http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=175835

In short, a group in France decided to open a soup kitchen for the homeless.  However, they did not want to feed homeless Jews or Muslims.  Their solution: give away Pork Soup.

Needless to say, this was not well recieved, and was eventually taken to court.  The final resolution was that the group was forbidden from giving away Pork Soup, because it was discriminatory.

Myself, I think it is a tacky thing to do, but is it really illegal?  And what if a group that claims to support homeless vegitarians decides that it is discriminatory for annother kitchen to give away Beef Soup?  Or if a Japanese based group decides to give away Sushi, knowing that most non-asians would not eat sushi?  Or even more extreme, if a Korean group decides that they will serve roasted German Shepard? 

Does somebody (or the Government) have a right to step in and prohibit it, simply because not everybody is willing or able to eat the food?

Oh come on.  THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE!  Those two groups of people can't eat pork because of religious rules.....they were doing that ON PURPOSE to keep the homeless Jews and Muslims from being able to be helped by their organization.  That's disgusting. 

Oh come on.  THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE!  Those two groups of people can't eat pork because of religious rules.....they were doing that ON PURPOSE to keep the homeless Jews and Muslims from being able to be helped by their organization.  That's disgusting. 


I think you are misunderstanding my point.

I also think it is disgusting.  But is it illegal?  What if I hate Hindus, and insist that the only food served be Beef Stew?  Should it be legal to prohibit me from serving Beef Stew (which I am sure the majority of people enjoy), just to appease a minority?  And we are talking about something being given away.

I do not like it myself, but should they be prohibited from helping people, just because what they are offering is not acceptible by everybody?  I am sure that no matter what they offer, somebody will be prohibited from eating it.  On puropse or not, is that a valid reason to prevent the aid from being offered?

I think you are misunderstanding my point.

I also think it is disgusting.  But is it illegal?  What if I hate Hindus, and insist that the only food served be Beef Stew?  Should it be legal to prohibit me from serving Beef Stew (which I am sure the majority of people enjoy), just to appease a minority?  And we are talking about something being given away.

I do not like it myself, but should they be prohibited from helping people, just because what they are offering is not acceptible by everybody?  I am sure that no matter what they offer, somebody will be prohibited from eating it.  On puropse or not, is that a valid reason to prevent the aid from being offered?


It does raise some serious questions...if for example somebody came in that couldn't eat the "meal of the day" should the kitchen in question make them something special in order to feed them??  Granted, making a cheese sandwich or something else hot isn't a big deal in most circumstances and would probably be done with little problems.

It sounds to me like they are intentionally discriminating, and not being knowledgeable of the laws of France I can't make a decision, I know here in the US it wouldn't fly, but thats not the point. 

If I had nothing but meat options available and a vegetarian came in, should I be expected to make a run to the store and get something so they could eat as well??  I shouldn't have to, but in goodwill chances are I would...thats a different story than setting up shop in lets say a predominantly muslim area of town and serving pork meals only though....I think it's more of a moral issue than a legal one....

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=175835

In short, a group in France decided to open a soup kitchen for the homeless.  However, they did not want to feed homeless Jews or Muslims.  Their solution: give away Pork Soup.

Needless to say, this was not well recieved, and was eventually taken to court.  The final resolution was that the group was forbidden from giving away Pork Soup, because it was discriminatory.

Myself, I think it is a tacky thing to do, but is it really illegal?  And what if a group that claims to support homeless vegitarians decides that it is discriminatory for annother kitchen to give away Beef Soup?  Or if a Japanese based group decides to give away Sushi, knowing that most non-asians would not eat sushi?  Or even more extreme, if a Korean group decides that they will serve roasted German Shepard? 

Does somebody (or the Government) have a right to step in and prohibit it, simply because not everybody is willing or able to eat the food?


"extreme-right humanitarian group"
Hmmm....sounds a little oxymoronic.  I don't know anything about Solidarite des Francais, but "Solidarity of the French" gives a good indication as to what they're up to.

Here's the problem.  I don't know that much about French law.

Solidarite des Francais claims nobody was forced to eat the pork.  I suppose a Muslim or Jew could come to the kitchen and dine on other comestibles.  The law would come in on an intangible.  I don't know if this applies in France, but in America the question would be whether the the kitchen administrators set an unwelcoming tone for certain races or ehnic groups.  

