1st Thought

A link to the article I'm discussing, in the Jerusalem Post:
Here

A family of Jews in Austria were refused boarding at a Bed and Breakfast simply because they were Jewish. The Chairman of the Tourist Board offered this as a response: "However, in our opinion, unfortunately formulated, it is not by any means to be interpreted as anti-Semitism."

I actually laughed when I read that, because it's such a ridiculous excuse. It calls to mind Aaron: "really, I just threw the gold in and poof, there was a calf." "Really, I just denied them lodging because they were Jews but poof, there's no anti-Semitism." I can't imagine a way in which this WASN'T anti-Semitic; note that the owner asked if they were Jewish because of their name. Note also that it's not an isolated incident with the business.

It's yet another anti-Jewish sentiment among many; the ADL had documented a rise in such concurrent with economic instability. The need for a safe Jewish home is one of the main reasons I continue to support Israel, despite our disagreements on their treatment of Palestine. (Not that I'm always happy with what the U.S. government does either.)

It also raises interesting questions about right-of-refusal, however. How far does the right to refuse service go? The owner argued that she had a right to refuse service to anyone. I would argue that she does, but only to an extent. If she kicked out a family because they were noisy and disturbing the other guests, I would support her. If she kicked out a family because they were proselytizing beyond a polite boundary, I'd likewise support her. But there are limits in who you can refuse service to. I think the handy tool to use in judging these cases is "what are the REASONS you're refusing service?" These are easier to argue over whether or not their fair - more easy than arguing about the legality of the issue, since I don't know much about property rights. While a good tool would also be anti-discrimination clauses, these vary so wildly that certain classes might not be protected in different places.

So if a Jewish woman was refused service because she brought in a crazy-loud boombox, that's a good reason to kick someone out. If a Jewish woman was refused service because she was Jewish... how is that anything other than discrimination? There is no logical reason to exclude her. She is not harming the establishment or others.

And discrimination can ripple out to still waters. She can put away a boombox, she can't (and shouldn't have to) stop being Jewish. It might be easy to say, well, here is one isolated incident. The family will have to alter their travel plans. But if this kind of behavior is excused, it stops being isolated. Getting turned away from one B&B is one thing (a terrible thing, don't get me wrong). It's another to be turned out everywhere - to lack safe lodging and medical care and food because the owners of a store have the right to refuse you because of your race or gender or religion.

State-sponsered discrimination of this sort - whether deliberate or merely allowed - is a constant danger to so many. I applaud Israel as a safe spot from one sort. I hope she can widen that group to more, to many, to all, as a light to the nations.