The Justice Department has filed an anti-discrimination case against the owners of the Jerusalem Coffee House in Oakland, California. Fathi Abdulrahim Harara and Native Grounds LLC are accused of violating Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation. The matter is also the subject of a private lawsuit by the Anti-Defamation League and other groups.
In the ADL complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, there are details on how a Jewish customer was alleged to have been chased from the business by its owner and an employee.
Michael Radice, visited Jerusalem Coffee House in July 2024, wearing a baseball cap with a Star of David icon and the phrase “Am Yisrael Chai” — or “the people of Israel live.”
In approaching the business, Radice says that he was confronted by a man sitting outside who demanded, “Are you a Jew?” After Mr. Radice answered affirmatively, the man verbally attacked him and accused him of being “responsible” for “killing children.”
Radice decided to go back to the business the following month and discovered that the man was an employee at the shop. He alleges that the man with the owner and a third employee forced him to leave and then followed him down the street yelling, “You’re the guy with the hat. You’re the Jew. You’re the Zionist. We don’t want you in our coffee shop. Get out.” As Mr. Radice walked away, three men followed him, and he heard them calling him “Jew” and “Zionist.”
The federal lawsuit notes that, on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, the Jerusalem Coffee House announced two new drinks: “Iced In Tea Fada,” an obvious reference to “intifada.” It also introduced as drink, “Sweet Sinwar,” an apparent reference to Yahya Sinwar, the former leader of Hamas who orchestrated the massacre. It also alleges that the coffee house’s exterior side wall displays inverted red triangles, a symbol of violence against Jews that has been spray-painted on Jewish homes and synagogues in anti-Semitic attacks.
Under Title II, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division can seek to force changes in how the coffee shop must remedy alleged discriminatory conduct. In the meantime, the shop will face demands for civil damages in the private lawsuit.
While customers appear undisturbed by drinks named after a mass murderer, the shop itself is likely to find what is coming a bit harder to swallow. It is now facing litigation on two fronts over the treatment of Jewish customers.
#9.
3,…2,…1…
“But who gonna pick tha cotton?”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/06/karen_bass_says_if_ice_raids_persist_there_will_be_nobody_left_to_nanny_the_children_and_mow_the_lawns.html
It’s like clockwork now. I’m starting to side with the AI-bros. at least they know ingenuity and innovation can do some jobs “americans don’t want to.”
-Rabble
“But who gonna pick tha cotton?”
Apparently, according to Donald Trump, illegal immigrants are going to (continue) to pick it. But I owe you thanks for affording me the opportunity to make this off topic post:
YMMV, but Trump just jumped the shark for me, at least on the immigration issue:
Trump plans executive order to block deportations for farm workers
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/trump-plans-executive-order-block-deportations-farm-workers
I have become increasingly suspicious lately that some deep-state-type behind-the-scenes manipulators have found ways to work the puppet strings on Patel and Bongino, among others in this administration. But this action by Trump makes it appear very likely to me that he is also doing the bidding of some unelected powers, and that those powers might well have interests that do not correspond very well with those of US citizens. How the H** does this comport with *any* of Trump’s previous rhetoric on illegal immigrantion? Were illegal immigrants that labor for certain business sectors originally intended to be *less* illegal than the rest? Do illegal immigrants that are nominally employed by the agriculture or hospitality industries have some immunity to being recruited by MS13 or Tren de Aragua? Are none of the illegal immigrants currently rioting lawlessly and violently in LA employed in those industries? Maybe a reasonable explanation will be forthcoming for this shortly, but I’m not planning to hold my breath. For now, I am thoroughly disgusted!
Why does this country celebrate Dec 25 (Christmas), New Years (Jan 1), Veterans Day(N0v 11), Memorial Day (last monday in May) 4th of July–But we celebrate “Pride MONTH?”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
No one I know celebrates the defect-cum-disease, homosexuality.
#9. Like gazing into a crystal ball. Here’s another mid-term election campaign clip in the making.
“Let em eat cake!” But no coffee…
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/gavin-newsoms-wife-reportedly-caught-going-swanky-shopping/
More like either accepting or giving payola. It’s always done in person. There aren’t witnesses.
The latest narrative coming from the left is that the National Guard is not needed in L.A. the chief of police in L.A. thinks differently and I quote. “We are overwhelmed as far as the number of people engaging in this type of activity… There’s no limit to what they’re doing to our officers.”
The main man on the ground says the word overwhelmed in an obvious call for help and the California politicians tell us that no help is necessary. All you men in blue should remember that this is not the first time that they’ve tossed you under the bus. They need you now bigly but it wasn’t long ago that defunding the police was the leftist mantra of the year. Let me repeat. Overwhelmed!!
So what!
People here are quoting this statement, allegedly from the LAPD Chief
“We are overwhelmed as far as the number of people engaging in this type of activity… There’s no limit to what they’re doing to our officers.”
This is fake news.
The Chief never said this.
The only place you will find this alleged quote is in the comments section of a blog.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/trump-was-right-to-send-the-national-guard-to-la/?us#:~:text=As%20ICE%20agents%20served%20a,agents%20were%20assaulted%20and%20outnumbered.
It is from a comment made by a reader of the blog, not the author of the blog.
It is completely fake.
What the Chief actually said on camera in an interview:
“We don’t need the National Guard, and they are not here to help us right now”
No, the 1st is real and yours is a fake.
