- This topic has 156 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
gavra_at_work:
“Everyone just keeps repeating themselves here. I am not a lawyer and dont pretend to know the laws involved here. What I am saying is there is a need to have a bus with seperate seating for this route. There are various bus routes along the tristate area which have seperate seating. If they have to privatize I’m sure they will.”
That’s really not the issue here. No one gives a fig about their privately-owned-and-operated segregated bus. That they tried enforce their chumra on a public bus, with no apparent halachic basis or legal backing, is an big issue and a chillul Hashem. Don’t just dismiss that.
popa_bar_abba:
“I’d say that depends on if we are being chauvinistic, or following our ideals.”
shein:
“The passengers will keep enforcing the rule even if the bus company and driver do not. It would be dangerous for the bus driver to get involved while driving a bus on the road. And the bus company isn’t responsible for the passengers enforcement.
“The bus driver is driving. And a multi-ton bus. It is dangerous for him to get involved in conversations between passengers. A bus driver is not liable for their conversations.”
popa_bar_abba:
“I’d say that depends on if we are being chauvinistic, or following our ideals.”
Really? You think that we need to give up a chumrah because the shvartzas think we are being immoral?
This case only ended up in the news because the city got involved. But I’m sure zahavasdad’s friend would be just as shocked that we put the women behind a barrier at weddings- which is also a chumrah. Do you think we should stop because they don’t like it?
OOM: It’s not a crime. Again, segregation is legal. At most, in this case, the allegation is breach of contract (the franchise). But the passengers are not party to the contract, so they are absolved. And I don’t foresee the bus driver parking on the BQE (BP-Willi) to arbitrate an issue between the passengers.
popa_bar_abba:
Yay, another edifying argument! 😀
I didn’t say immoral, I said illegal. That’s really the only basis for serious complaint, since morality is so subjective nowadays. And I’d tell zahavasdad’s friend that I don’t approve of the morality of some of their practices, either, but I don’t say anything.
popa_bar_abba:
Yay, another edifying argument! 😀
I didn’t say immoral, I said illegal. That’s really the only basis for serious complaint, since morality is so subjective nowadays.
I was responding to zahavasdad who was coming from a morality standpoint. I imagined that was what you were talking about as well. I’m not discussing the legality or anything about that.
Sorry – I didn’t mean to jump on you like that.
But I believe that the morality aspect of zehavasdad’s friend’s question WAS in a purely legal context (i.e. what is legally defined as moral and therefore law), since as it pertains to the current issue with the bus, the question would most likely originate from that consideration.
P.S. Is it just me, or is it weird to type “zehavasdad’s”?
And the passengers ARE party to the contract. The bus company has a responsibility to enforce the laws of its contract on its buses. By using a publicly operated bus, passengers are tacitly agreeing to comply with any laws entailed in riding it. So by extension, the contract applies to them as well.
So, in this specific case, segregation is illegal al kol panim.
Breaching legal contracts is not illegal. You just have to pay the damages.
The legal philosophers of the goyim are divided over whether it is even immoral. The economists say it is not, and I agree with them.
Shein: You are just wrong. Segregation is illegal. Many states (and almost all of the ones in the South) have specific laws stating that forcing people to seat in the back of the bus is an example of illegal segregation. Your entire argument is based on a false premise.
No it isn’t illegal. Hence Monsey Bus.
I cannot tell you why the Monsey bus is legal. I can tell you that one of the most famous supreme court cases ever says that segregation is illegal.
I can tell you why: Because it is legal. Even Mayor Bloomberg said a couple days ago it is legal for a private carrier.
I cannot tell you why the Monsey bus is legal. I can tell you that one of the most famous supreme court cases ever says that segregation is illegal.
You are probably referring to Brown v. Board of Ed.
That case was talking about racial segregation, and it specifically limited its discussion to racial segregation in schooling. When that case was handed down, it was not considered to mean that all racial segregation was unconstitutional.
Also, note the difference between “unconstitutional” and illegal. Unconstitutional things are only prohibited for entities which are regulated by the constitution. (So for example, I am allowed to establish religion, and it does not violate the first amendment.)
The federal courts treat gender discrimination differently than racial discrimination.
But, besides for the US constitution, there are federal and state laws which also prohibit things.
I have no idea if this was illegal or not.
Brown vs BOE has been applied to much more than just schooling. And gender segregation is generally treated very similarly to racial segregation. The courts might be a little more lenient but technically they should legally be the same.
