- This topic has 102 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Chashuve rabbonim and dayanim publicize their actions because that is the only way people know that Rabbi X of chassidus Y or shul Z said to not do something.
Furthermore, chashuve rabbonim and dayanim don’t make threats, and that’s the way this situation has been described. A full page ad in the Community Connections? Absolutely. But threatening to close down a business (and not just by telling their followers not to eat there, if you know what I mean) is not how chashuve rabbonim and dayanim act.
So, please share with us the names and affiliations of the chashuve rabbonim and dayanim. The public has every right to know who is deciding how we must all behave.
The owner knows. The case has been B’H resolved and there is no need for the public to be privy to the information.
You’re the one making the assertion. Burden of proof is on you.
In other words, I think that (a) you don’t know or (b) it didn’t have the backing of “chosheve rabbonim…” at all.
The Wolf
It never got to the point where a public boycott was initiated since the owner was cooperative and made the necessary changes. So there was no boycott. It was all dealt with privately directly with the owner.
It never got to the point where a public boycott was initiated since the owner was cooperative and made the necessary changes. So there was no boycott. It was all dealt with privately directly with the owner.
That’s all beside the point. You asserted that the aborted boycott movement was backed by “chosheve rabbonim” and the like. The fact that the boycott never manifested itself does not change that fact. So, again, I ask, who are these people who backed it?
The Wolf
You’re free to disbelieve my statement. It wouldn’t bother me.
Sounds like bullies to me. Give them a wack on the behind and another on their way out. It’s none of anyone’s business what a venue offers. If you don’t like it, don’t visit.
For serious issues like gay parades in Jerusalem, lock and load, yes. That could cause Heavenly decrees.
However, the Ben Ish Chai says teaching Torah to those who don’t know how to learn erases such decrees.
Where I am, I am a mashgiach and I know what kashrut is like here. I don’t consider some food shops kosher enough despite their licence, so I simply don’t eat there. I cannot tell anyone why for heavy halachic reasons, but I don’t make a big deal of it.
If they’d have tried your advise of ignoring the boycott they’d have lost their investment in opening their restaurant when the successful boycott would quickly put them out of business.
Wisely, they agreed to change.
You’re free to disbelieve my statement. It wouldn’t bother me.
In other words, you don’t know squat. You either assumed it or just flat out made it up.
The Wolf
Excellence
“It’s none of anyone’s business what a venue offers. If you don’t like it, don’t visit.”
i’m confused, isnt that what a boycott is?
I wouldn’t have abided by their boycott, but apaprently their arent enough liek me in Monsey. nu so be it.
but why dont they have the right to boycott a establishment for any reason they see fit? why do they need support of the Rabbanim?
I wonder when the thugs will make the trip to Mohegan Sun and threaten them, followed by the manufacturers of baseball caps.
If this place does not meet your standards, don’t go there. Keep your kids away from tumah and pritzus, if you’re so inclined.
I think the Star K has a policy against televisions in establishments, but I don’t know about others.
What hechsher is it under anyway? I know that I’ve seen TV’s in restaurants before, but never an entire restaurant centered around one.
Another website indicates that it is a private hashgacha and the restaurant is actually in Suffern, not Monsey.
What does a private hashgacha mean?
“Take the TV out of the Restaurant or we will shut you down”
There is the legal aspect and the halachic/hashkafic aspect. The thugs need to be careful because tick off the wrong person and if the legal system gets involved…. dont believe me, substitute lihavdil the word mezua for television.
Private hashgacha means that it’s not an agency, but a rav
The restaurant is under the supervision of Rabbi Zushe Blech, a Monsey rabbi who is widely known in kashrus circles. I guess they describe it as a “private hashgacha” to distinguish it from a national hashgacha like the OU or a regional one like RCBC.
Suffern is basically Monsey, just like Airmont, Spring Valley, Wesley Hills, etc. Different local government or ZIP code but it’s all the same community.
The rabbonim that insisted that the TumahVision be gotten rid of, or they’d organize a boycott, were on solid halachic, hashkafic and legal grounds. Boycotts are an entirely legal action in America. Hence the owner knew he best change.
And he did.
What do you think would have been result if a Sports bar opened in Monsey proper, but not under a Hashgha and open Friday night somewhere along Route 59 near a shul.
And people went near it to protest the opening of an establishment in “Holy Monsey”
Protests are legal. So if the restaurant owner tried to interfere with the protesters, the police would arrest the owner.
ZD,
There is at least one sports bar on 59. To the best of my knowledge there are no Shuls. Perhaps there is a Chabad house.
However, that wouldn’t be comparable to one with a hashgocha. Not even close.
I suspect that a bar would be shut down very quickly if it opened on Main Street in Monsey.
“What do you think would have been result if a Sports bar opened in Monsey proper, but not under a Hashgha and open Friday night somewhere along Route 59 near a shul.”
Obviously they wouldnt be allowed to boycott and would all be forced to eat there
what are you talking about, was there a protest of some sort?
what would you say in the following scenario:
In Lawrence they opened a new Neturei karta type hamburger place recently.
Self appointed Zionists went into the place to threaten the new owners
with a boycott unless the Palestinian flags were removed.
Are they allowed to boycott in that situation?
Maybe I don’t understand what a boycott is.
Doesn’t a boycott just mean you don’t eat there? Maybe tell your friends not to eat there? How can that possibly be illegal?
I dont live in the 5 towns, but I do know there was a dispute with a place and the Vaad. Im not exactly sure what the dispute was about, but it did seem clear it wasnt about Kashruth, but more likely about money.