“We are overwhelmed as far as the number of people engaging in this type of activity… There’s no limit to what they’re doing to our officers.”
So run them over. Well in Florida that would be legal.
Governor Ron DeSantis:
We also have a policy that if you’re driving on one of those streets and a mob comes and surrounds your
vehicle and threatens you you have a right to flee for your safety. And so if you drive off and you hit one of these
people, that’s their fault for impinging on you. You don’t have to sit there and just be a sitting duck and let the
mob grab you out of your car and drag you through the streets. You have a right to defend yourself in Florida
Oh, I see. This is what happened in TN.
Really tired of the jew supremacist government. They didn’t care when Whites were chased down by hordes of colored ferals. But offend a kike and the DoJ comes after you. Hey, jew, this is why the rest of us want your kind gone from our nations.
Speak for yourself.
Anonymous, I thought you were all about stopping the hate. Guess not.
HAHAHAHA, nice
Welcome Gov. Newsom.
Where’s Kamel-a?
Genesis 12:3
And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
My name is Kerry Jones Mr. Anon, good luck!
“Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies (i.e. those who covet, bear false witness, and steal).”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 showed a moral firmness in standing up against hateful discrimination based on specific immutable characteristics. It was also a touch of naive idealism, in its blindness to social instincts every human is born with preferring self-similar persons (Wynn and Majahan, “Origins of Us vs. Them in Prelinguistic Children” , Cognition journal). The moral reach was perhaps larger than the practical grasp…but nobody can deny the moral ambitions of the times.
Today that moral clarity has retreated into “situational morality”. Translation: I oppose discrimination that I find repugnant, but I’ll stay quiet and accept forms of discrimination (based on immutables) that don’t rub me the wrong way. (I reserve the right to “case-by-case” moral judgments, rather than attempting to live by a more abstract set of principles applied blindly to immutable characteristics, unperturbed from subjectivity and situational specifics).
Or maybe we’re just finding out that past idealism was often misplaced, and pursued willfully blind to contradictions. What are we supposed to do in the face of counter-idealistic realities when they pop up? Ditch the ideal? Try to repair the ideal? (adding complexity to it undermines its simplicity?).
A Jew wearing his identity conspicuously is berated by an Arab-descended coffee shop employee? What if there is no
legal principle that can effectively help improve these run-ins? What if the subtle and not-so-subtle aspects of abrasive human interaction can only be helped by the free will and applied social skills of the individuals directly involved?
I think that recognition shows a level of sophistication well beyond the naive idealism of 1960s liberal activism. We still need rule-based-systems, and the colorblind judgments driving them. But, we also have to accept that they have their limits, and that a more situationally-adaptive pattern of norms and customs is essential to fill in those gaps. But, whose norms? Whose customs? Who decides?
Pb – thoughtful comment. You spell out the original (and correct) meaning of the phrase, you can’t legislate morality. Meaning, laws are not going to make people more virtuous in their hearts. And that’s where the problem lies, in the human heart.
As for “whose norms?” – that’s not entirely clear but there is a process for finding out, namely, the democratic process. The CRA like all legislation was a product of compromise among different factions, and any revisions to it will be as well.
” you can’t legislate morality. “
That is why I thought the decision on Olly’s barbecue was wrong even though I strongly stand behind one’s civil rights.
What you say isn’t wrong as instinctual. It’s the reason for laws. Everyone must have respect for the law. The law overrides personal preference and instincts, social conditioning.
A person is to follow the law of the land and God for instance. The masterpiece baker could have followed the law and baked a cake. He can also not engage in lgbt in his own life. He can teach its wrong and protest. He found he could not bake the cake because of conscience ultimately.
The baker also could have chased the couple down the street yelling we don’t serve queers here?
Everyone must have respect for the law. The law overrides personal preference and instincts, social conditioning.
True but that assumes it’s a legitimate law. What Scotus found with the Colorado law, it was not legitimate. It violated the Constitution in the way it was being applied.
Congratulations to Harara and Radice for expressing their political disapproval openly. It is the opposite of suppression of free speech.
But I don’t see a meaningful impact f a one-store coffee business upon interstate commerce.
Here’s a sweet little note to end the polemic night on. Even Guatemala has some good inhabitants.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/entertainment/watch-quick-thinking-elephant-rescue-drowning-gazelle-with-its-trunk/vi-AA1Gx6Ul
nite nite all.
Thanks for that lin. I forwarded it to my kids, I think they will like it 😊
Uncle Henry
“Gavin Newsom warns ‘democracy is under assault’ in speech blasting Trump’s immigration tactics”
“The California governor has clashed with Trump in recent days over the president’s deployment of the National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles.”
– PMSNBC
______________
Gavin Newsom means that the One-Party Communist State of California is under assault and, hopefully, will soon be razed and returned to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It’s a way to get more reps in the House by census. Amend census and count only citizens for reps and it follows as non citizens cannot vote. This would make it impossible to rig elections by sanctuary cities and States.
It’s election interference by design. The democrats are a dishonest bunch and laws must be foolproofed as they are also fools as the American people threw there pearls to swine.
No need to only use law enforcement and the judicial system. Host the 2028 Summer Olympic Games in various cities and states of peace and harmony. Exclude California and sanctuary states.
Sanctuary states are fictional.
Sanctuary states are criminal enterprises.
Sanctuary states are engaged in insurrection and rebellion.
