Michelle Malkin passes on the story of a Danish pizzeria owner, Aage Bjerre, who got in trouble with the law. Seems that he refused to serve French or German customers because of their governments’ decision not to stand by President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. Because he refused to pay the fine, Bjerre’s going to spend a few days in jail. Malkin thanks the man for his support and implies that he’s some sort of hero.
I disagree. If Danish law requires that a restaurateur not discriminate against customers based on nationality, then he is obliged to obey that law and not discriminate against people based on nationality.
But legal issues aside, his actions are still reprehensible. Imagine, for example, if Bjerre refused to serve Catholics because he disagreed with the pope’s stand on birth control. Or if he refused to serve senior citizens because he disagrees with government-funded pension programs. What these, too, be right?
Discrimination based on nationality is no less bigoted than discrimination based on age, gender, race, or religion. That Bjerre chooses to dress up his bigotry with American flags and pictures of President Bush and Laura Bush does not change the fundamental nature of his bigotry.
Whatever, Penny. I’m sending him ten bucks.
I hear you pennywit, but wouldn’t it be nice if people could peacably run their business as they see fit? No piece of crap government is going to tell me what to think, even if they force my actions into conformity. You’re right though, he’s a wackjob.
Earth:
If I may, how would you react if an American restaurant closed its doors to, say, whites? Or Jews? Or blacks?
–|PW|–
Well, having had a COSTCO cashier refuse to hand back my membership card and instead opt to throw it on the floor after I paid for my goods the morning after the last Presidential election — me standing there with a smile, payment in full, valid membership and a tiny American flag lapel pin on my blouse — from a company known to be a highly active meeting and greeting and funding organization for the DNC, I’d say that the pizza guy was fed up with the issue of liberal outrage.
I don’t know what the “laws” are in his place of business, but if they require a non-discrimination behavior based upon nationality, fine, but the guy didn’t discriminate based upon nationality, from what you write here.
You might want to go refresh your understandings of the words, “discrimination” (to “discriminate”) and what “on the basis of nationality” mean.
And, if and when you can tell from looking a person over what their religion is, let me know. I’d be interested to read about that special power.
Hmmm.
Then I’d suppose those signs that read “No shirt, no shoes, no service” is discriminatory towards those people without either shirts or shoes.
Or perhaps, at least in America, businesses can choose whom to do business with.
Go figure.
S —
He did, in fact, refuse to serve French and German customers; he was judged in violation of Danish law regarding discrimination based on nationality, and he has been sentenced.
–|PW|–
If I may, how would you react if an American restaurant closed its doors to, say, whites? Or Jews? Or blacks?
Me, I’d go to another restaurant. You?
Ed —
Except, of course, for the small matter of the Civil Rights Act …
–|PW|–
And what about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs? That fairly flies in the face of decent professional behavior. If such a thing is allowed what happens when Christian Scientists start flocking to pharmacy schools in droves to hand out copies of Science and Health instead of your arthritis or heart medicine?
Malkin would be screaming to high holy heaven if her web host cancelled her account or, say, her gas company rep shut off service to her house because of her political views. These dudes just wanted some pizza.
How about if, instead, this guy decorates his place with American flags and pictures of Bush and US Marines? He answers the phone “Bob’s Danish Pizza, where we support America and George Bush”. Each pizza comes with a little plastic American Flag stuck in it.
That would be a better way to vocally show your support, and when French or German customers complain, tell them to eat somewhere else.
This “bigotry” is different, PW. It’s a temporal one based on a transient policy of a government and not one primarily and permanently directed at particular people’s except as a secondary consequence. I don’t find it to be quite as cut-n-dried as you have presented.
Let me proffer another extreme that goes the other way. Say you have a store and there’s a large gathering – I dunno, how about a G8 Summit. As an adjunct, some anarchists meander the streets looking for refreshments which you just happen to sell… but they are currently marching peaceably. However, you are aware of their political activity and disagree with their activism. Searching one’s conscience and not finding the inner passivity to reward these hoodlums with your fine recipes (remember, they aren’t currently hoodlumming), you decide to deny them entrance into your store.
Is that bigotry? Is he not free to do with his enterprise what he chooses? Outright racism to me seems unfair, but the other -isms I would deem fair game since they are largely based on choice or are transient in nature and entirely reversible.
I’ll be ordering some mugs.