If the National White Christian Party set up a soup kitchen in Brooklyn and did not serve kosher but made no racist overtures other than calling the joint "The National White Christian Party Hearth & Kettle," you could still go after them in court because the very name implies ethnic exclusivity, which is forbidden in the U.S. even in a private charity.  If the white supremicist group handed out anti-semitic literature with the bread and gravy it would be a shoe-in for a shutdown.  

Solidarite des Francais?  What's in a name?  Remember what happened to Sambo's?  That was a fastfood chain that lost a case against its very name, "Sambo" being derogatory for African-American.  The founders claimed "Sambo's" was merely a portmanteau of their names.  

BUT...the point is moot because this is France, not the U.S., and I'd have to do some research into French anti-discrimination codes.

The spokesman from Solidarite des Francais also claimed pork fat soup was a traditional soup kitchen fare because of its high nutritional value (plus clogged arteries leads to earlier death, thus fewer poor folk to worry about).  
:P

Scummy, yes.  Illegal, not sure.

This is beside the point, but I'm sure there are oodles of Muslim-run soup kitchens throughout France as Islam obliges its followers to commit resources to charity.  It's a must in Islam.

Solidarite des Francais?  What's in a name.  Remember what happened to Sambo's?  That was a fastfood chain that lost a case against it's very name, "Sambo" being derogatory for African-American.  The founders claimed "Sambo's" was merely a portmanteau of their names.  


Sam Battistone and Newell Bohnett named the resteraunt, not even thinking of the children's story.  The connection only came later when they were trying to find a mascot for the chain to attract families (this was common in the late 1950's).

Not to mention that the story of Sambo is not even African, it is Indian.  And all of the artwork of "Little Boy Sambo" at the facility made it obvious that the mascot of the chain was an Indian boy.

There were several lawsuits over the name, but none of them were ever won.  They simply suffered from a downtur in business, and a trend towards larger nation-wide chains.  Bob's Big Boy suffered from the same fate at around the same time.  "Cutesy" theme resteraunts simply fell out of favor.

But they were never forced to change their name.  When the franchises started to go bankrupt, they made a name change to "Sam's", but it did not help.  By that time, Sam was spending most of his time concentrating on his Basketball team, the New Orleans Jazz (which he founded in 1974).

Sam Battistone and Newell Bohnett named the resteraunt, not even thinking of the children's story.  The connection only came later when they were trying to find a mascot for the chain to attract families (this was common in the late 1950's).

Not to mention that the story of Sambo is not even African, it is Indian.  And all of the artwork of "Little Boy Sambo" at the facility made it obvious that the mascot of the chain was an Indian boy.

There were several lawsuits over the name, but none of them were ever won.  They simply suffered from a downtur in business, and a trend towards larger nation-wide chains.  Bob's Big Boy suffered from the same fate at around the same time.  "Cutesy" theme resteraunts simply fell out of favor.

But they were never forced to change their name.  When the franchises started to go bankrupt, they made a name change to "Sam's", but it did not help.  By that time, Sam was spending most of his time concentrating on his Basketball team, the New Orleans Jazz (which he founded in 1974).



The original Helen Bannerman story of "Little Black Sambo" was indeed set in India.  Unfortunately, Bannerman was a Scot living in India at the height of imperialism.  What they considered innocent fun in the the 19th century was considered vile bigotry by the late 20th century.  The story was not purely Indian.  It also contained Caribbean elements.  "Little Black Sambo" was sort of a composite "darky" of global European empire.  By the 1910s Minstrel shows included dramatizations of "Little Black Sambo" in blackface.  As you know, "Sambo" quickly became a slur of high caliber nastiness.  I don't know if Battistone and Bohnett were familier with the idea of "market research," but somehow they missed the obvious conclusion that using a "Little Black Sambo" montage for marketing would p*ss people off!

We used to go to the Sambo's in Nashua.  I didn't know anything about the name until the lawsuit forced the change to "No Place Like Sam's."  It didn't happen all at once.
I remember my father and I were driving through interior Florida in 1982 when I spotted a "Sambo's."  I said,
"Hey dad, I thought they weren't allowed to be called Sambo's anymore."  My dad looked over incredulously and said,
"They don't care down here!"
;D

I think you are misunderstanding my point.

I also think it is disgusting.  But is it illegal?  What if I hate Hindus, and insist that the only food served be Beef Stew?  Should it be legal to prohibit me from serving Beef Stew (which I am sure the majority of people enjoy), just to appease a minority?  And we are talking about something being given away.

I do not like it myself, but should they be prohibited from helping people, just because what they are offering is not acceptible by everybody?  I am sure that no matter what they offer, somebody will be prohibited from eating it.  On puropse or not, is that a valid reason to prevent the aid from being offered?