Sanctuary states await inexorable correction and enforcement.
Sanctuary states are rigging elections by census count.
This just in… the Democrat Civil War 2.0 is opening a new front in Washington State. Having met resistance in California, the Democrats have initiated a high-altitude-low-intelligence assault on Seattle. Purple-haired land whales with full-battleship displacement are cruising unhindered through Puget Sound–the sharks may not want them, but Soros does. More to come…
For some people coming here for a better life, apparently “better life” means throwing Molotov cocktails at law enforcement and attempting to murder them. Here’s one illegal alien that FAFO’ed:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/illegal-alien-charged-attempted-murder-throwing-molotov-cocktail-officers-la-riots-dhs
Mayor Bass said it was all peaceful until ICE arrived. Reading between the lines she said, we don’t follow US Federal laws in California. Leave California.
*As for Newsom, he’s a puppet governor doing what he’s told and paid well. The real governor is kept hush hush.
Yep. California has decided to start a war over nullification with a rent-a-mob as shock troops. Good luck with that.
*. It’s also a way to gain seats in the House. The reason for sanctuary States all blue. They picked up 8 reps.
Rent a mob correct.
Bingo… flood the system.
“. . . people coming here for a better life, apparently “better life” means . . .”
That and waving the flag of a country they don’t want to return to.
I believe you’re mostly wrong about who is throwing the Molotov cocktails. It’s young, gratitudeless American punks. Recent immigrants are not going to risk their status here by being caught on camera doing arson, looting and vandalism. The troublemakers are gamers who are looking for self-stimulation — a real riot is more fun than a simulated scenario (video game).
Four men, including illegal migrant, charged with throwing Molotov cocktails at officers in SoCal
“One of the accused men includes an illegal migrant identified as 23-year-old Emiliano Garduno Galvez. The man allegedly has a criminal record and a previous deportation order, according to the Washington Times.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/four-men-charged-assault-throwing-molotov-cocktails-officers-during-calif-protests-doj?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Diogenes
I wish I could laugh at this, but sorry to say it’s so true. WA state is run by communist.
You have my sympathy.
Sounds like the Atlanta lunch counter intimdation of blacks back in the 60s.
Yes, follow the law because only the law supercedes instinct.
Entering private property against the will of the owner is criminal trespass.
Thank you for your contribution, comrade.
Did you know your name is blocked by ChatGPT? Not a crazy conspiracy guy, don’t worry. I was asking it for recommendations for publications to read and cited yours as a blog I like, and every time it started typing your name, an error occurred. I eventually pried the reason out of it—and the workaround, which was referring to you as JT—and it stated that your name appears next to too many controversial topics (elections, e.g.) and that too many subjective words accompanied information about you. Might be worth knowing that you’re sort of shadow banned on OpenAI’s single source of truth. Could be a great article! Keep up the great work.
—A loyal fan
Professor Turley has noted here that he became essentially invisible to AI after complaining that many sites made erroneous references to his non-existent criminal convictions.
Their solution was not to correct their error so much as to remove all reference to the professor.
The beauty of AI! Garbage in, garbage out.
WAKE THE —- UP!
YOU’RE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDERS AND FRAMERS!
The 5th Amendment right to private property is absolute and inviolable; the right to private property was qualified by the “taking” clause, and no further qualification is possible.
Only the owner of private property has the power, exclusively, to “claim and exercise” dominion.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 denies the absolute right to private property and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison, similarly, found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, in portion.
The denial of the right to private property was a principal holding of Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto.
Communism is unconstitutional.
____________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
____________________
“The theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
– Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
___________________________________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Thank you Judge Bork. Well, it’s commerce? Private homes and offices?
Commerce is entirely irrelevant and does not bear.
The Commerce Clause in the Constitution regulates commerce, or the “buying and selling,” ONLY and nothing else, among nations, states, and Indian tribes, to ensure there is no bias or favor exercised punitively by one party against another.
The Supreme Court in the Atlanta hotel case (1964) held that title 2 of the Civil.Rights Act of 1964 was constitutional — see article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States
Marbury v. Madison held that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, in portion.
Dobbs v. Jackson held that Roe v. Wade of 1973 was unconstitutional [and a wilful and deliberate act of corruption by the court].
Texas v. White of 1869 held that secession was not prohibited by the Constitution, therefore, secession was prohibited by the Constitution.
They also held that Dred scott who was born free was a slave.
That separate but equal did not violate the 14th amendment.
SCOTUS has often for over a century held as constitutional things that OBVIOUSLY are not.
When SCOTUS says that something is lawful of constitution – that is the rules.
That does not make it TRUE,
To have a complete discussion and analysis of a constitutional issue, one needs to look at relevant Supreme Court opinions. Accordingly, I will continue to bring up such opinions (like I did here) when John Say, Anonymous Old George, and other commenters do constitutional analysis without considering or acknowledging them.
CC
1). I nearly always make it clear when what the constitution actually says and what SCOTUS says that it says are at odds.
The portion of the CRA that restricts private actors is unconstitutional.
I have covered that is detail in prior posts.
I have also explicitly noted that SCOTUS currently beleives that the unconstitutional portions of the CRA are constitutional.
I have also noted why the Prior SCOTUS decisions on the commerce clause and the contracts clauses – normally refered to as the “lochner era” were correct, AND that they worked far better and actually produced the results that progressives want – Presuming of course that the goal of progressives past and present is what they say they goals are – equal rights and oportunities for minorities, rather than the growth of the power of government which is all that progressives have actually accomplished.