Sorry. Misplaced apostrophe above. Maybe persons would’ve been better.
“Me, I’d go to another restaurant. You?”
Yeah, and I’d find another public bus company to ride to work. Or I’d find another state to vote in, or a state I wouldn’t get lynched in, or one I could go to a decent school in, or maybe even, use the public swimming pool whenever I wanted, or drink from public drinking fountains …
Private discrimination works the same way. The victim can find themselves utterly shut off from a slew of basic services or forced to go out of their way to seek those services because of discrimination. It places an undue burden on the lives of those discriminated against. The Supreme Court declared that separate but equal is not justified under the law because separate is not equal. Although I guess those were activist judges. I can’t wait til we finally overturn the Civil Rights Act.
pennywit: let me repeat this…
YOU allege that the man’s behavior is synonymous with someone “refusing to serve Catholics…”
I asked YOU how you could suggest that anyone — this pizza guy or anyone else — could perceive (and opt to serve or not serve) ANYone on the basis of an assumed religion.
And if YOU know how to perceive a person’s religious faith based upon their visual appearance (other than, perhaps, a person in a burkha or wearing a Seik turban or a Buddhist monk or the Pope in his ceremonial clothing or similar…which the normal/average customer in a pizza parlor is not likely to be wearing, by the way, nearly anywhere)…then to please let me know how that evaluation is done.
The man refusing to serve “Germans and French,” well, perhaps (so it’s described here) but the association YOU made as to a religious discrimination is far fetched to baiting for another discussion altogether.
And that I don’t know what “Danish law” says or requires of anyone in business to do anything. If the Netherlands overrule individual rights (a proprietor has no right to refuse service to anyone based upon nationality, as you describe — I just don’t know what it is, other than what you write, which is what I also wrote in first response), then the guy violated his local laws.
However, there’s no mention here whether or not at times of war, what an individual’s liberties are or are not…in Denmark.
There’s no description here of how and upon what the pizza guy made his determinations as to who to serve and who to refuse service to, so, that’s a huge unknown.
Maybe he was refusing service to “Germans and French” who yelled and/o were otherwise offensive in his establishment, on his property, who knows.
But, this issue is hardly similar to someone refusing to serve anyone based upon discrimination.
In my view. Unless proven that the guy was targeting, specifically, “nationalities” in refusing service — very difficult to ever prove unless there’s an ongoing standard of discrimination — I don’t see the big news here.
Nor still understand your stretching to try to include religious discrimination as a plea for undue/inappropriate sympathy.
“If Danish law requires that a restaurateur not discriminate against customers based on nationality, then he is obliged to obey that law and not discriminate against people based on nationality.”
As you pointed out, he’s going to do jail time. Standard civil disobedience. What’s your beef with that?
Don’t forget that the simple presence of a law can’t force you to do anything. It can simply make you regret not doing something.
Murdoc — That has me laughing.
AD — A few distinctions come to mind. On a legal level, the Danish purveyor of pizza is in the wrong. If the law says “don’t discriminate based on nationality,” and you discriminate based on nationality, you’re screwed.
On the other hand, your anarchist analogy is inapposite. The anarchist has more or less made his choice to be an anarchist; the German or the Frenchman, in contrast, had no choice about being born a German or Frenchman.
S:
Read the links nd use your power of reason. It’s possible to draw a few conclusions on Danish law based on a man’s going to jail for violating that law.
Also, I bring in religion to gauge reactions to different forms of discrimination. Whether a discriminator can ascertain a customer’s religion is irrelevant to the large question of how Wizbang readers react to particular discriminatory attitudes.
–|PW|–
And, most importantly, finding it very odd that some people here are presuming to force the “reprehensible” rejection upon some Danish guy’s behavior…in Denmark…via misapplication of United States legislation…which does not apply to…people in Denmark.
I think the guy might consider displaying his political position (in as abundant a fashion as possible) in and about his store and suggesting alternative pizza parlors to anyone who might not like his political position about anything.
BACK IN THE UNITED STATES, however, the issue of discrimination is often abused by some, to attempt to offend individual liberties.
I agree that there exists some discrimination in our world, and in the United States, specifically (however, I cannot comment about what exists in Denmark for a citizen there since I’m not a citizen/resident of Denmark), but it is rarely “reprehensible” unless it’s institutional. Say, for example, publicly funded schools in, say, the state of Hawaii, who disparage and refuse to include Caucasian students in their programs, based upon a presumption of who qualifies on “blood quantity” (racially presuming what a “racial type” is based upon the presumption of the amount of what “racial blood” someone has or does not have) and who does not.
