Last week, Coloradans saw the name of a local eatery in the national press. This coverage, however, was not positive for Illegal Pete’s; a group of bellicose activists is demanding the restaurant change its name. This exigence is not only a vast overreaction on the part of the activists, but it also highlights the flawed logic of demanding change from a private business.
The controversy over the restaurant’s name began in Fort Collins, where a new location is slated to open. About three weeks before the grand opening, Illegal Pete’s owner Pete Turner and the community gathered to meet and discuss the name. Turner explained, according to Westword Magazine, how the business got its name — Pete, of course, comes from the owner’s name. “Illegal,” on the other hand, was chosen as a marketing tool, in order to seem “mysterious” or edgy, according to Turner.
This shows his intent was perfectly benign and was in no way meant to offend or harm. His economic decision, unsurprisingly, was a marketing choice.
Those who oppose Illegal Pete’s and demand a name change are guilty of selective outrage. For example, incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Udall visited the DU Illegal Pete’s location recently in a campaign stop—was he asked about whether he supported the name change? Further, the entire debate begs the question of timing: Activists and those organizing against the restaurant seem to have been quiet until now, three weeks before a new location opening.
While the renaming of Illegal Pete’s may be the cause célèbre of the politically correct for the next few weeks, it is truly not a crusade that merits so much attention and angst.
What about the real issues plaguing immigrant and migrant communities, like finding quality jobs, pursuing an education and access to healthcare? Is the issue of a restaurant’s name more harmful, more challenging and more injurious to those communities?
Illegal immigration is a monumental problem for our nation, and protesting a restaurant is a naive way to demand change or reform.
There are so many ways to make the world a better place for us all to live in. Is picketing to protest a name that was never meant to be harmful truly one of them? Are the world and the condition of humanity improved when one demands that a private business change its name? Absolutely not. Instead of drowning in a minutiae and making outlandish demands, activists could legitimately engage in the existing political process and urge lawmakers to address immigration reform — whatever that looks like.
What’s more is that those protesting Turner and his restaurant ignore a fact of the free market: Nobody is being forced to dine at Illegal Pete’s. Just as certain people choose to boycott Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A, those who disagree with how Illegal Pete’s operates its business can make the decision not to dine there. It speaks volumes about our culture and our society that a business with which a small minority disagrees must consider changing its name to avoid a boycott and public pressure. By that same flawed logic, should every institution that could offend someone be forced to change?
Rather than forcing a business to operate under one’s own ideological worldview, those who truly find the name abhorrent should, instead of protesting Illegal Pete’s, support competitors, therefore using the free market to advance their view.
This whole controversy brings to mind a quote by Erwin Rommel, World War II commander. “Don’t fight a battle if you don’t gain anything by winning.” If you’re going to be an activist, do something that matters. If you’re going to draw a line in the stand and fight for a cause, pick one that will improve the condition of your community, your fellow man or the lives of those around you. Don’t pick a childish fight with a local business.