By far the most consequential threat to the liberty and equality of everyone – including minorities has ALWAYS been government.
The discrimination that the Lochner era SCOTUS ended was discrimination FORCED on private actors BY GOVERNMENT. It was Jim Crow Laws enacted because racists could NOT get private actors to discriminate to their wishes.
The left pretends that Jim Crow was about private discrimination – it was NOT, it was about FORCED discrimination by the power of law.
The left pretends that Red Lining was private actors trying to keep undesirables out of “their” neighborhoods. But Redlining was accomplished BY FORCE OF LAW.
FDR’s unconstitutional actions and his threats to stack the court resulted in retirements and reversals and a repudiation of a correct understanding of the limits of federal power over the individual that had worked well in advancing the rights of minorities. In its place we got nonsense like Wickard V. Filburn not only a SCOTUS decision that repudiates significant portions of the constitution, that repudiates the historical FACT that the worst discrimination is a consequence of GOVERNMENT POWER, and that results in logical absurdities, like laws baring individuals from growing corn to feed their own chickens, that they ate themselves. A decision that is impossible to reconcile with the Sons of Liberty who tarred and feathered british tax collectors and dumped tons of tea into Boston Harbor. I suspect you could get a unanimous decision from the framers of the constitution that the federal govenrment had no power to regulate a farmer growing corn for their own use.
But Wickard is “good law” and likely will remain “good law” because as absurdly unconstitutional as that decision is, reversing it would make 90% of the current federal government unconstitutional – which it actually is.
Regardless you say
“To have a complete discussion and analysis of a constitutional issue, one needs to look at relevant Supreme Court opinions.”
That is obviously false. To have a COMPLETE analysis of a constitutional issue you must look at the 7000+ years of the evolution of self govenrment, free will and the evolution of the principles of law and constitution that underpin the US constitution.
The origens of the US constitution go back atleast as far as the Old Testament and Hamurabi, and certainly include the greek and roman concepts of law and governemtn as well as later thought on government and eventually self government, the Magna Carta, Common Law, the Scottish enlightenment, the Social Contract, the Federalist papers, and the writings of our founders.
While the understanding of the amendments after the Bill of Rights requires an understanding of those who wrote and ratified those amendments.
Using YOUR purported complete criteria, the constitutionality of abortion would be one thing in 1960, another in 1980, and different entirely in 2024.
SCOTUS is SLOW to overturn prior precident, But over the course of 250 years it has done so many many times, sometimes reversing multiple times on the same issue.
YOUR means of analysis is NOT complete – but it will lead to congruence with the next decision of the supreme court on non-controversial issues about 95% of the time.
But few of us actually seek to discus non-controversial constitutional issues.
SCOTUS is right in the middle of dismantling the FDR ERA faux construction fo the concept of independent agencies within the executive branch.
If you would have asked 80 years ago whether the president could fire the head of an independent agency or the commissioners of a purportedly bipartisan independent agency – the answer would have been clearly NO.
Today it appears that possibly the only “independent agency” immune from presidential oversight is the Federal Reserve.
Again the FED is unconstitutional, but SCOTUS is NOT going to rule that anytime soon, and they are unlikely to end its unconstitutional independence.
And all that despite the fact that the FED has done no better at managing the economy than occured without the Fed previously. Put simply the FED has not solved the problem it was created to solve. We still have recessions and depressions with the same scale and frequency as before, and worse still rather than Mild deflation which is GOOD for everyone, we have mildinflation because a central bank can not work without inflation.
Si the FED fails in practice, and as a matter of the constitution as written.
But we are stuck with it because even though we would be better off without it,
even though creating it was massively disuptive somehow ending it is viewed as too disruptive and dangerous. It is not, but I do fully understand that ending the FED is politically impossible.
Regardless, my point is that what YOU call central to a COMPLETE analysis – is far from complete, and worse still though it will get things right the overwhelming majority of times, it will be wrong a disproportionaely large portion fo the time for controversial issues. And those are really the only ones we care about.
Constitutional analysis of a controversial issue can NOT be COMPLETE without going beyond prior supreme court decisions on the same or similar issues.
Dred Scott was not a U.S. citizen.
Dred Scott was a slave.
Dred Scott could not have been admitted to become a citizen per existing immigration law.
Dred Scott must have been compassionately repatriated to his country of origin on January 1, 1863.
You are Correctly citing point by point the conclusions of the Taney court in the Dredd Scott case.
You seem to be giving your impramatur to a suopreme court decision that was absymally wrong and ducking the more heinous conclusions.
SCOTUS found that no person of African decent could be a citizen.
Contra your claim that WAS NOT True prior to this decision.
Free blacks voted in elections in the north as CITIZENS.
SCOTUS also found that Dred Scott was Property. And because he was property, his legal residence in a state were slavery was illegal did not make him a free man or a citizens and therefore he could not even sue.
The 14th Amendment was unconstitutional, understanding that secession was not prohibited and fully constitutional, and every act of Lincoln after his unconstitutional denial of secession was similarly unconstitutional and remains to be struck down and corrected, beginning with the entirety of the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx.
14A became part of the Constitution when it was ratified. You’re saying the Constitution violates the Constitution, which is incoherent.
