NY Post: Lawsuit Against Tznius Signs Silly

The New York Post Editorial Board, in an op-ed published two days ago, explained why in their opinion the lawsuit being filed against several Williamsburg stores for posting a sign that immodestly dressed patrons were not welcome is a bad idea:

Exhibiting a complete lack of common sense, the city’s Human Rights Commission is determined to take seven Hasidic-owned stores in Brooklyn to trial for the high crime of requiring modest dress of their customers.

It was a bad idea when the city’s case was first filed. And it’s a bad idea now.

Even so, an administrative law judge has ruled that the case should proceed and has ordered a two-day hearing in administrative court come ­January.

At issue are shop signs reported in a Post news story this past summer. They read as follows: “No Shorts, No Barefoot, No Sleeveless, No Low Cut Necklines Allowed.”

In its wisdom, the Human Rights Commission finds this “discriminatory.”

The logic behind the charges is sillier still. In an interview, agency general counsel Cliff Mulqueen claimed the signs imposed “certain rules of the Jewish faith,” which “crosses the line.” Of course, the signs did no such thing.

Mulqueen also asserts that the signs discriminated against women, non-Jews and non-religious Jews by making them feel uncomfortable, even though the signs apply to all potential ­customers.

And as we’ve noted before, any customer who covers up can be served. People who are barred because of race or gender can’t do the same.

Our guess is that most New Yorkers recognize these signs as no different from any other dress code imposed by a restaurant, hotel or any other place for reasons of “propriety” rather than “modesty.”

We’ve never even seen the city sue a pizza parlor that might post a sign reading “No shirt, no shoes, no service” — let alone fancy eateries like the Four Seasons, which require business attire.

Most people probably take these for granted. So when a group of Jewish-owned stores are singled out and treated like the KKK, we have to wonder if there are other agendas at ­work here.

The Human Rights Commission is right about one thing: There definitely is discrimination involved in this case. But the real discrimination here is being levied against these shops, not ­by them.

The next mayor should do us all a favor and drop this case.