Historic Boston: Things to Do on the 4th
Photo of the day, July 3, 2009: After Hours
While Bostonist was happily ensconced in the warm embrace of family, turkey, and red wine yesterday, those America-hating scofflaws at Super 88 Markets (some of them just a few blocks down Washington street from our law-abiding gathering) were undermining everything we hold dear in this Commonwealth by being open for business. Despite Attorney General Reilly's stern warnings to Whole Foods and others, the Globe reports that the Asian foodstuffs chain was welcoming customers in many locales. Reilly's office has said there will be a full investigation, but we wonder whether the AG will really crack down to the fullest extent of the law.
The blue laws, you see, cover a great deal more than retail foodselling. There's a broad prohibition on conducting "any manner of business, labor, or work," which includes, among tons of other things, making contracts for anything other than charitable work. So if, in a tryptophan-induced stupor, you were tricked yesterday into selling your house at a less-than-advantageous price, there may be hope for you (although you're also guilty of a crime for making the contract at all). And on Sundays (but not holidays), it is not only forbidden to hold a dance for which admission is charged (unless you get a special license, or if it's a square of folk dance, of course), but it is also illegal to attend one (fines of up to $50!). Bostonist has never been invited to a dance on a Sunday (not even a square dance), but we imagine they're going on, and the A.G. could be cracking down and bringing money into the state's coffers.
Luckily, as with all good laws, there are certain exceptions (55 of them, in fact) to keep the most essential services in the Commonwealth running smoothly on Sundays and holidays. So if you spent yesterday repairing a bridge, running your public bathhouse, selling lubricating oil, renting out horses (for pleasure riding only), flying a plane, shining shoes (provided you were doing so at the airport or before 11:00 a.m.), transporting a carousel or ferris wheel (between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. only) or making butter or cheese, you're in the clear.
(Why aren't laws that create a "common day of rest" that just happens to fall on the Christian sabbath unconstitutional, you ask? Bostonist has often asked the same thing, as have many lawyers trying to get their clients off on charges of breaking the blue laws. The courts have pretty uniformly said there's no constitutional problem, though. The theory is that it's OK for the state to pick any day as a common day of rest, and it's just a matter of practicality - not endorsement of religion - to make it the day when the majority religion is resting. And what if you happen to be an observant Jew, Muslim, or Seventh-Day Adventist and can't run your business on Saturday? The SJC's answer in a 1957 was, "too bad for you," but the law has since been amended so that if you consistently keep your business closed on some other sabbath day, you can open on Sunday.)
Commandment 11: Thou shalt not open for business on Sundays and certain holidays, except in the case of 55 enumerated exceptions as provided in Mass. General Laws chapter 136, section 6.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
I don't think you're aware of the subversive impact that your choice of words in this article could have on some of its readers and the Boston community. I assume (hope, perhaps naively) that you meant it to be funny. Your choice to use the phrase "those America-hating scofflaws at Super 88 Markets" is blatantly offensive. Super 88 is a successful Asian foods business whose customers include not only Asians, Asian-Americans, Caucasians, and a diverse group of shoppers from the surrounding community. Just because a business is run by Asians does not mean the owners are "America-hating." I understand that your piece is intended to be sarcastic- but it may take an intelligent reader to see it as such. Most people will probably just assume that you are labeling Asians as anti-American. At worst, someone reading the article WILL believe that Asians are anti-American because the Super 88 was open on a mainstream holiday. Sarcasm is fine, but not at the expense of people who are generally unrepresented in the media. It's especially not ok within our current, politically-divisive, xenaphobic environment. I expected better from Boston.
It's true that I'm being sarcastic, but the sarcasm doesn't have anything to do with their being Asian. It has to do with the fact that blue laws are silly. "America-hating," like "scofflaws" in this case, is simply a purposeful exaggeration - my intent in using it is to allude and make fun of the way that people sometimes label any lawbreaker or dissenter as anti-American. The fact is, Super 88 Markets did break the law, but what I want to say is that the law is dumb. I trust the readers to understand from the context that the sharp end of my sarcasm is pointed toward the law and the A.G., and not Asians.
Cynthia raises a good point here, but I'm a little unwilling to accept the idea that a violation of a silly law by Asians can't be treated with the same sarcasm as a violation of the same law by any other group. Dear readers, what do you think?
The question appears to me to be one of likelihood--how likely it is that a reader will misinterpret this article to be Super 88 hating?
With that in mind, several points bear attention. First, the title of this article is "What's Up With The Blue Laws?" Second, only one paragraph (albeit the first paragraph) mentions Super 88. If the focus is clearly on the Blue Laws, not on Super 88, I think the likelihood of misinterpretation is low.
More importantly, the article should be placed in context. Bostonist.com runs satirical, pointed commentary on a variety of issues. Several posts focus generally on the enjoyable multiculturism of the city. For this particular post to be misconstrued as a xenophobic, fear mongering rant against Super 88 employees and shoppers, a reader would need to read it in isolation, which, at least to me, appears less likely than more likely.
Sure it could be read by someone, somewhere as an attack on the Super 88 crew. So could a post on the best supermarket in town. But neither is likely enough to cause concern.
Incidentally, I don't think many people in Boston are "xenaphobic." From what I understand of the Warrior Princess's following, she'd probably receive a warmer welcome here than most other places.
Cynthia is taking much too seriously something that was obviously written as a joke.
not to mention that if you go to the About Gothamist page, you'll see that three of the six people shown are Asian. So it's quite unlikely that any Bostonist contributor would post something that was deliberately offensive to Asians.
I enjoy the somewhat sarcastic and snarky tone of some of the posts here.
For what it's worth, while I appreciate Ron's opinion, I would argue that Gothamist's Asian staff is irrelevant and that my post is unoffensive on its own merits. Conversely, if I had posted some overtly racist screed about Asians and their inability to conform their behavior to American standards (or whatever), I don't think Jen Chung's status as my internet-boss would (or should) save me. The point is, I didn't say that Asians are lawbreakers or America-haters as a matter of course. I said that Super 88 Markets broke a stupid law. If Whole Foods had done the same thing (as they initially planned to), I would have called them "America-hating scofflaws" and no one would have stepped up to say I was discriminating against people who charge too much for milk.