A constitutional amendment is by definition constitutional.
FURTHER in the event it is in conflict with other parts of the constitution a later amendment makes the PRIOR conflicting portions of the constitution null.
Again, the partial Supreme Court of 1973, as but one example, acted politically and corruptly to support the wholly unconstitutional Roe v. Wade and was ultimately struck down and corrected by the impartial Supreme Court of 2022.
Pretty much everything is bought and sold here. Buy gametes and people’s wombs, and even babies. Make a list of something that isn’t sold.
During the Articles of Confederation era, states erected tariffs and other barriers to restrict trade and protect economic interests in their state. It’s one of the main reasons why the federal government failed during the Articles era and gave rise to the Constitutional era.
The drafters of the Constitution included the “commerce clause” to remedy these defects. The original intent and meaning of “regulate” in the commerce clause was “to make regular.” In other words, to make it easier to conduct trade across state lines.
In the 20th century activists SCOTUS justices re-interpreted the meaning of “regulate” away from its original meaning of “to make regular” and instead turned it into a power grab giving the federal government the power to write rules dictating how people can use their property.
Through wordsmithing, they literally changed the meaning of “regulate commerce” to almost the EXACT opposite of how it was intended.
“During the Articles of Confederation era . . .”
Excellent comment!
That “wordsmithing” helped to kill the right to private property and the rule of contract.
Are you saying the USA and all its parts are private property? 🤔
Private or public. One or the other.
It will be interesting to watch this play out. On its surface (and I’m surprised Turley didn’t comment on this), I can see some questioning how refusing to serve tea to a Jew is any different than the free speech of a Colorado baker refusing to make LGBTQ+ themed cakes. Granted the baker didn’t chase and yell at people. But that will be the argument from some.
This is discussed in the comments below. The two cases are not related, which is probably why the Professor did not link them. The bakery case had to do with compelled speech, and it was resolved on 1A grounds (the state of Colorado cannot compel the baker to express a message he disagrees with). This case does not involve that, but whether a place of public accommodation may refuse service of a commodity (food, which is not speech) based on the customer’s religion. The Civil Rights Act says no. It’s not even a constitutional case, but one based on an act of Congress.
A cake was baked for the couplet, but not as symbolic endorsement of their union.
It is very different in that Masterpiece Cake Shop was entirely willing to sell the gay couple a standard design of cake – they just wouldn’t design one to order for a gay wedding. And Colorado prosecuted the holy heck out of the proprietor and owner.
In this case, Jerusalem Coffee Shop is actually refusing service to, and harassing and abusing, would-be customers who are Jewish. Does California step in? Not on your tintype.
Could they refuse water? A glass of water? Could they change it to the Jerusalem Club and sell clip tickets for purchase of foods to only certain people? Buy a clip ticket for menu items at a given price .
Water? Only if they declined to serve water to all. Making it a private club does not exempt it from the law.
garyesq: True, but not all private clubs are subject to civil rights law.
Setting up its LLC as open to business with the public appears to be the fatal error here, n’est ce pas?.
“Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court, decided on June 28, 2000, that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts of America to exclude a homosexual person from membership in spite of a state law requiring equal treatment of homosexuals in public accommodations. More generally, the court ruled that a private organization such as the BSA may exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints”. Wikipedia
Boys Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). SCOTUS upholds BSA as a private association not subject to state and federal public accommodation laws.
The difference is clear. Masterpiece Bakery did not refuse to serve gays, it only declined to make a cake that expressed a position with which it disagreed. Jerusalem Coffee refused to serve Jews, not refuse to host a bar mitzvah.
OT
“World’s most popular TikTok star Khaby Lame leaves the US after being detained by ICE”
– AP
_______
There is a God!
He gave us Donald J. Trump!
Would have been much easier to serve the customer a coffee or a cookie and be done with it.
Nope, morph the transaction into a national controversy in the news and invite Justice Department and private civil actions that could financially ruin your company and investment
Good one Darren.
How about those Three Anti-Fascist Professors in the big New York Times exposé, did they ex-Pat and move up to Toronto Canada?
Maybe just for a Summer Sabbatical?
Where’s Waldo? Canada?
https://tinyurl.com/yc8xdfm6
Darren
Would have been much easier to serve the customer…………….
Exactly the same can be said about the Master Cake case and the 303 Creative case, don’t you think ??????
As you say, the Master Cake shop decided to “morph the transaction into a national controversy”
Should have just served the customer. Right ????
Of course, the 303 case was a completely bogus, manufactured case, and not really relevant to anything.
Lorie Smith claimed that she had a business building wedding websites, but she admitted that she had never actually built a website for anyone.
She sued the State of Colorado because she feared she MIGHT run afoul of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws, and be charged by the state if she refused to build a site for a same sex couple.
She claimed that someone named Stewart had asked her to build a website for a same sex wedding, but the mysterious “Stewart” never materialized. This claim was later found to be false.
So in reality, no one at all, let alone a same sex couple, had asked her to build a website.
Of course, the looney tunes SCOTUS conservatives twisted themselves into pretzels to manufacture a totally bogus ruling against Colorado.
She sought a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgments Act. That act is designed exactly for cases like hers – where she needs a clarification of her rights before an actual controversy or violation of the law occurs.
