City Sues Satmar Hasid-Owned Stores Over "Modesty" Signs

“These stores are public accommodations, and they are prohibited from posting any kind of advertisement specifying a preference for one type of customer or another, or expressing discrimination against one type or another.…It seems pretty clear that it’s geared toward women dressing modestly if they choose to come into the store, and that would be discrimination.”

Ha'aretz reports:

Does a requirement that customers at Satmar-run stores in [Williamsburg,] Brooklyn dress modestly run afoul of human rights law? That is the question at issue in the upcoming trial of seven businesses being sued by New York City’s Commission on Human Rights for having signs in their storefronts stating, “No shorts, no barefoot, no sleeveless, no low cut neckline allowed in this store.”…

“These stores are public accommodations, and they are prohibited from posting any kind of advertisement specifying a preference for one type of customer or another, or expressing discrimination against one type or another,” said Clifford Mulqueen, deputy commissioner and general counsel to the human rights commission.…

The signs are “pretty specific to women,” Mulqueen said. “It seems pretty clear that it’s geared toward women dressing modestly if they choose to come into the store, and that would be discrimination.”…

“The only bias I see in these lawsuits is a stereotype by the City Commission of Human Rights that ‘all Hasidim must be guilty of discrimination because they’re all misogynists,’ ” said Marc Stern, a civil rights expert who works as counsel to the American Jewish Committee. Stern said he is informally advising the attorney representing the businesses. “It reflects a bias on the part of this commission.”…

Businesses are allowed to set dress codes, said Stern, citing as examples private clubs in Manhattan, where “if you walked in in shorts and a halter top, you’d be tackled by the old doorman.…[Courts have] even upheld the Hooters dress code” …

“How is it, within three miles of the city commission’s office, there are God knows how many restaurants with different gender-based dress codes, and the city commission doesn’t pursue them?” said Stern. “If those don’t get challenged why does this?”

I broke the story of these signs, something the Ha'aretz reporter knows but did not bother to cite.

Related Posts:

Williamsburg Grocery Store Dress Code.

Williamsburg Modesty Sign.
 
Women! Move To The Side! Another Modesty Edict From Williamsburg.

Related articles

Vicious Anti-Zionist Children's Book Distributed By Satmar In Hopes Of Convincing Haredim Not To Vote

The Orthodox Union Lies To The New York Times

Satmar Rebbe Pays Social Call To Felon Who Stole Life Savings Of East European Peasants

Satmar Rabbi Arrested On Mulitple Counts Of Child Sexual Abuse

Zionists Are Evil, Amalek, Must Be Fought, Satmar Rebbe Says

Kiryas Joel Satmar Rebbe Asks Judge For Leniency For Satmar Criminal

Satmar Rebbe Continues To Punish Weberman Victim's Family

Satmar Reportedly Launches All Out War Against Weberman Victim's Family, Supporters, Media

Comments

[Yochanan Lavie]

To play devil's advocate, the Satmar could argue that restaurants and clubs are also public accommodations, and they sometimes have a dress code. What do the lawyers amongst us say?

[Dov]

I doubt the attorney would like it much or consider it a business owner's right if he posted a sign saying "no yarmulkes, streimels, payos, or long black coats.

[simple jew]

B"H
Hypocrites (nyc)
No problem w dress codes for their courtrooms.
No problem w dress codes for nyc clubs restaurants etc
Yes problem w dress code for jewish owned businesses

As long as they don't sell 32 oz sugar soda city shouldn't bother them.

[Attorney]

This law is a law that necessarily targets a specific protected class of people - women (sex-based discrimination). While it isnt specific, it is definitely strongly implied.

A resturant or club doesnt have a dress code that specifically targets a particular class. It has a code that is of neutral applicability - i.e., we dont care who you are, what race, color, ethnicty, sex, sexual orientation. If you wanna come in, you must dress a specific way.

[Garnel Ironheart]

What happened to "No shirt, no shoes, no service"? If those signs are legal and this sign doesn't say "Women" on it why is it not allowed? After all, a guy in a tanktop on a hot summer's day fouls afoul of it just as much.

[Barney]

@Attorney,

As much as I laugh at that sign, it does not discriminate against race or color or sexual orientation, ethnicity.

[MarkfromShortHills]

This is not analogous to a dress code in a restaurant. The business posting this notice is a grocery store. If the shopkeeper wishes to post a dress code, it must be generally applicable and not applicable to women only (which is obviously the case here).

