmm...what an anti-american ideology.

but then they are not expanding freedoms, they are protecting freedoms we already constitutionally have and restoring freedoms that have been unconstitutionally denied.

As I said the client is the bill of rights....not the humans in the case.