Your beef is with Congress for passing that Act. The lawsuit was not bogus at all, as it complied with the Act. Even the state of Colorado did not make the claim you’re making. Instead, they – together with Smith – stipulated to the relevant facts and sought judgment as a matter of law. As Scotus summarized:
Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expressive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the overall message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,” will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with individual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original artwork;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.”
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023).
Anon is the result of a person with a modicum of information but no analytical thinking skills.
According to Elon Musk, a few ‘conspicuous acts of kindness’ (like tea and cookies, e.g.) would go a long way toward resolving the conflict in the Holy Lands.
Sadly, now here’s another American ‘Jew’ traumatized for life.
I’m confident the Trump DoJ will root out this pervasive and pernicious American ‘antisemitism’ .. . come hell or high water.
*Trump is good at selling the zizzle .. . if not the steak.
dgsnowden, the Nazi Jew-hater strikes again.
*Why put the words Jew and antisemitism in quotes? Because he’s scorning the idea that such things really exist.
I have no doubt the ‘Nazi’ hated Jews old man.
*I put ‘Nazi’ in quotes to emphasize such a thing exists.
Some timely words by our Secretary of State, who everyday vindicates Trump’s decision to choose him for that role:
He stated, “It took Moses 40 years to find the only place in the Middle East with no oil. Israel’s wealth lay not under the ground, but in its people who are exiles, pilgrims and dreamers from around the world who made the desert bloom into a hi-tech superpower.
Continuing his message, he related to Israel’s neighbors, saying that “they failed to appreciate how following Israel’s example could have brought prosperity to the region. Instead, they chose war. They decided to impoverish their people in a futile effort to destroy Israel. They succeeded in the former while failing in the latter.”
Why were these words so penetratingly deep? Because they perfectly encapsulate the two sides with precise accuracy – characterizing Israelis as builders, innovators, creators, wealth makers and those whose legacy will leave behind a better world than the one they found. In contrast to that description, Rubio portrays the other side as having squandered and wasted their resources, choosing to inflict pain, suffering, poverty and a bitter existence for their people as well as those they call their enemy.
Ironically, despite all of their concerted energies, they utterly failed at their mission to eradicate the Jewish state which they see as a blight against mankind. It is reflected in their present situation of defeat, shame and a population who, instead of reaping the promised bounty, has been left homeless and beaten down by their own ruthless leadership.
https://allisraelnews.com/blog/rubio-gets-it
Perhaps Rubio would be so kind as to offer all those mothers and children ‘left homeless and beaten down by their own ruthless leadership’ a home.
Where should they go? Any suggestions?
*even ‘Hamas’ is willing to accept the pre-67 borders . .. but it’s really not up to them is it old man?
Perhaps Hamas would be so kind as to not attack Israel and not rape and murder women, behead and burn babies and adults, kill entire families in the most brutal way possible, and kidnap 250 hostages and bring them back for torture and death. Perhaps Hamas would be so kind as not to use the Gazan people as human shields.
In the Middle East, peace is very easy to achieve: don’t attack Israel and wage aggressive war against her, and you will have peace. The Arabs have 22 states and virtually all the oil. The Jews have one state on a tiny strip of desert with no oil to speak of. Just leave Israel alone. Very simple. SMH
But when your entire population is in the thrall of a genocidal death cult, it makes it more difficult to leave Israel alone. It’s the cult that has to go, then peace will prevail.
Sounds like ‘Hamas’ and Bibi have a lot in common.
We could debate who is killing who til the cows come home old man .. . but you didn’t answer the question: what part of Israel has ever belonged to the Palestinians?
Where is their home?
*it’s a simple question.
Bibi and Hamas the same? Yeah and the Jews of Europe and Hitler were the same too, right? What utter c-r-a-p.
I’ll answer your question when you quit with the BS moral equivalences.
Start by looking at Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, North Africa and other places in the region. “Palestine” is a location, not a people. I have Jewish Israeli friends whose birth certificates list them as Palestinians because that’s what the British Mandate called anyone born in the area at the time.
It’s good that you’re asking these questions. Questions and answers help increase understanding, and that’s always a step in the right direction.
S Meyer
I don’t think GS has the brain power to think. He like most libs are just feelings.
WOW, just how low can you go. You know where the Jews can live (home)
Kansas or Oldman, whichever you prefer. You are the best protector of Israel and the rights of all mankind on the blog. I would follow you anywhere.
Thank you Meyer, I appreciate it.
-Uncle Henry (the two you mentioned are fine too 😊)
Mind if I join you two? (-:
“Even ‘Hamas’ is willing to accept the pre-67 borders.”
That claim demonstrates a limited understanding of Middle East history. Still, I’ll give you credit; you’re at least engaging.
The idea of land for peace has been tried and rejected time and again. In 2000, at Camp David and again in 2008 under Olmert, Israel offered nearly all of the West Bank and even parts of East Jerusalem. Both offers were refused.
In 2005, Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza: every settler, every soldier, even the cemeteries. What followed wasn’t peace; it was rockets, terror tunnels, and, ultimately, the October 7 massacre.
Listen to Hamas in their own words: their charter calls for the destruction of Israel, not coexistence. Pre-67 borders are not their goal: they’re a staging ground.
If you want peace, stop pretending it’s Israel that refuses it.
I do not support or condone ‘Hamas’, whoever they are S. Meyer .. . and would prefer Bibi’s gang would not have funded or promoted them in the past.
>”In 2000, at Camp David and again in 2008 under Olmert, Israel offered nearly all of the West Bank and even parts of East Jerusalem. Both offers were refused.”
