To the Editor:

There has been much written lately about “Pierogigate,” but I thought I would offer a slightly different perspective. I don’t know whether or not the Founders thought about the issue when they wrote the Constitution. I suspect that they did not even know what a pierogi is. In any event, it seems that the Supreme Court would side with the vendor in this case. 

Whatever the legality, it seems to me that purchasing a food item (or anything for consumption) from someone who doesn’t want to sell it is a dangerous thing. I’m not a particular fan of pierogis, in fact I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one, but it cannot be too difficult to place something in the item that, at best, would ruin the flavor and, at worst, cause physical distress. If I were to approach a vendor to purchase a pierogi (or a slice of pizza, or a burger, or any food item) and I was denied, I would think it would be prudent to not pursue the issue. Of course, not being a constitutional lawyer, it might be worth risking my health to prove a point. As a rule, I believe it’s sensible not to offend anyone who is providing an item for oral consumption. This includes food vendors, waitstaff, butchers, bakers, and even pharmacists. Of course, as a pharmacist and former teacher of pharmacists, I am confident that this would never happen, except possibly in pharmacies that had soda fountains. It is possible to contaminate an egg cream. For those not from New York and unfamiliar with egg creams, they are delicious chocolate drinks containing neither eggs nor cream. And no one should ever be denied one.

Ted Jochsberger

West Tisbury

 

8 replies on “Dangerous buying food from someone who doesn’t want to sell it”

    1. I agree with you. This could have been solved several friendly ways.
      When reading last year about a black buyer who was nearly denied buying a condo because a white seller didn’t want to sell to a black buyer, I wondered if having someone do all the buying for us is fair.
      If you sell to the public, and you can choose to not sell, and you don’t have to disclose any reason whatsoever, we’re in trouble as a society.
      If you sell to the public, sell to the public.

  2. It’s dangerous to discriminate against polite customers for any reason. “No Jews allowed” is now updated to “No Zionists allowed” in some places. That is Nazi ideology modernized to suit liberal intolerance masquerading as virtue. The most disturbing aspects of this clown show, supposedly a nonsensical stand against sex abuse, was the support from the island community for the vendor, not for the customer. Liberals are fine with discrimination when it suits their narrative of who it’s okay to hate.

    The idea of restaurant workers spitting in a customer’s food was a practice supposedly done to rude patrons. Sitting down at a counter and politely asking for a coffee and sandwich would not be an example of how that disgusting practice could occur.

    1. “ Liberals are fine with discrimination when it suits their narrative of who it’s okay to hate.” The same can absolutely be said about conservatives as well. What is going on in the current administration is a clear example.

    1. To be fair, the vendor’s actions were quite attention-seeking. Successfully so. Every year around this time, Islanders and the media seem to eagerly await the next incident involving Alan Dershowitz. There was zero chance of this story remaining quiet once somebody chose to set it in motion.

      Nothing was accomplished by refusing service. Nothing of ethical or practical value, anyway. The seller likely brought in extra money due to increased publicity—how noble—while locals got to feel smug about supporting yet another low-effort, ineffective, hypocritical show of protest.

      It’s become the Vineyard way, and we’re the worse for it.

Comments are closed.