It's discriminatory on its face.  If you are an organization that feeds the homeless and you don't want Jews or Muslims eating the food you're serving, and you purposefully serve food you know they CAN'T eat.....are you saying that's legal?  It doesn't sound legal to me.  If a homeless shelter in the US did that, but instead of not serving Jews or Muslims, they chose not to serve food to black people, would you question the legality of that?

It's discriminatory on its face.  If you are an organization that feeds the homeless and you don't want Jews or Muslims eating the food you're serving, and you purposefully serve food you know they CAN'T eat.....are you saying that's legal?  It doesn't sound legal to me.  If a homeless shelter in the US did that, but instead of not serving Jews or Muslims, they chose not to serve food to black people, would you question the legality of that?


But they are not denying food to anybody.  They are not saying "We are not going to feed you".  They are simply providing a food that most of them will not eat.  And they are not turning anybody away.

This is what I mean about to much "Government Controll".  If they had a policy of not feeding groups of people, then you have an agruement about discrimination.  But does that apply when they are willing to give food to everybody, but it happens to be a kind of food that certain groups will not eat?

Back to my earlier analogy.  If they were giving Beef Stew, does a Hindu group have the right to protest, because to them it is a sacred animal?  What if the meal of the day is Beef Stew, and a recipiant was a devout Catholic who follows the "Meatless Friday" tradition?

I simply do not see a reason for the Government to step in here.  And I am sure that there are many other groups that are more then willing to give meals to the Muslims and Jews who are also hungry.  In fact, to me this would be a "wake-up call" for Muslims and Jews to work together to help their bretheren who need help.  Because their dietary laws are almost identicle, it would be a great thing IMHO.  It might help some of them to see how much they are alike, and stop nit-picking on the areas where they are different.  And seeing an Iman and Rabbi next to each other feeding the needy of all faiths would hopefully elp in healing at least some of the angers.

Remember, I am very much against discrimination.  I think it is morally reprehensible and disgusting.  But does that make it illegal?  Myself, I would probably try to band together groups that are willing to take care of everybody, and basically shut them out.  Open up a kitchen next door, and provide better food that everybody can eat.

Those bigots would look rather stupid, standing around and telling each other how "superior" they are, when the kitchen is empty of everybody but themselves.  And little makes me happier then seeing bigots looking stupid (which we all know that they are).

But they are not denying food to anybody.  They are not saying "We are not going to feed you".  They are simply providing a food that most of them will not eat.  And they are not turning anybody away.

This is what I mean about to much "Government Controll".  If they had a policy of not feeding groups of people, then you have an agruement about discrimination.  But does that apply when they are willing to give food to everybody, but it happens to be a kind of food that certain groups will not eat?

Back to my earlier analogy.  If they were giving Beef Stew, does a Hindu group have the right to protest, because to them it is a sacred animal?  What if the meal of the day is Beef Stew, and a recipiant was a devout Catholic who follows the "Meatless Friday" tradition?

I simply do not see a reason for the Government to step in here.  And I am sure that there are many other groups that are more then willing to give meals to the Muslims and Jews who are also hungry.  In fact, to me this would be a "wake-up call" for Muslims and Jews to work together to help their bretheren who need help.  Because their dietary laws are almost identicle, it would be a great thing IMHO.  It might help some of them to see how much they are alike, and stop nit-picking on the areas where they are different.  And seeing an Iman and Rabbi next to each other feeding the needy of all faiths would hopefully elp in healing at least some of the angers.

Remember, I am very much against discrimination.  I think it is morally reprehensible and disgusting.  But does that make it illegal?  Myself, I would probably try to band together groups that are willing to take care of everybody, and basically shut them out.  Open up a kitchen next door, and provide better food that everybody can eat.

Those bigots would look rather stupid, standing around and telling each other how "superior" they are, when the kitchen is empty of everybody but themselves.  And little makes me happier then seeing bigots looking stupid (which we all know that they are).



In your very first post in this thread, you said they didn't want to serve Jews and Muslims.  Choosing who to serve and who not to serve based on race, color, creed, etc., is discrimination.....which is illegal.  Continuing on, the article said that they chose to serve pork soup.....Jews and Muslims can't eat pork.  That's the same as putting a sign in the window saying "Jews and Muslims not allowed".  You are through your actions, making it so that a group or groups of people cannot benefit from your services. 

That sounds like illegal behavior to me.