Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor
The sign ruling sets up a massive slippery slope -- if it is unlawfully discriminatory to post a sign that discourages people unable to speak english from going to the Inn (thus rising to the level of national origin discrimination), then does that create a duty for employers to have someone capable of speaking languages other than english in order to ensure that those of different national origins can recieve service?
If I recall correctly from classes, the EEOC has come out against rules which require speaking english only in the workplace, but I don't remember reading anything about policies towards customers.
Courts have ruled both ways in the English only workplace debate. More recently, that has favored those against such policies. Here's a link that quickly rehashes the arguments from each side: http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Dec/1/132718.html
It's hard to understand why a business owner would feel the need to post a sign like this. I've seen many transactions happen between those who speak little English and those who are native speakers. It happens every day all around us. Honestly, it doesn't take much effort to understand a person with an accent ask for two beers. Most non native speakers know select words and phrases. Somehow I doubt this bar owner was losing a lot of business because he was spending too much time taking drink orders from native Spanish speakers. Unless this group was really harming business, was the sign really all that necessary?