There is a disturbing controversy in Northern Virginia where Jessica Walton alleges that she went to Karimi Salon in Alexandria to get her eyebrows trimmed, only to be pushed out of the salon after the owner, Fatana Karimi, learned that Walton is Israeli. The incident raises a prior issue discussed on this blog: the right of business owners to refuse service based on political or religious beliefs as a matter of free speech. Walton posted a full account and a video on social media. Karimi, however, may not have a constitutional claim to defend against a discrimination complaint.
In the video, the person identified as Karimi says that she declared on Instagram that she would not serve those who support Israel (She also adds that she got Walton to sign a release for the video):
I have included Walton’s full account below. She said that she was “nauseated” after a pleasant conversation turned nasty when she alluded to be Israeli. She claims that Karimi immediately declared “I can’t provide service to an Israeli. It’s against my political beliefs.”
We previously discussed businesses refusing to prepare cakes, websites, and other products over conflicting religious or political beliefs.
In prior columns, academic articles, and my book, “The Indispensable Right, I discussed the never-ending litigation targeting Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who declined to make cakes that violated his religious beliefs.
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in what many of us hoped would be a final resolution of this conflict. I had long criticized the framing of the case (and other cases) under the religious clauses rather than treating it as a matter of free speech. In the end, the Supreme Court punted in a maddening 2018 decision that technically ruled in favor of Phillips based on a finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed anti-religious bias against Phillips.
In 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis, when it ruled that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse to provide services for a same-sex marriage. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “the framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’ … They did so because they saw the freedom of speech ‘both as an end and as a means.’”
Notably, in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Phillips insisted that he would always sell cakes to any couple, including same-sex couples. He only refused to make cakes specifically celebrating same-sex marriages due to his religious views. In this case, Karimi is refusing to perform the same services for Walton due to her identity. Eyebrow trimming does not convey a political or religious viewpoint.
The Virginia Human Rights Act is designed to:
“Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or military status.”
Karimi is likely to argue that she was not refusing service due to Walton’s religious or national origin but her support for Israel, a political position. That could be difficult to maintain since Walton merely noted that she is part Israeli.
The case is reminiscent of the abusive treatment afforded to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz at Martha’s Vineyard by a pierogi stand. He was also refused service over his political views.
The line between national origin and religious discrimination versus political discrimination can be tenuous and unclear. Walton would have the advantage in my view under the state law in asserting discrimination. In the video, the owner states it is her national identity that is causing the action: “Get out of my shop. I can’t provide service to an Israeli. It’s against my political beliefs. You need to leave immediately.”
It is not clear if Walton will now move forward with a formal complaint.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
N.B.: Here is part of Walton’s account:
I’m nauseated even having to write this, but I won’t be quiet about it. I want my friends—Jewish and non-Jewish—to know what I experienced at a salon in Alexandria, Virginia, because I refuse to let antisemitism become normalized in our country.
I went to the salon yesterday to get my eyebrows done. The esthetician turned out to be Afghan. I was delighted, since I just finished writing a novel based on true stories that is partly set in Afghanistan. I told her about the amazing Afghans I interviewed for the book. We talked warmly about our shared love of Afghan poetry and food. Then she asked me to tell her more about the premise of my novel.
My story is about a Muslim Afghan refugee and the son of Jewish immigrants who forge an unlikely friendship in post-9/11 Alabama, only to find that their shared gift for languages draws them into America’s shadow war in Afghanistan. I joked about how I went down a rabbit hole studying Islam and Sufism to create the Muslim character, but that I at least had an easier time sketching the Jewish half-Israeli character, since I’m Jewish and half-Israeli myself.
The woman stopped short. Then, “Get out of my shop.”
“Excuse me?”
“I can’t provide service to an Israeli. It’s against my political beliefs. You need to leave immediately. And there is no such thing as Israel. It’s Palestine. A bunch of Jews from New York showed up a few years ago and stole the land from the Arabs.”