And, pennywit, when you opt to view MSNBC and not FOX News, you’re exercising discrimination.
The issue is whether or not governments can and should dictate/require under penalty to individuals how individuals behave, based upon individual preferences. Some of those preferences are substantially harmful to others, most are not.
I wouldn’t call the pizza guy a hero anymore than I’d call his behavior “reprehensible.” I think he’s probably a reasonable guy who only has so much time in every day to act according to his politics and whose politics are respectable.
Proving “discrimination” on the terms that exist in the U.S., based upon “nationality” is something that requires more than a few customers in a pizza parlor, however. Again, what’s required in Denmark is an unknown to me, and I’m not going to presume that the Danes are now functioning according to U.S. legislation.
Pennywit: I’d go to another restaurant too, and probably shoot the bird or worse to that business owner. It’s still his business though, not the governments (arguably). Actually, since the eminent domain case the other week, it seems like the whole country is turning into a good ole boy system (sewer) and everything is up for grabs.
Murdoc: That’s a fantastic idea!
I think the guy is choosing the wrong way here. Not ALL French and German people were against invading Iraq, or the polls would have said 100% instead of 70% or whatever.
Murdoc had a better idea: an American-themed restaurant.
Reprehensible or not…. In a *free* country, a business owner should be *free* to decide with whom they will or will not conduct business. Why should government use the threat of force to coerce someone to do business with someone else ?
This owner has artificially limited his customer base. Another owner who didn’t have such an artificial limitation would have a larger customer base available and therefore be more likely to be able to grow his business at a faster rate. In the long run, the net result his refusal not to serve a selected group would simply cost him business (read:money) and goodwill while accomplishing nothing.
RE: pennywit’s post (July 13, 2005 12:37 PM)
…If the law says “don’t discriminate based on nationality,” and you discriminate based on nationality, you’re screwed.
Yes. There are repercussions to breaking this law and, as mentioned by Mark Flacy, there is Civil Disobedience. Perhaps the law will be changed.
…The anarchist has more or less made his choice to be an anarchist; the German or the Frenchman, in contrast, had no choice about being born a German or Frenchman.
Yes, but they could certainly emigrate to more hospitable climes… they choose to remain French or German. 😉
But seriously, if the proprietor knew the customers were anti-American, his decision would be based on a political basis. If he didn’t know this and just rejected them outright with prejudice, then it’s a questionable business decision and perhaps offensive to any pro-American/anti-Hussein partisans. Nonetheless, the political decision based on nationality is still a transient one… the natives will just have to go spend lots of money in a more hospitable shop. Perhaps there’s a Syrian Shish Kabob Shop down the lane where they can refuel and return later to march in protest. My underlying foundation is that individuals should still retain the right to control their property under practically all conditions. Exceptions arise but the default should be to the benefit of the proprietor. Market forces will self-correct the most egregious violations.
Penny has the heart of a totalitarian. Any business can refuse service to anyone they want to. Tell me Penny, can I come into your house and start yelling at the top of my lungs? Can I sleep in your driveway? Oh suddenly you get all selective on the concept of private property. You are a joke, I can’t believe the Wizbang dudes let you post here (unless it is to make fun of you).
Thank you MikeB, freedom isn’t really that scary is it? I also doubt a racist like that would have the business a less wacked business owner would have.
Mr. Leftism =, her house is not a “Public accomodation” like a store or restaurant.
-S-
You said:
“And if YOU know how to perceive a person’s religious faith based upon their visual appearance (other than, perhaps, a person in a burkha or wearing a Seik turban or a Buddhist monk or the Pope in his ceremonial clothing or similar…”
What about:
A Christian by a cross
An Amish by his beard and dress
A Hindu by the red dot
A Muslim by his beard
A Jew by his hat or the star of David sewn on his sleeve
There are a lot of clues – and those who are prejudice are motivated to find them.
Hey Joe: If your restaurant is only yours conditionally, when does the rest of your property become only sort-of yours? Last week in the supreme court? Tomorrow?
I think he handled it wrong. He should have had a sign made.
No Shirt.
No Shoes.
No Deodorant.
No Soap.
No Manners.
No Service!
