Joey Vento, the owner of Geno's Steak's in South Philadelphia, is receiving a considerable amount of ongoing national attention (interviewed on Good Morning America, etc.) -- all because of a protest sign in the window telling customers to order in English. Dennis posted about the controversy earlier, but the issue is now front page news in today's Inquirer, as city officials -- and the ACLU -- are contemplating legal action:

Cheesesteak impresario Joey Vento is more than ready for his close-up.

The brash owner of Geno's Steaks has sparked new controversy after two weeks of nearly nonstop national attention for signs posted near his take-out window that declare: "This is AMERICA. WHEN ORDERING, 'SPEAK ENGLISH.' "

Vento, 66, grinned his way through a five-minute segment Friday on ABC's Good Morning America. Since The Inquirer first reported on his signs two weeks ago, he has appeared left and right - though, politically, always the latter - on the Web, TV and talk radio as a proud, tattooed advocate of English only for the nation's immigrants.

Not everyone thinks he is a star, however.

A city agency charged with investigating discrimination plans to file a complaint Monday that questions the legality of the signs, which Vento has said are directed at the Mexican immigrants in Geno's South Philadelphia neighborhood.

"We're alleging that the sign itself is enough of an unwelcoming message that it may violate the Fair Practices Act," said Rachel Lawton, acting executive director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations.

Mary Catherine Roper, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the signs straddle a line between free speech and discrimination.

Geno's "has a right to express its opinion, however offensive," she said. "But there are specific limitations on places of public accommodation, because they are supposed to be available to everyone."

I think it's time to take a closer look at the text of the sign, because the logical analyst in me wants to know whether it is in fact discriminatory, and if so, against whom.

This is AMERICA. WHEN ORDERING, "SPEAK ENGLISH."

Let's start with the obvious. The sign is visible and in writing. This means that there are two possibly aggrieved groups of people who might be able to claim that they cannot read and understand the sign: the blind (or "visually impaired"), and the illiterate (who would not be able to read any sign in any language). But are the blind and the illiterate actually being discriminated against because they cannot read and understand the sign? No more than they are by a wall menu, and certainly no reasonable person would claim that a wall menu discriminates against blind and illiterate customers. In the normal course of affairs, such people would ask someone else for help. Discrimination would not occur unless the proprietor then refused to serve them for their status of being blind or illiterate.

Parenthetically, illiteracy is not a protected class, so a proprietor might be allowed to legally refuse to serve illiterates, and thus, a sign saying, "WE REFUSE TO SERVE ILLITERATES" might not be discriminatory. But on the other hand a sign saying "IF YOU CANNOT READ THIS SIGN BECAUSE YOU ARE BLIND, WE REFUSE TO SERVE YOU" probably would be.

Then there's the issue of whether the sign discriminates against deaf mute citizens, by asking them to order in a language other than International Sign Language. Are deaf mute activist groups enlisting help from the ACLU in their battle against Geno's? Why not?

Mr. Vento's sign is also in English, which means that its message is by definition unreadable by people who cannot speak English. This makes them analogous to the illiterate.

If the goal were really to discriminate, though, why doesn't Mr. Vento offer a translated version of the sign, asking them, say, in Spanish to order "EN INGLES"? (Or the Chinese or Vietnamese equivalent.) The problem there is that telling people to order in English is not discrimination, any more than it would be discriminatory for a Spanish-speaking restaurant owner to ask his customers to order in Spanish, Chinese-speaking restaurant owner to ask his customers to order in Chinese, or a deaf owner to ask them to order in sign language.

Has anyone bothered to ask whether Joey Vento speaks any languages other than English? If he cannot, isn't he being stigmatized by the ACLU and the city bureaucrats for an inability which is not his fault? Doesn't that make him just as much a victim of discrimination as the people who implicitly claim he should speak languages other than English?

Here's what he says:

Vento told The Inquirer last month that he could not serve non-English speakers: "If you can't tell me what you want," he said, "I can't serve you."

What, exactly, do they want of this man? What languages should Vento be forced to learn, and why?

The PC forces don't say. Instead, the focus is on making him take down his sign -- a sign which reflects his reality as he sees it. It seems to me that if they make him take down his sign, they'll not only be interfering with his First Amendment rights, they'll be forcing him into the closet.

If there are any non-English speaking readers who are unable to read this post, I'd suggest they learn English or find another blog, because I have no duty to make myself understood to everyone.

Sigh.

(I guess that statement makes me just as guilty of "discrimination" as Joey Vento.)

UPDATE (06/13/06): Philadelphia's "Human Relations Commission" has served an official complaint against Geno's:

According to the complaint, which was served on Geno's yesterday afternoon, the restaurant is in violation of two sections of the city's antidiscrimination laws: denying service to someone because of his or her national origin, and having printed material making certain groups of people feel their patronage is unwelcome.

In two weeks in the media spotlight, Vento - who has done a whirlwind of local and national talk shows - has defended the sign and said he had no intention of removing it.

He has said it is an immigrant's duty to learn the language and has acknowledged that his strong feelings were directed at Mexican immigrants, whose ranks are growing in South Philadelphia.

Vento, 66, said that the sign had been up for six months without complaint until recently and that it simply spoke to the notion that people who choose to live in this country should endeavor to speak English. He has made a point of saying he had never denied anyone service regardless of language.

But Allen said that didn't matter.

"The issue is not whether anyone has been denied service, but that such a sign discourages people from coming asking for service," he said.

What's interesting as a legal idea is that that asking people to speak English could be construed as "offensive."

Where's the commission for people who find that offensive?