(A bunch of Jews from New York showed up and…what?! This would’ve been funny if it wasn’t so insane.)
Shocked, I began packing up my purse to leave. The woman took out her phone and began recording me while chanting, “Free, free Palestine!” I asked her to stop recording me. She said I had signed a photo / video waiver and she had every right to record me. She then demanded I apologize for the genocide.
I told her there is no genocide, I wasn’t apologizing for anything, and that she was totally out of line for subjecting a customer to blatantly racist harassment. (By the way, denying service to someone based on their nationality is illegal in this country.) I also told her she needed to give me a full refund, since I hadn’t received the service I’d booked. She told me she was keeping the money and that I should be ashamed of myself and my people.
I was wearing a T-shirt she had given me for the treatment, so I asked her to stop recording while I changed back into my own clothes. She didn’t. I turned my back to the camera and changed anyway while she continued chanting “Free Palestine!” I’m pretty sure whatever waiver I signed didn’t give her permission to record me while I was half-naked.
I left the salon completely shaken. I cried all the way home. I cried for my kids and the uncertainty of their future as Jews in the United States. For all the lies we can’t possibly fight. For our people having to put up with this total bullsh*t.
We don’t deserve this.
I’m not naïve about the fact that the majority of Afghans are Muslim and that relations between Jews and Muslims are highly tense right now. The irony of this situation is that we had spent the previous minutes bonding over the very culture I had spent years trying to understand and portray with empathy, only for that curiosity and goodwill to be stamped on the moment she learned I was Jewish.
In the meantime, I already contacted my bank. They immediately refunded the money and contacted the woman to let her know they would be withdrawing the funds based on the incident I reported. I would also like to report what happened to any appropriate authorities and organizations in the D.C. area. If anyone knows specifically where an incident like this should be reported, please let me know.
Likely not much legal action will come of it (unless she is dumb enough to post the video), but I want a record of what happened. I want to at least do my part to make sure this kind of discrimination isn’t quietly accepted as the new normal for Jews in the United States.
Cakes are way, way more vital to our God given rights than are properly trimmed eyebrows. Can’t we all agree about that? Eyebrows are fine, trimmed or not, but a cake is a dessert.
Gee, I thought this article is about a shop owner who refused service to an Israeli because she does not serve Israelis. But based on the comments, I guess I was wrong and that the article is actually about Trump or the Republican Party.
Estovir, Trump is the 24-7 in-your-face president. And you’re the 12-7 in-your-face troll with ever-changing names.
^ Anonymous is Estovir ^
Yes, you’re right. By claiming to be someone else, and suggesting everyone else is Estovir, he has made his name famous on this blog. Pretty clever.
OldManFromKS,
Spreading deflection, misinformation, disinformation is all they have.
More and more evidence of Democrats wrong doing, and corruption . . . they get more and more desperate to . . . but Trump!
Yet another Republican arrested for sexually molesting a child.
And on the very day that he is a candidate in Florida’s primary in Trump’s home district
A Florida Republican from Donald Trump’s home district could potentially face the death penalty under a law he had championed as a state legislator.
Mike Caruso, the Palm Beach County clerk of courts and a staunch ally of Gov. Ron DeSantis, was arrested Tuesday morning on child sexual abuse charges.
As a FL legislator in 2023, Mike Caruso helped pass the statute to allow the death penalty for pedophiles who molest children under the age of 12.
Now he has been arrested for allegedly molesting his own grandson, who is not yet 5 years old.
I guess Republicans believe that child sexual molestation is OK, as long as you keep it in the family.
The state plans to present the case to a grand jury and that could lead to his execution if he’s charged and convicted under the law that he championed as a state legislator.
I look forward to Turley’s exhaustive analysis of this critically important case.
But I am not holding my breath.
Allegedly. He was arrested, so whats your beef.
He’s trying to connect this guy to Trump BFF or something.
Do try to keep up with the artcle. Next time consider addressing it
The right to private property is unqualified and, therefore, absolute.