There was also a dispute there about some wanted the vaad to put on the store that the owners were not Shomer Shabbos (The store was closed on Shabbos and had a Hashgacha, but the owners were not religious). That dispute almost split the Vaad
Nobody forces anyone to go to any establishment. if a McDonalds opened up on Route 59, nboody would go and it wouldnt be a boycott either.
If nobody would go to this sports bar, it would close up and no need for a boycott
Meno, exactly!
What really irks the supporters of television is that there are so many yirei shamayim in Monsey that if they organized to not eat there, they’ll essentially put him out of business.
What Meno said, and Joseph confirmed is NOT what the subject of this thread or opening message implied.
Not patronizing an establishment is a lot different than threatening to shut someone down.
Wait, so let me get this straight.
A guy opens a restaurant with a TV, people don’t go there because there’s a TV, these people make it clear to the owner that they’re not going there specifically because of the TV, the owner feels that without these people he won’t get enough business to stay open, so the owner is mad?
Boycott wasn’t exactly what was threatened. Heck, there are plenty of businesses in Monsey that I refuse to patronize for one reason or another. What was being threatened was aggressive picketing and (perhaps) vandalism. The “accommodation” that was reached was a pay off. The protection racket is still alive and well.
Up until a few years ago, there was a goyishe place that was a lot worse than just a sports bar operating on Route 59 right in Monsey.
If a goy wants to open a sports bar in Monsey, fine. No one will care since no frum people will eat there. Sure frum people may come by to watch a game and get a beer, but that’s their own prerogative. It’s not under a hechsher, so no Rav is deeming their actions Kosher.
Redleg, picketing is legal in America. Unions do it too. Walmart protesters do it, as do many others.
“Not patronizing an establishment is a lot different than threatening to shut someone down.”
How could rabbonim (or whoever these people are) shut down a restaurant?
Picketing is not walking into a business and threatening the owner. The implications of the OP and subsequent comments is that thugs walked into an establishment and threatened the owner (not physically). Even picketers are subject to certain rules, it isnt a free for all, and they are certainly not allowed into the establishment they are picketing. Now, if the OP used language that was not precise, and people picked up on the error and ran with it, and this entire thread is based on a complete misunderstanding, and really several residents walked into the establishment and had a cordial conversation with the owner about the nature of the business and the nature of the population it catered to, and that he is miscalculating the customer base and to reconsider the TV and the owner did just that (whew!), then, this thread is just a waste of time. Perhaps the OP can enlighten us what he or she really meant.
Joey, peaceful picketing is, of course, legal. However, If patrons are aggressively accosted and harassed, not to mention if the establishment is vandalized, the action rises to the level of criminal activity. This is what the the owners wanted to avert by reaching an agreement with the Kanoim. The point is that a simple boycott by people who wouldn’t have gone to place anyway would not have been intimidating enough to the owners to force a concession from them.
Redleg, interesting speculation on your part, but nothing of that sort or like occurred or was hinted at in this case. They was no boycott in the end, but all that would have been done was pashkevalim plastered on shuls bulletin boards declaring a boycott. And some leaflets handed out to patrons on the public street before they entered the establishment, with the same printed message including a list of local rabbonim who the community respects that would have supported the boycott.
Entirely legal in every which way.
“If patrons are aggressively accosted and harassed, not to mention if the establishment is vandalized, the action rises to the level of criminal activity”
So the second they came to him and threatened him he should have called the police
There supposedly were also some kannoim outside of the above described rabbinic negotiations with the owner, who also said they’d photograph and publish patrons entering the establishment from the public street to discourage customers, lest they be embarrassed amongst their neighbors and yeshivos as patrons of television sports bar.
But even that, if it is true, is legal.
Besides being creepy, taking photographs of people entering an establishment and passing the pictures around might very well be Loshon Harah and therefore against halacha
Meno – DOESNT matter if your frum laws of state applies to everyone.
Drinking alcohol while publicly watching television, including commercials that are rife with very immodestly dressed women, is far far worse than being embarrassed to stop sinning in public.
Which is a worse Averiah watching the football game while drinking beer or telling someone else Lashon Harah that someone did it
Watching the immodestly dressed women in the commercials is far far worse.
I guess Joseph has a kabbalah that kannoim pogim bo bappkies here too. Cant argue with his kabbalah.
He also seems mighty sure of himself of what goes on in a sports bar.
The removal of this public invitation to sinning in midst of a large frum community, all being billed r’l as “kosher”, has been a very positive outcome.
Joseph – that is bad aveirah but once again in this world we cant compare aveirahs with other aveirahs and mitzvahs with other mitzvahs.
An earlier post in this thread says that Joseph has chosen the kollel life. Joseph, are you really in kollel? How do manage to find the time to post here so prolifically?
Joseph wrote “Watching the immodestly dressed women in the commercials is far far worse.”
You seem to have very specific knowledge of this.
I never had a TV and don’t watch it elsewhere. But one must have their head in the sand to be oblivious to knowing that this is the case. Must one watch TV to know it is rife with immodest women? Do you deny this?
They were given $25,000 if they removed the t.v.’s and one chasidish group said they would boycott it.
In response to another comment, there are around 5 kosher sports bars in the NJ-NY area.
“They were given $25,000 if they removed the t.v.’s”
Not a bad way to start a business. I think I’ll open a restaurant with a TV in it. Not sure where though. Where do the rich kanoim live?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.