I think its time to drop this thread ……
Brown vs BOE has been applied to much more than just schooling. And gender segregation is generally treated very similarly to racial segregation. The courts might be a little more lenient but technically they should legally be the same.
I’m guessing you don’t know very much constitutional law. This is completely incorrect.
For further reading, I suggest you read Brown v. Board of Ed. and Craig v. Boren.
popa_bar_abba:
“Breaching legal contracts is not illegal. You just have to pay the damages.
The legal philosophers of the goyim are divided over whether it is even immoral. The economists say it is not, and I agree with them.”
As implied above: as regards to this case, though I am not knowledgeable in the legal particulars of New York State franchise law, etc., I take it on faith that the contract has additional legal implications. In addition, of course, to the application of the laws regulating public transportation.
Well, the difference is that if you call up the Attorney General and tell him you want to break a contract- is that ok; he will tell you to go ahead and do whatever you want.
If you ask your lawyer- same thing.
If you ask the court- same thing.
So I’m not sure what difference it makes to you that something is illegal, but there is no stigma or criminality or anything, that attaches to breaking contracts. It is just part of business. The fact that you pay is not a punishment- it is just business.
Shein – You can scream from today till tomorrow -that the driver will look the other way when the men start throwing their weight around. I can guarantee you- they won’t. If the men won’t listen to the driver, he will call the police. The reason is because he will be fired if he doesn’t. The company obviously needs this route as a franchise in order to exist; if they didn’t they would have told the Gov. – now we will become private -so we can segregate.
Did you ever travel on a bus when there is an unruly passenger?
The bus driver will get involved and if need be he will call the cops. This bus company doesn’t want to get in more trouble than they already have, let alone have to defend against lawsuits.
But a computer and Bein Hazemanim are a lot of fun because any Bocher can come here and spout any Boich Sevarahs they want!
popa_bar_abba:
As per my original post to shein, I am referring to a breach of contract, not to a break reached by legal agreement. You are absolutely right – there is a perfectly commonplace procedure for that.
I realize that I wrote “it would be illegal to BREAK them” in my previous post. I have edited it for accuracy. Sorry if it has caused confusion.
Yes, I am also referring to a breach of contract.
If you contract me to paint your house and say you will pay me for it, and we make a contract that I must paint your house and you must pay you 1000 dollars. Then I change my mind.
I call up the attorney general and my lawyer and the local judge. I say, “Can I just call the guy up and tell him I don’t care what I agreed, I don’t want to paint the house and I won’t do it.” They will tell me I can.
In fact, if I call my local law professor, most of them will tell me I should back out, and I am not even being immoral. Google it: It is the theory of efficient breach.
Breach of contract means failing to perform any term of a contract without a legitimate legal excuse.
Breaking a contract entails followed the legally defined procedure (as per the terms of the contract’s break clause) to terminate the contract.
To elucidate: a breach on the part of one party would likely be grounds for breaking the contract.
Efficient breach IS considered a “break” of sorts, since the intent is the same. If one cannot comply with contract’s break terms, and considers it more profitable to suffer the fallout of a breach than to fulfill the contract, his would be an “efficient breach.” In a way, you could view it as a break of contract, with an added penalty for not complying with the break terms. Efficient breach and stam breach are NOT synonymous, though. Conceptually, the idea of efficient breach is closer to the definition of contract break than it is to that of contract breach.
Interesting. Can you show me where you got this idea for the difference between “breaking” and “breaching” a contract? Maybe you know of some literature that discusses it?
This is becoming a lawyers forum..
BTW this thread is interesting, since we had to breach a contract, I discussed it with my attorney, he told me that there are no set rules and no set penalties.
The Chilul Hashem was made by the non-Jewish provocateur who went on the bus just to expose something that the passengers wanted and agreed to based on the perfectly valid views of their rabbonim. This bus has been that way for 20 years and no one complained. That provocateur is no better than the Dutch moiseres who told the Nazis where the Frank family was hiding. She would have done the same in those circumstances.
99% of the passengers who use that bus are frum Yidden. The other 1% are probably cleaning ladies who depend on frum Yidden for their daily bread.
Had someone done the same to expose an African-American practice, everyone would be crying “racism.”
In the end, passengers will continue to sit as they did. Glares and stares from passengers will make those who want to make trouble feel uncomfortable. The drivers just won’t be able to enforce anything.
