http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/vermont-diner-takes-bacon-sign-offends-muslim-residents-article-1.1915158
Perhaps if the woman simply noted that the sign wasn't MUTCD compliant it wouldn't have set off such a backlash? :bigass:
That sign is not offensive in any manner whatsoever. Give me a break...
Yeah. Like everyone on a diet is offended by the dunkin donuts down their street. What the fuck?
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 09:04:28 PM
That sign is not offensive in any manner whatsoever. Give me a break...
Seriously? I've heard that there's a restaurant in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, an area with a very large Orthodox Jewish population, called Tref that has a pig as its logo. Apparently, no one's complaining about that one.
A more legitimate complaint is whether or not a restaurant should be putting up what looks like a traffic sign...
You can argue whether or not the sign was offensive (personally I don't think so). But legally speaking, it's close enough to looking like a standard road sign. Which, in Vermont, is illegal to place within view of the traveling public. That topic got mentioned on another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13293.msg2002554#msg2002554).
I think the sign is cute. Not offensive though, but I have seen worse.
There is nothing wrong with the sign. If there's something in the road that is going to result in it becoming bacon someday, you bet I don't want to hit it!
I am offended by this person taking offense, and demand that she be removed from the public.
Another example of society gone horribly wrong...
Take down a bacon sign to make one person happy, and offend thousands of bacon lovers. Figures.
Another step toward sharia? :poke:
We had a similar issue here in Florida. An icon was removed from the City of St. Cloud because it offended a person who did not even live in St. Cloud, but just happened to pass through it on US 192. The people of St. Cloud, which is plenty of them, had to witness it be removed just to please one out of town person.
What's next? People who are color blind demanding all green signs get removed? Sorry California, you need to re-color all your state highway markers....
The only thing offensive I find about that sign is the fact it is advertising a private business on public property.
Fail
This "Speed Limit 20" sign is offensive; I want it removed.
Quote from: roadman on August 26, 2014, 10:45:44 AM
The only thing offensive I find about that sign is the fact it is advertising a private business on public property.
It appears the sign still served a purpose as the business' facebook post indicates that people had previously been driving over the plantings on that island. It is almost like a case of "adopt an island" where many businesses do in fact place signs with their name in areas they maintain.
Egad. That dame should move to the Middle East, put on a burqa (however you spell that) and crawl under a rock. :angry:
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 26, 2014, 12:59:59 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 26, 2014, 10:45:44 AM
The only thing offensive I find about that sign is the fact it is advertising a private business on public property.
It appears the sign still served a purpose as the business' facebook post indicates that people had previously been driving over the plantings on that island. It is almost like a case of "adopt an island" where many businesses do in fact place signs with their name in areas they maintain.
Point taken. However, I personally am sick and tired of creating even more excuses for the marketing types to shill their products and services on the public, no matter how large or small the company may be. And if people have been runningo ver the planters, then perhaps the planters shouldn't be there in the first place.
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 26, 2014, 12:59:59 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 26, 2014, 10:45:44 AM
The only thing offensive I find about that sign is the fact it is advertising a private business on public property.
It appears the sign still served a purpose as the business' facebook post indicates that people had previously been driving over the plantings on that island. It is almost like a case of "adopt an island" where many businesses do in fact place signs with their name in areas they maintain.
Then there was this back in April, when the entire planting area got hammered:
http://www.wptz.com/news/vermont-new-york/burlington/traffic-circle-crash-caused-by-medical-emergency/25434758#!bKJavX
Seriously. There's war and strife worldwide but we have to get pissy about a novelty sign depicting bacon?
Grow.
Up.
I find the sign funny. What I don't like is how the restaurant took the sign and their Facebook page down all because one person complained.
What erodes my faith in humanity is not so much that someone complained, but rather that the sign owner bent over and let the complaining busybody have her way without even the slightest resistance. Listen folks, the first amendment gives you certain rights, and if you're not offending anyone, you're not exercising them properly! :pan:
On the other hand, I do have to agree that the sign should not have been there for an entirely different reason: it is advertising in a public right of way. The sign should be put back up on the owner's own property.
Honestly, I blame the media. If one person complains, it should be a simple complaint with the police, or the store owner, or whatever. Instead, the media picks up the issue and acts like the offending person is the worst idiot ever to roam the earth. Cut the media out of it, and the sole offended person doesn't have much else to get their message out with (other than Facebook and such, but I'm sure there aren't too many people looking for "Yield to Bacon" type pages).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2014, 10:56:16 PM
Honestly, I blame the media. If one person complains, it should be a simple complaint with the police, or the store owner, or whatever. Instead, the media picks up the issue and acts like the offending person is the worst idiot ever to roam the earth. Cut the media out of it, and the sole offended person doesn't have much else to get their message out with (other than Facebook and such, but I'm sure there aren't too many people looking for "Yield to Bacon" type pages).
What? Are you freaking kidding me? The world deserves to know how much of a butthurt, arrogant, uptight prick this woman is. In fact, I wish the media would have released her full name so we could publicly shame her. :evilgrin: There was nothing offensive about that sign! NOTHING. No one should have gotten offended.
Well, I do blame The Media to a large extent.
So what about the blue services signs? Do Hindus get to have them removed because all those hamburger joints are offensive?
People need to grow a set.
QuoteHonestly, I blame the media. If one person complains, it should be a simple complaint with the police, or the store owner, or whatever. Instead, the media picks up the issue and acts like the offending person is the worst idiot ever to roam the earth. Cut the media out of it, and the sole offended person doesn't have much else to get their message out with (other than Facebook and such, but I'm sure there aren't too many people looking for "Yield to Bacon" type pages).