Dov @ 11:10: you are certainly correct in your assumption, but your counterexample is not really applicable. The language in your counterexample clearly says "Jews cannot enter this store." This is a far cry from saying "Women who are improperly dressed may not enter here" while at the same time saying nothing about what male clothing will be considered improper.

[dh]

In Michigan, I think, where the Muslims (also got rid of the bike lane for the same reasons) almost identical signs were found not to violate any laws or rights.

'No shirt, no shoes, no entry' has as it's basis restrictions for health and safety reasons and does not infringe on rights.

[balderdash]

this is a load crap. in saudi arabi all foreign workers even the more educated and trained live in COMPOUNDS. the rest of the country the women are COVERED while i am pityfull towards backward jews like the satmar, nevertheless one may request a manner of dress when entering a store. IT IS NOT an obligation to shop and support such narrow minded suedo religious jews. SHOP ELSEWHERE.

[Rocky]

Where does the sign just refer to women? In the summer, many men wear shorts and tank tops. I suspect that their business is not wanted either.

My local health food store has a sign pasted to the glass entry door that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It reminds me of Texas c. 1950 in the movie "Giant".

[Wool Silk Cotton, sports star and rock superstar]

The usual frumma 'leaders' who have local politicians on speed-dial will make this matter disappear.

I can understand all the arguments made here.
Most stores on Lee Ave don't have such signs anyway. I only saw one such store the last time I was there, and it was a bakery with very few customers.

Regardless of how this eventually plays out, nobody is forced to shop in a place where they feel the management are jerks or worse.

[zibble]

Businesses are allowed to set dress codes, said Stern, citing as examples private clubs in Manhattan, where “if you walked in in shorts and a halter top, you’d be tackled by the old doorman.…[Courts have] even upheld the Hooters dress code” …

Bogus argument #1: he is comparing a private club with a public retail store.

Bogus argument #2: Hooters has a dress code for employees, not for the customers.

If Marc Stern is going to argue in defense of the stores' dress policy for customers, he should at least say something cogent. He didn't learn this in law school?

[shoshy]

The only line I could see applying to women only is "No Lowcut Necklines". The others could apply to anyone. And maybe they don't want to see hairy guy's chests, either.

[dave]

Just what is the difference between a "Public" business vs a "Private" business?
Sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me brought about by people who have waaaaaay too much time on their hands.

[SkepticalYid]

Posted by: simple jew | February 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Liar. Restaurant dress codes are forbidden to impose on a guest's religious garb. Clubs are private. No store, be it Jewish, Muslim or catholic can impose a religious dress code on a customer.

[NeverFrum]

“The only bias I see in these lawsuits is a stereotype by the City Commission of Human Rights that ‘all Hasidim must be guilty of discrimination because they’re all misogynists,’ ”

I don't know about this lawsuit...it's a stretch...but I certainly agree that they're all misogynists.

[barry]

I am no fan of nonsense in the guise of tznius, butI will say that I have been in many New York City restaurants through the years that had dress codes which were quite gender specific, usually for men. No shirts without collars, for example, or no dining without a jacket. In fact I remember one such years back that kept a few spare sport coats handy on a rack just in case some boorish individual (like me) came to the door without one. And we've all seen the near ubiquitous "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

[Jessica Ramer]

Restaurant dress codes requiring collared shirt and ties are clearly designed to keep out a certain clientele--low-income people who don't habitually wear such clothing.

The sign in the Satmar store is not worse than that. Anyone, man or woman, Jew or Christian, black or white, can shop there if the clothing is modest.

On balance, therefore, I think the issue of property rights and the lack of specific discrimination against a protected group make the sign allowable.

However, I don't like it, even though I can't find a rational reason for this feeling.

[B, Frank]

@'No shirt, no shoes, no entry' has as it's basis restrictions for health and safety reasons and does not infringe on rights.

No, they *DO NOT*. Please stop spreading misinformation as fact. NS3 signs have their origins in *discrimination*--stemming all the way back into the 60s and 70s.

There are *no health codes* regarding footwear in any of the 50 states, nor should there be. There are also *no* safety issues with going barefoot either.

Please educate yourself. See the fine information available at barefooters.org.

[Joseph]

Many restaurants require men to wear a tie, presumably with a shirt and trousers! Harrod's in London doesn't admit shoppers in jeans -- not even top pop stars, who have been turned away. 'No shorts, bare feet or sleeveless' Why do those apply only to women? I've seen barefoot men in shorts with sleevemess shirts.