He could then exclude 3/4s of Europeans without singling out people by nationality.
Pennywit –
The restaurant owner is in violation of Danish law. Just as a US business importing proscribed goods from Cuba would be in violation of American law.
His lack of a legal defense doesn’t nesessarily back up your moral objections to the practice of discriminating against nationalities. It’s a geograhic coincidence in this case.
Bruce:
I put an Israeli flag sticker on my computer in college not because I was Israeli or Jewish, but because I was sick with all the anti-Semitic junk I kep hearing. Amazing how fast stuff stopped–and how many people automatically assumed I was Jewish.
Hmmmm.
“Except, of course, for the small matter of the Civil Rights Act …”
Which states that “from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin”. It however doesn’t preclude the manager from denying you service because he doesn’t like you. Or because you’re annoying him.
There’s a lot of loopholes in something like this, especially for a restaurant. Sure if the guy yells out “You damn Germans! Get out of here!” then you probably have a case. But if he sits you down and then waitress gives you slow-as-hell service, that’s not grounds for any sort of lawsuit.
If it were, then I’m owed a bundle of money from my local diner.
Gee, bullwinkle, get abroad much?
Hmmm.
Or here’s another interesting one. You could put up a sign that reads:
“You are required to say “God bless George Bush” to make your order for food. If you do not say “God bless George Bush, you will not be served.”
Is that illegal? Is it covered by the Civil Rights Act? It’s not on the basis of race. Or religion. Or color. Or nationality.
Three points and a question:
1. You made a point about obeying the law. Some laws said that certain races had to sit at the back of the bus. Those who broke the law were just like the pizzeria owner: sent to jail. The law is no indication of morality, as in right or wrong.
2. I think the owner did a really dumb thing by potentially alienating many Germans and French who agreed with him. Someone’s suggestion about the decor would have been a much better solution.
3. It is one thing for a government to discriminate, but another for the government to force someone to associate with those with whom he or she does not wish to associate. Oh, and by the way, it appears the Danish government does discriminate (as do many others) in the way it treats Germans versus the way it treats Ghanans.
Q. Around the time of the start of the second war in Iraq, the news reported that many German businesses were refusing to serve Americans. Does anyone know what happened with those? Did they actually discriminate? Did they even have the opportunity? Was there a law against that? If so, any prosecutions?
‘his actions are still reprehensible.’
Reprehensible? What’s reprehensible is that any gov’t can tell a private business who to sell their products to.
Dunut: yeah dude, that’s reprehensible.
“What’s reprehensible is that any gov’t can tell a private business who to sell their products to.”
I’m sorry but how this not an argument for discrimination based on race, religion, politics what have you?
Rules about no shoes and nor shirts are clearly tied to health code and other safety regulations, not simply the owner’s social or cultural attitudes.
Second, how many people here really want to live in a country where you have to announce your political or religious views everytime you want to buy a pizza?
Let me get this straight: We’re allowed to boycott businessess because of whom they choose to do business with, but the business is not allowed to choose whom to do business with?
Umm, OK.
For the record, I don’t think the guy should refuse service to individual people, who may or may not agree with their governments, because of the actions of their governments, but he should be allowed to serve whoever the hell he wants. Why can’t someone who opens their own business not be allowed to operate it as they see fit? If he’s willing to take a financial hit, why does government need to get involved? Is this guy really a criminal? And if other customers don’t like it, they can stop going there.
Also, what if an American company only wished to do business with other American companies (Buy American!), would they be violating any discrimination based on nationality laws? Is it a reprehensible act? Should the company be forced to do business with, say, a British company?
Not surprising that everyone missed the real point of the post:
Pennywit gets paid by the comment.
Have one on me, PW! (cha-ching!)
Second, how many people here really want to live in a country where you have to announce your political or religious views everytime you want to buy a pizza?
I certainly don’t, and this guy is out of business due to lack of customers and vandalism. It didn’t require jack booted gov’t thugs to do it though. What again is wrong with freedom and market forces?
earth, DUNUT and Leftism= are absolutely right.
The question here is not what the government is doing through the Civil Rights Act (or the Danish equivalent), but whether these governments should be doing these things.
Goldwater opposed the CRA at the time, on grounds of liberty. If only the bloggers had been around then …
Nor are these collectivist strong-arm laws justified on the grounds that businesses are “public accomodations.” That’s a distinction without a difference. Labelling somethng “public” does not justify every form of intrusion and control.