Is that offer still on the table?
*asking for a friend.
“would prefer Bibi’s gang would not have funded or promoted them in the past.”
Israel is in a difficult situation. If the rest of the world stayed out. These wars would not exist. For wars to end, the losers must acknowledge they have lost, but repeatedly, they have been taught a lesson by many countries around the world. ‘You lost this time, maybe you won’t next time.’
As far as Bibi, I don’t always agree with him. Your history of his support is insufficient to make that argument, but let us assume you are right. The Israeli people deserve to be left alone. That is what they wanted pre-1948 and post-1948. The Arabs wouldn’t permit that. It was the same in 1967 and 1973, along with the smaller wars in between and between all the rocket attacks and suicide bombings.
There will or should be no further compromise with the people in this area who kill their own and use terror in other parts of the world. Nothing but the clear understanding that they lost will work, and since the children are taught to hate and kill Jews from the time they can talk, it looks like we have to wait several generations.
Thank you for discussing.
whoever they are? (Hamas) Do you have some doubts???
” here’s another American ‘Jew’ traumatized for life.”
AT birth, you must have been dropped on your head.
Well, I was born in Kentucky S. Meyer .. . over
Twenty-some odd years ago
I ran away for the first time
When I was four years old
chorus: I’m a free born man
My home is on my back
I know every inch of highway
And every foot of back road
Every mile of railroad track .. .
What a smug condescending stance!
It’s not about the need for a hug by a Professor, it is about preventing Jews from entering the classroom, etc.
The book you reference has absolutely nothing to do with the antisemitism in major university!
The case in question may not have adequately defined its specific allegations , but to use a case in this wide sweeping denial of the obvious, seems to measure well with the broad allegation presented!
To claim American institutions of higher learning – like UPenn, Harvard, Yale, etc., etc., – are run rampant with ‘antisemitism’ and ‘Jew hatred’ is delusional in the extreme.
*The point is: criticism of Israel, in particular Bibi’s gang, is not the same thing as ‘antisemitism’ or ‘hatred of Jews’ Terry.
The claim of “criticism of Israel” is a worn-out canard, as it is a mask for antisemitism. If, as often happens, the criticism is based on double standards, delegitimization, or demonization, then it is antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. And the campus protestors/terrorists were chanting “from the river to the sea” and “free Palestine” – which are well known calls to eliminate the Jewish nation entirely, not just “criticizing Israel.”
dgsnowden you’re not fooling anyone. Why not face reality: you are a condemnable antisemite. The Nazis would be proud of you.
BS
“Jews were hated for being poor and for being rich, for being communists and for being capitalists, for being rootless cosmopolitans and for being fiercely nationalist. In the past they were hated for their religion, then for their race. Today they are hated for their nation state — Israel. Anti-Zionism is the new antisemitism.” __Jonathan Sacks
Snowden, you are an ignorant antisemite.
The great world-embracing Jewish faith has no ‘nation state’ S. Meyer. .. and it’s gross ignorance to suggest otherwise.
*btw, imo neither does Islam or Christianity .. . see also the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution.
Well your opinion doesn’t count for much, does it. Your opinion is always wrong, without exception.
@Snowden: That comment reflects a misunderstanding of both Jewish history and Jewish identity. Judaism is not just a “faith”; it is a people, a civilization, and a national identity that predates most modern concepts of nation-states. The Jewish people had a land, a language, a legal system, and a capital city thousands of years before the First Amendment existed.
Israel is not a theocracy. It is the nation-state of the Jewish people, just as Japan is for the Japanese or Greece for the Greeks. That doesn’t mean every Jew is Israeli or that every Israeli is religious. It means the Jewish people, like every other people, have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
Judaism does not make theological claims meant for all mankind. That’s why Israel as a Jewish state is no more a “violation” of the First Amendment than Italy being Italian.
Gross ignorance isn’t in pointing that out; it’s in denying people their history.
Israel is not the ‘nation-state’ of Judaism .. . and Bibi is definitely not it’s Chief Rabbi.
The theological claims of Judaism apply to all those willing to accept them. .. not just a ‘chosen people’ S. Meyer.
*see the Ten commandments, Christianity, Islam .. . and all the ‘Prophets of old’.
“Israel is not the ‘nation-state’ of Judaism”
Thank you Dgsnowden for providing reason and questions.
It is the nation-state for Jews. Surrounding Israel, the one nation-state of Jews, there are over 20 countries that are Muslim nation-states. But Israel is not a theocracy like some of the other states, and the population is diverse. Its political system and court system are diverse as well, with non-Jews represented in the parliament and on the Supreme Court. Bibi has nothing to do with Israel’s religious heritage.
“The theological claims of Judaism apply to all those willing to accept them. .. not just a ‘chosen people’ S. Meyer.”
That is true. Moreover, the mission of the Jewish people was to promote the idea of one God, not many, and the Torah teaches the people a moral way of life.
For your information, the Ten Commandments vary slightly in other religions that believe in God. Look in particular at #1, #2, and #10. I can explain the differences and why if you wish, but it isn’t needed. You might want to know about the seven Noahide Laws provided before the Ten Commandments (Noah).