[vas]

df,

No, the 'No shirt, no shoes, no entry' rule has nothing to do with safety or health. It's a dress code from the hippy era to keep out the undesirables.

[dh]

B. Frank, you should also B. Smart and educate yourself. I never said anything about codes, statutes, ordinances, or laws. As far as safety issues.. come here dahlink, come step on this knife.

vas, you should also B. Smart. No one known as "df" posted on this thread. Now think a little deeper...really concentrate...how many restaurants were you in before the sixties where it was okay to be shoeless and shirtless? Hmmmm, could it be insurance requirements so the premises would be healthy and safe to avoid having to pay out for the sickness and injuries filthy people, such as perhaps yourself and B. Frank, caused when your spittle slobbered to the floor and Billy Bob slipped on it, tripped and landed on a rusty nail? Or did the insurance companies want to avoid Grannies acidic underarm hair from dropping in Aunt Bea's peach cobbler causing her to vomit in your cousin Uncle Betty's prune juice?

[B, Frank]

@dh
Wow. What over-the-top, germaphobic, wild paranoia. Seriously, go read the facts at barefooters.org. All of your concerns are addressed quite thoroughly in the posted literature. You might want to stop showing so much ignorance.

Humans were quite frequently barefoot through much of their lives up until only a very few generations ago. How quickly humans succumb to decorum with specious arguments of safety and sanitation--originating all because shoes used to be a sign of wealth.

[Barry]

Joseph, you are mistaken about Harrod's dress code. They do allow women wearing jeans to enter the store.
You need to look at the underlying reason for dress codes.
The reason one must wear a hard had, eye protection, gloves, safety boots and hi-vis jacket on a building site are obvious and relates to the dangers present on this site. Once the works are complete and when the builders go of site they remove this clothing.
Likewise with a high class restaurant. One is expected to make an effort in these places. It has nothing to do with modesty. Indeed you will frequently find women in evening dress at the classiest restaurants show more flesh than they would do at work or out shopping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtjxU8P8XG8

I knew a maitre d who would go jogging every summer morning in shorts and a vest. Should I have stopped him and called him a hypocrite for dressing in the local park in a way he could not object to in his restaurant? Likewise one expects a person to dress differently in church or synagogue than when shopping for groceries.

You need to ask why would a Satmar grocery store impose a dress code? It is not as if these places with their retarded customers, general filth and stench, rats dropping and screaming kids are high class establishments? The dress code is to reinforce the idea that your average Shiksa woman is repulsive filth and no better than finding a giant turd in the store. It is a sexual insult towards the non-Jewish population. The best response to that insult would be mass shop lifting by non-Jewish women, although the idea of a black female bailiff in shorts carrying sifrei torah upside down from Satmar shuls to enforce a civil rights judgement would be a pleasure to behold

[PaganGoy]

This site is AWESOME!!! I`ve been addicted to it for months and just now got up the nerve to post.

[PaganGoy]

Sorry guys I know I was off-topic but could`nt resist..lol

[put a square into a hole]

Wher is the discrimination???
Nothing in the sign is only for shiksas.
The vaad tzinius doesnt want anymore issues with joe hynes and pedophiles/molesters. The sign is for ALL
men women gays & trannies (unless you donate to the weberman defence fund)
Why do you ASSUME that the signs are only toward woman? That would be racist. Heven forbid a ChasiDICK store owner being accused of that!!!

[YonahLevi]

Some commenters are claiming that these signs are discriminatory in that they specifically layout restrictions for women and not for men....these know-nothings clearly need to improve their reading comprehension skills. Let's ask some questions:

1)Do only women have arms, or is the "no sleeveless" restriction easily applied to both men and women equally?

2)Similarly, do only women have feet, or is the "no barefoot" restriction meant for both men and women equally?

3) Do only women wear shorts, or can that restriction also be applied to men and women equally?

Mr. Attorney and MarkfromShortHills, you're both idiots...try to put your bias aside, reread the sign and think critically. Where is it implied that these restrictions are only directed towards women? And I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you Shmarya...No one cares that you "broke" this story.

[B, Frank]

It is very vague. The sign is not clearly discriminatory towards any specific person. The only people possibly unfairly (or illegally) discriminated against are those that must be (for medical or disability) or choose to be (religion, lifestyle, health) barefoot.

While some of the other requirements may also conflict with some individual religious attires--it isn't *clearly doing so specifically*.