Alternately, the company will ditch the franchise and the new operator or the MTA won’t make a penny on it because the old operator will get all the Jewish business. The new one will make do with the occasional Polish cleaning lady who lives in the Polish neighborhood on the outskirts of BP and cleans homes in both BP and Willy.
Kilo bear -“Had someone done the same to expose an African-American practice, everyone would be crying “racism.””
As far as I know, they don’t have official racial policies. If they did -maybe s/o would bring it up to the gov. Don’t lower yourself to playing the race card because of your anger. I doubt there is an iota of truth in your statement.
“The drivers just won’t be able to enforce anything.”
Again, if there is a verbal confrontation -there is most certainly a responsibility on the driver to act. If he can’t or he won’t -he has to call the police for help. If he fails in this responsibilty, there most certainly will be negative repercussions against him and the bus company!
Well said 600 Kilo Bear. Agreed 100%.
Health, I know of what I speak. You are in dreamland. It will all be forgotten, things will go on as they always did, and unless some passenger acts the way the sikrikim do, no one will interfere. The driver knows who pays him, and it is the Jewish franchisee. The Jewish franchisee, if he has a Yiddishe kop, can go private even if he doesn’t use the exact same route. Another Yid can bring in private service on a similar route – I never took that bus but it looks like a relic and I’m sure someone can do better.
Votes are involved too, and the Chassidim of BP make and break candidates. They happen to be huge Federal, State and City taxpayers, despite what self-haters and semi-frum holier-than-thous think goes on in BP. Those banks on 13th Avenue can’t accept dirty money, and laundering is not easy since 9-11. There are so many banks there because there is so much clean money, mostly Yiddishe gelt, to be handled in BP.
The bus company pays money for that route so it can serve its local customers who are members of the same community as the bus company owner. Regardless of the law, it is not a fair one as it blocks the rights of the customers to have the service they want and need. Ignoring it is the same as ignoring the old laws of the USSR against shechita, matzo baking, and opening shuls. I would half-understand if Sikriki types started to enforce the rules 6 months ago, but this kind of seating was the rule for 20 plus years, and the wannabe sikriki in BP drive cars with flashing lights LOL – they don’t ride the bus!
Try stopping any Islamic or African-American practice, including such beautiful demonstrations of civilization as the Crown Heights Labor Day Massacre, I mean parade, where bystanders of all creeds risk getting hit by stray bullets. On the other hand, one moiseres, or one call by a self-hating Jewish neighbor, can put an end to anything from a private sukkah to a simchas beis hashoeva to bus rules that were in operation for 20 years.
“Had someone done the same to expose an African-American practice, everyone would be crying “racism.””
As far as I know, they don’t have official racial policies.”
LOL if it weren’t so sad.
i have one ha’ara. i dont think that anyone is against the separation of genders. These are their standards; standards they willingly conform to. i think its all sub-concious mindset that the women are sitting in the BACK. if it would be the front no-one would say a thing. Since the men “get the front” (like the way my 16 year old sister cries for it,” I get the front!”) the women fel second class. thats all.
No one from the community complained. This was all the work of an outside provocateur looking for a journalistic scoop which she did get.
Side-to-side might have been better, but no one minded until this cholere, who probably could care less for anything but her 15 minutes of fame, came along. She would have gotten her scoop with side-by-side as well.
On the other hand, bnei yishmoel pere odom that follow the religion of a certain warlord who would today be arrested for pedophilia are suing a Catholic college so they can have a room without crosses! They will probably win, unless the college capitulates first as so many do because of fear of Islam.
Toi: I think everyone agrees to that.
Since the men “get the front” (like the way my 16 year old sister cries for it,” I get the front!”) the women fel second class. thats all.
The argument goes that the men can’t sit in the back, as that would be “behind” a woman. The counterargument is that a Mechitza can be placed between the front & back, and men can still sit in the back.
The legal argument against had nothing to do with which gender was in front or back. It was that it was segregated at all that they opposed.
“Licensed private van”
So I guesss that is what they or their competitor will become if customers want the separate seating and they can no longer provide it. Leave it to a Yiddishe kop to figure out. I’m not in the US or in the transportation business but any US code is full of loopholes.
BP has far more political clout than the non-English speaking and often non-citizen population of Southeast Queens.
Kilo -“clout than the non-English speaking and often non-citizen population of Southeast Queens.”