Embrace God’s Oneness
Do Not Curse Him
Guard Human Life
Respect Animal Life
Respect the Property of Others
Live a Moral Family Life
Ensure Justice
The way you talk, it sounds like you weren’t born; you were hatched. You say you were ‘born free,’ but you’re still stuck inside the eggshell. Try breaking it before claiming to see the world.
Where’s the trust? You’re a lizard-eyed reptile S. Meyer, devoid of any sense and sensibility.
“Where’s the trust?”
Trust is a kind of faith, something you clearly lack. And with that absence of faith comes a matching lack of intelligence. You really ought to find someone else to speak for you. You sound like the kind of dumb Nazi thug who used to roam the streets, terrorizing the helpless.
dg
Jezzzzzzzzzz you have learned so little in what 20+ years.
DG
Well, I was born in Kentucky S. Meyer .. . over
Twenty-some odd years ago.
Yet it appears you have learned little.
These comments prove it.
Would have been much easier to serve the customer a coffee or a cookie and be done with it.
I’ve thought the same thing about the “Christian” bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay/lesbian couple. Had these businessmen/women seen it simply as an opportunity to make money (like businesses are want to do), and perhaps win them over to Christianity buy evangelization via example, they could have created a niche market for the homos, and the latter could have flocked to them for more business or simply gone away with a limp because they did not get what they wanted.
OTOH, this coffee shop went out of its way to lose business, given they opened in 2023.
US DOJ Sues Palestinian Café Owner for Kicking Out Jewish Customers, Naming Drink After Hamas Chief
The lawsuit highlights the café’s actions on 7 October 2024, the first anniversary of Hamas attacks on Israel, when Jerusalem Coffee House introduced drinks named ‘Iced In Tea Fada’ and ‘Sweet Sinwar,’ the latter referencing Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader who orchestrated the attacks.
The DOJ’s lawsuit against Jerusalem Coffee House is a flashpoint in a broader clash over free speech, religious discrimination, and political expression.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-doj-sues-palestinian-cafe-owner-kicking-out-jewish-customers-naming-drink-after-hamas-chief-1735515
Imagine if a white group opened a coffee bar and named some of their items, “Schutzstaffel Strudle”, “Hitler Hot Toddy”, or “Auschwitz Spice”. The Left would have burned it down in 24 hours with no one questioning their antics.
“Had these businessmen/women seen it simply as an opportunity to make money . . .”
To borrow a wise statement from your book:
“For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?”
It’s the principle of it. 😏.
Give those you hate twice as much. That might work but then they’d keep coming back. 😏
Darren: “Would have been much easier to serve the customer a coffee or a cookie and be done with it.”
Would have been, but when your hatred is so deep that you implicitly celebrate Oct. 7 rational business decisions find no room.
I hope they lose customers and lose the litigation and emigrate to someplace their hatreds are tolerated. But nowhere on this continent.
*. Motive Cafe owner?
It would have been better to have served the coffee, pulled out a chair and table and have given the Jewish patron a tongue lashing over Zionism, child killing, and argued over coffee, and then said no charge.
He called him a Jew instead and chased him down the street. The menu celebrates mass murderers, as to motive?
Dear Prof Turley,
Interesting story you don’t find every day in the American media. .. those ‘Jews’ must be severely traumatized!
. .. ‘and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born’?
* The Second Coming
*. Ok all you smart people here discuss the name change from Palestine to Israel with attention to the fact that Jewish people are Palestinian. Give some discussion to name changes for Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and other nations in Mesopotamia. Discuss the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel, additionally.
Estovir will do everyone’s homework.
None of that nonsense seems relevant. We’re just watching biology, tribalism, play out in its modern form. I favor neither “side” in this tiresome dispute. There is, however, one party that I think should be excluded from the US.
Sure, and note the level of social evolution while you’re at it.
It’s a world without white people, Christians and Jewish people as the dream. It’s a world of theocracy and communism. The dream comes true.
Nothing is new so goes all the other homosapiens in the world deleted.
Ugh, what luck. Get on with it!
It seems my message escaped through my fingers, and it might have been at the point where I was talking about world antisemitism. My point was that Israel has all the features of a nation-state, including things the left considers crucial until the discussion is about Israel, when all these criteria disappear.
If Israel is considered a made-up nation, so are almost all the nations of the Middle East. However, Israel has a distinct characteristic for its region in the Middle East. Jewish civilization has been time-tested for over 3,000 years. Muslims didn’t start to exist until the birth of Mohammed in 570 AD. I don’t think we want to recreate the borders of all the nations in the aMiddle East, and that is relevant.
Meyer
Muslims didn’t start to exist until the birth of Mohammed in 570 AD.
And what have they given this world? Hate & death.
Nothing more.
Israel and proximate territory were renamed “Palestine” when the Romans defeated the Jews and occupied the land. The British resumed that tradition after the fall of the Ottoman empire and divestment by the Crown of unincorporated territory.
Get those folks who are not only intolerant of everyone non-moslem … but hateful, vengeful, murderous, etc. They think about and act against not only Jewish people, but everyone who is not a moslem, whether Christian, Hindu, Suni, Native American, agnostic, etc. They are coming after all of us who are not moslem!!
Yeah, well there’s always China and India. The toughest nut is China. All else lost. Western hemisphere will devolve into voodoo at best.
Wonderful
*. It’s a place of hate certainly. Let me make it a little worse for you. The spirit is bad. It is the evil spirit.
There aren’t boundaries. There isn’t reserve. Not even your own person is private property reserved for yourself.