The only thing that justifies governmental force is the prevention (or remedying) of actual harm. Is a discriminatory shop owner causing anyone harm? Of course not. One of the basic tenets of the Harm Principle is that refusing to associate or do business with someone is NOT a form of harm.
No harm? No governmental action.
RE: Jason’s post (July 13, 2005 02:45 PM)
Also, what if an American company only wished to do business with other American companies (Buy American!), would they be violating any discrimination based on nationality laws?
Excellent point. We’ve limited our focus to individuals at the level of retail, but the ethics of it all should apply universally to be intellectually honest. Very insightful.
Not surprising that everyone missed the real point of the post:
Pennywit gets paid by the comment.
Have one on me, PW! (cha-ching!)
It’s not surprising that freedom is a popular subject.
OK, so let me get this straight,
Several of you seem to say a shop owner should be able to turn away anyone – is that correct? I’m curious, who do you want to turn away? A lefty, an African American, an old person, a U.S. Marine, a W.A.S.P, someone in a wheelchair, a little girl with red hair? What’s your point? Why would you want to turn anyone away unless they were creating a disturbance? If you’re saying you want this right, then you must have some idea how you want to apply it.
Frameone, I’ve probably spent nearly as much abroad, living, not as a tourist as you have spent wasting the oxygen that was intended for decent people. That would mean your whole life, in cast that isn’t clear enough for you.
Why am I convinced that we wouldn’t be having this discussion if Aage Bjerre had refused to serve American customers because of our government’s decision to invade Iraq? (Because he wouldn’t have gotten in trouble for THAT.)
Bruce:
Forcing a man to serve another man pizza is slavery.
I’m curious, who do you want to turn away?
Me? No one. I want every person who is not HARMING anyone else to be LEFT THE HELL ALONE by the government.
See, whenever the government does something, it uses force or the threat of force. That’s what government is — organized force.
Now, force is not always bad, but we have to recognize that there is such a thing as JUSTIFIED force and UNJUSTIFIED force.
Force is only justified to prevent or remedy actual harm. In ordinary life, most people have no trouble understanding this.
When a shopkeeper decides with whom he will (or will not) do business, that is not a form of harm. We should respect his privacy, his autonomy, his fundamental human dignity enough to NOT USE FORCE to make him act in the way we would like him to. When we do such a thing, then WE become the aggressor.
If you disagree with him, then say so (also not a form of harm), or set up a shop across the street and appeal to people’s good sense and decency by announcing that you will not discriminate.
Why would you want to turn anyone away unless they were creating a disturbance?
To make a point. To protest. To raise people’s awareness. Whatever.
Motives are irrelevant (whether you think them good or bad). What matters is his behavior, which is patently not harmful.
If you’re saying you want this right, then you must have some idea how you want to apply it.
No, what I am saying is that he already HAS this right. It is a fundamental human right to be left alone, to be free from the aggressive use of force (i.e., unless you are causing harm to someone).
As for applying it, that is up to each person to do so, as he sees fit.
Bruce,
I don’t think anyone should be turned away. That’s entirely different from saying that I think that a business owner should be allowed to turn away whoever he or she pleases (and suffer the financial consequences of doing so).
Have you ever seen signs in businesses that say someting to the effect of: “The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone”? It’s particularly common in bars, but I’m sure it shows up elsewhere.
Anyway, the point is, if I can refuse to use a business because of the politics of the owners(perhaps they donate money to an opposing political party or a non-profit organization I dislike) why can’t the business refuse to serve me for the same reason?
I’m not saying it’s a good business practice, but why does freedom only go one way?
There’s a lot of loopholes in something like this, especially for a restaurant. Sure if the guy yells out “You damn Germans! Get out of here!” then you probably have a case. But if he sits you down and then waitress gives you slow-as-hell service, that’s not grounds for any sort of lawsuit.
How about if he puts up a sign that says “No French or Germans allowed”?
Since that’s what he did, I think it’s kind of a germane question.
Private discrimination works the same way. The victim can find themselves utterly shut off from a slew of basic services or forced to go out of their way to seek those services because of discrimination.
Eating pizza is a “basic service?” I didn’t know.
The Supreme Court declared that separate but equal is not justified under the law because separate is not equal.
In PUBLIC education, they decided that. You know, “public” as in the government pays for it. They never said that about anything else.