NYC’s Attack On Tznius to Go to Trial


williamsburgNYC’s battle against Orthodox Jewish retail shops that require “modesty” of their customers should go to trial, an administrative judge has ruled. Both sides have been fighting for months over signs that Satmar shops in Williamsburg put in their windows saying, “Entrance here only for those with modest attire. No Shorts, No Barefoot, No Sleeveless, NO Low Cut Neckline ALLOWED IN THIS STORE.”

The city argues that the signs are discriminatory against women, non-Jews and the non-religious by making them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in the Lee Avenue stores.

But the shops say the signs are geared toward both genders and don’t single out anyone any differently than a posh eatery that requires a coat and tie.

The trial will consist of a two-day hearing in administrative court in January, officials said. Read more at the NY Post.

{ Newscenter}


  1. This is another Bl$$mberg attack on Frumah Yidden! I’m sure the “off the Derech” crowd is behind this attack as well. This is terrible.

  2. But Courtrooms,for example,are allowed to put up identical signs.

    If,however it is for modesty,then count on some disgustly decadent jews to raise cain to destroy it(,of course hiding behind with some official veil)

  3. I do not think this constitutes an attack on Tznius. It challenges discriminatory practices. Legally there is nothing wrong with dressing in shorts and woman who chose to should be allowed to shop whereever they chose just as men are allowed to shop when wearing shorts.
    Furthermore, aside for gender a merchant can’t require people to dress a certain way if they wish to shop period.

  4. The merchant has rights to the property. He pays rent and he’s the one who suffers if he loses customers because of his signs. He’s not discriminating against anyone. Anyone who wants to shop there simply has to cover up. You don’t like it, don’t give him your business.

  5. Many stores have rules about dress such as shirts or shoes required. Of course so do libraries, workplaces, restaurants and theaters for instance. So what is so strange here? The owners are not taking away anyone’s right to dress in any way they will. They are only stating rules for shopping in their store. The judge mentioned has no business being one. There are no grounds for his decision and it is disgraceful. Would he lift the in – court dress codes, which may not be official but are quite understandable?

    The whole issue is ridiculous. Unfortunately that does not mean much in today’s “enlightened” atmosphere. Common sense and common decency are becoming quite lost.

  6. “Cant anyone do what they want on their own private property?”

    Not if it involved illegal discrimination. Baruch HaShem the “No Jews allowed” signs in stores and in real estate deeds are gone or unenforceable thanks to the government.

    But in this case, I can’t see who is being discriminated against. Restaurants can have dress codes as long as they are uniformly enforced and I don’t see how this is different.

  7. this isn’t discriminatory against women non jews and/or anyone else.
    I guaranty that the store owner would love them to come and shop just come dressed according to the rules of modesty that we ask of you.
    when you go to many convenient stores they have requirements that you need a shirt and some sort of shoes, why isn’t that discrimination. because it isn’t a Jewish store. everyone knows that Blumberg hates anyone that doesn’t see eye to eye with him.

  8. It’s a private store…I can decide who I want as a customer or not…If you offend me by your dress…I can tell you stay away. This is not a government office, which of course, has it’s own rules…
    I imagine the rule where one has to dress up in an office ( and incidentally they have leeway for Friday, is it? dress down day)would be descriminatory too…right? let’s change that…suppose I want to dress down every day…why can’t I…I want to wear denim instead of formalwear…why can’t I? Because in my business I could prefer whatever I want, you don’t have to work there if you don’t like the rules…same with the store. These are my rules…you don’t like them, go find another store to shop in. It’s America…the LAND OF THE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

  9. Am I allowed to close my store for 20 minutes in order to go daven Mincha??? Maybe that’s also discriminating! Who said I’m allowed to close at 8:00pm? Maybe someone might need something at 3:00am? Are we allowed to close early on Friday’s?
    We don’t owe anything to some miserable costumer!
    You can’t have Government interfering with my private store! I don’t force anyone to enter my store! There are plenty of other choices! I would like to see some reporter enter a press conference with President Obama wearing a bathing suit! See what happens! This is the same garbage they started with Metziza Bipeh!

  10. The owners of these stores should lock their stores and check their video before allowing anyone to enter. They don’t have to let everyone or anyone in when they’re officially closed.

  11. I think the store is 100% justified if the clientele are peaple who are only going to shop in such an enviornment then thats what the store gears to you cant say that a williamsburg clothing store selling for example long jackets should be required to let everybody in thats not right peaple shop in these stores for a reason a lot of them wouldnt go other stores and as a sidebar those who dont dress properly probably have nothing to find in the store why are they going in the 1st place have you ever seen a random guy on the street wearing a bekeshe

  12. This is clearly a double standard. I remember going out on a date in the “Windows of the World” on top of the World Trade Center. They made us Yeshiva boy’s take our hats off. Why was that allowed and not this???