In this case, the sign was removed before the media caught wind of the situation.
Whether the diner owner knew of the Vermont law I cited earlier or not, I'm not sure. But the bottom line is that, had the diner owner left the sign, the "offendee" did have another, and VERY LEGAL, position to fall back on to get the sign removed.
QuoteSo what about the blue services signs?
Also prohibited in Vermont. General signs saying services (food, fuel (including diesel/24hour), etc) are allowed, but the blue logo signs that most states have are not allowed here.
Quote from: froggie on August 27, 2014, 08:20:37 PM
QuoteHonestly, I blame the media. If one person complains, it should be a simple complaint with the police, or the store owner, or whatever. Instead, the media picks up the issue and acts like the offending person is the worst idiot ever to roam the earth. Cut the media out of it, and the sole offended person doesn't have much else to get their message out with (other than Facebook and such, but I'm sure there aren't too many people looking for "Yield to Bacon" type pages).
In this case, the sign was removed before the media caught wind of the situation.
Whether the diner owner knew of the Vermont law I cited earlier or not, I'm not sure. But the bottom line is that, had the diner owner left the sign, the "offendee" did have another, and VERY LEGAL, position to fall back on to get the sign removed.
QuoteSo what about the blue services signs?
Also prohibited in Vermont. General signs saying services (food, fuel (including diesel/24hour), etc) are allowed, but the blue logo signs that most states have are not allowed here.
Regardless of all the legal eagle aspects, the sign was a stupid reason to get offended. Quit dodging what's actually being talked about here. If the person wanted it removed out of confusion with real MUTCD signs and cited the law, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
At this rate, the only color anyone will be able to use on anything will be one of the 50 shades of gray (not the book!), only a few words will be allowed to be used to describe anything, and anything creative will be squashed. This sounds like a familiar story I've read somewhere before..... :hmmm:
Quote from: cjk374 on August 31, 2014, 04:00:15 PM
At this rate, the only color anyone will be able to use on anything will be one of the 50 shades of gray (not the book!), only a few words will be allowed to be used to describe anything, and anything creative will be squashed. This sounds like a familiar story I've read somewhere before..... :hmmm:
Not counting black or white, there are 254 shades of gray.
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 31, 2014, 04:00:15 PM
At this rate, the only color anyone will be able to use on anything will be one of the 50 shades of gray (not the book!), only a few words will be allowed to be used to describe anything, and anything creative will be squashed. This sounds like a familiar story I've read somewhere before..... :hmmm:
Not counting black or white, there are 254 shades of gray.
Those are being saved for the sequel.
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 31, 2014, 04:00:15 PM
At this rate, the only color anyone will be able to use on anything will be one of the 50 shades of gray (not the book!), only a few words will be allowed to be used to describe anything, and anything creative will be squashed. This sounds like a familiar story I've read somewhere before..... :hmmm:
Not counting black or white, there are 254 shades of gray.
Holy crap! I had no idea! :wow:
Quote from: cjk374 on August 31, 2014, 04:15:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 31, 2014, 04:00:15 PM
At this rate, the only color anyone will be able to use on anything will be one of the 50 shades of gray (not the book!), only a few words will be allowed to be used to describe anything, and anything creative will be squashed. This sounds like a familiar story I've read somewhere before..... :hmmm:
Not counting black or white, there are 254 shades of gray.
Holy crap! I had no idea! :wow:
The Monkees will explain it:
The only way that sign could really be offensive to someone who doesn't eat pork is if it had a robotic arm that reached out an jammed a piece of bacon in your mouth when you looked at it.
I had a sign removed before because I found it offensive. It was something someone private put up talking about bicyclists not sharing the roadway on a local roadway. The County removed it, citing it was also too similar to an actual road sign and could be a source of confusion. Problem solved on both ends.
Just to be clear, this wasn't a roadsign. It was an advertisement for the restaurant and it was located on the public right of way, but in the design of a roadsign. Winooski allows business that tend some of the public gardens to put up small advertisements. Sneakers decided to take it down on its own, to avoid just this kind of backlash and controversy. I appreciate the free speech element of discussing it on this forum, but it really has nothing to do with roads. Instead we now have a large number of people from outside of the Burlington metro area attacking Sneakers, the town, the people, our state etc... without knowing the full story or the players. Again, it's an interesting discussion but has nothing to do with roads.
Quote from: jcroyer80 on September 29, 2014, 12:27:55 PM
Just to be clear, this wasn't a roadsign. It was an advertisement for the restaurant and it was located on the public right of way, but in the design of a roadsign. Winooski allows business that tend some of the public gardens to put up small advertisements. Sneakers decided to take it down on its own, to avoid just this kind of backlash and controversy. I appreciate the free speech element of discussing it on this forum, but it really has nothing to do with roads. Instead we now have a large number of people from outside of the Burlington metro area attacking Sneakers, the town, the people, our state etc... without knowing the full story or the players. Again, it's an interesting discussion but has nothing to do with roads.
Actually, it was an advertisement in the shape of a roadsign on an adopt an island. This has very much to do with roads considering it was a sign aimed at road users. If you would browse our forum a little bit more, you would see that this type of discussion is relevant. If you want to say its better off in the "off topic" section of our forum, then I'll give you that. But to say it has nothing to do with roads and shouldn't be on this forum is just plain incorrect.
Also keep in mind that our version of the story is based on articles published by Burlington, VT newspapers (The NY daily news piece is almost identical to information published by the Burlington Free Press). So before you say we don't know the full story or players I suggest you reach out to your local media and have them set the record straight.