Clout or no clout -they can’t break the franchise agreement without any consequences. As much as you think this is about race, most people including many Frum Yidden don’t. They realize that this country has endorsed the concept of equal rights and they won’t let people break that even if they claim they are only doing it for religious reasons!
The bus company had the right to say -we aren’t going to comply and we will fight it in Court or start a totally private line.
But they didn’t say that, did they?
All they agreed to was that the DRIVER could not enforce seating…..but it isn’t even clear in the case of this moiseres that the driver did that (we don’t take her word for much). I have been on many non-frum sherut taxis in EY where most riders were frum and we ourselves arranged our seating. The driver is not going to enforce mixed seating either.
And you don’t know what the company’s next move is. My guess is that if rabbonim ossur the bus because it becomes mixed seating, or if the clientele becomes uncomfortable, something will happen.
popa_bar_abba:
Contracts Examples & Explanations by Brian A. Blum is a good, readable text. Though I am not sure they have so much on out clauses, as they are a used mostly in intricate large-scale contracts, where there are very many contingencies. Ordinary contracts are in fact very difficult to terminate without breaching. I presume that is why they instituted the “efficient breach” as a sort of legal shortcut, with a minimum of messiness.
I believe Restatement (Second) of Contracts is the preeminent directory, but I have never waded through it. Thank God I’m not in law school. 🙂
italics here uses “em” not “I”
Thanks, Mod-80. I’ve been trying to figure it out for the longest time.
600 Kilo Bear:
The Chilul Hashem was made by the non-Jewish provocateur who went on the bus just to expose something that the passengers wanted and agreed to based on the perfectly valid views of their rabbonim.
No, the chillul Hashem was MADE by the people enforcing their practices against the law. The reporter was merely the instrument that made the chillul Hashem chal. She is immaterial in this regard.
Had someone done the same to expose an African-American practice, everyone would be crying “racism.”
Alternately, the company will ditch the franchise and the new operator or the MTA won’t make a penny on it because the old operator will get all the Jewish business.
It will all be forgotten, things will go on as they always did, and unless some passenger acts the way the sikrikim do, no one will interfere.
Try stopping any Islamic or African-American practice, including such beautiful demonstrations of civilization as the Crown Heights Labor Day Massacre, I mean parade, where bystanders of all creeds risk getting hit by stray bullets.
On the other hand, bnei yishmoel pere odom that follow the religion of a certain warlord who would today be arrested for pedophilia are suing a Catholic college so they can have a room without crosses! They will probably win, unless the college capitulates first as so many do because of fear of Islam.
So you want us to have the RIGHT to break the law, since the Muslims seem not to CARE if they do? The principle is not sound.
BP has far more political clout than the non-English speaking and often non-citizen population of Southeast Queens.
All they agreed to was that the DRIVER could not enforce seating…
***
gavra_at_work: I don’t know if it’s even on the table, but I think right-left separation would be the least objectionable (since it doesn’t have the appearance of discrimination).
There is no appearance of discrimination if front/back either. (Other than to anti-semitic [including of the Jewish variety] provocateurs, as 600KiloBear cogently pointed out.)
Right/Left separation has the problem of men and women C”V bumping into each other that front/back does not have an acute problem with.
The Chilul Hashem was made by the non-Jewish provocateur
How is that possible? IIRC a Chillul Hashem (and Kiddush Hashem) can only be made by a Jew.
Shein: And what is the issue with bumping into each other? There’s certainly no Halachic issue.
Contracts Examples & Explanations by Brian A. Blum is a good, readable text. Though I am not sure they have so much on out clauses, as they are a used mostly in intricate large-scale contracts, where there are very many contingencies. Ordinary contracts are in fact very difficult to terminate without breaching. I presume that is why they instituted the “efficient breach” as a sort of legal shortcut, with a minimum of messiness.
I believe Restatement (Second) of Contracts is the preeminent directory, but I have never waded through it. Thank God I’m not in law school. 🙂
I see. Can you be a bit more specific? The E & E is kind of long. Can you tell me at least which chapter? (And your post implies you have read it- is that so?)
There is no legitimate reason to segregate by race. There is good legitimate reason to segregate by gender. Thus one is discrimination and one is not.
Segregation is still segregation. What if someone came by with a religious belief that blacks should be kept separate from whites? The fact is that women are protected as a “minority” under the law and segregating or discriminating against them is illegal, regardless of whatever perfect logical reasons we can give.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.