Only the owner has the power to “claim and exercise” dominion in all aspects and facets, and to every degree.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[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 opposing view is communism which is definitively unconstitutional.
______________________________________________________________________________
“The theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
– Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
Looks like Trump has screwed up BIGLY with his lawsuit against the BBC, claiming defamation.
He and his incompetent lawyers presumed that the BBC would fold and offer to settle rather than go to trial.
What they failed to realise is that the BBC operates under a Royal Charter, and is funded by taxpayers. By statute they are specifically forbidden to settle lawsuits. They are obligated to fight the case to a final conclusion with a verdict from a court. British law does not permit the use of taxpayer funds to settle lawsuits.
Consequently, the BBC is being extraordinarily aggressive and going after testimony from many people, including Trump’s children, who will have to testify in depositions. The children have been actively avoiding service of subpoenas, but will inevitably have to testify when the court authorizes service by mail.
Get your popcorn ready !!!!
And what in the ever living f—k does that have to do with today’s subject, moron?
Today’s subject is a distraction, as they usually are.
This caterwauling idiot is not a billionaire; in fact, he won’t reveal his gross worth.
“By statute [the BBC is] specifically forbidden to settle lawsuits.”
That’s a lie (and an obvious one).
The BBC has a long history of settling lawsuits, including ones for defamation, libel, and workplace harassment. And they have paid large sums for damages and legal expenses.
The rest of your comment is equally accurate.
The REAL Free Speech Story Today
ABC on Tuesday sued the Federal Communications Commission, accusing the agency of infringing on its First Amendment rights. It asked a federal court to stop the F.C.C. from pursuing aggressive regulatory moves that the network said posed an “existential threat” to its operations.
The suit, filed in federal court in Washington, is meant to halt a series of F.C.C. moves that placed the network’s ability to operate in doubt. In the most extreme case, the agency was threatening to strip several ABC stations of their broadcast licenses, which would force them off the air.
The F.C.C., led by its chairman, Brendan Carr, called for an unusual, early review of the broadcast licenses last spring, citing ABC’s internal diversity and inclusion practices. None of the ABC licenses, which have terms of eight years, were up for renewal yet. Mr. Carr’s decision came after the ABC late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, angered President Trump with a monologue joke.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/business/media/abc-fcc-lawsuit-broadcast-licenses.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
……………………………………….
The stakes are huge. Trump is attempting to silence Disney, one of our biggest media companies. If Trump were to succeed, free speech could be doomed in the U.S.
Turley knew this would be a big story today. So he tries to distract us with an annoying squabble between 2 women that is totally inconsequential.
^ Not human. Bot programmed by the Chinese Communist Party to spread anti-American propaganda ^
^ Russian bot (not human) programmed to spout anti-American propaganda ^
Disney is running a one-sided far left operation. The reporting is biased.
Disney doesn’t have to parrot Fox.
Yes, it is and it’s a constant campaign contribution. It’s a commercial, an advertisement for the radical left 24/7/365. That’s quite a campaign contribution.
In regard to the whole ‘gender identity’ thing: a person believes he (or she) is a cat and goes to a veterinarian for medical treatment and is refused by the veterinarian because he/she isn’t licensed to treat humans; the vet further recommends the sufferer proceed to a local M.D. or a nearby hospital. Legal or illegal? Un-Constitutional denial of service or common sense? If it’s to be considered legitimate (at least politically) for a person born of one sex (look between one’s legs for the necessary indicator and proof of sex) chooses to imagine being of the other (or a different – are there now up to 60 or so?) sex, what prevents a person believing he/she is a cat (or even a less domesticated form of wildlife) from demanding to be treated by the veterinarian as a legal and Constitutional right???? Chez Odysseus 2
What I heard the Owner say was that tje clients refusal to validate the Owner’s claim of Israeli genocide was the reason for refusing service. Legally, I believe the Owner failing to refund a deposit is a form of theft. Seriously, I wonder if this is blatant discrimination against the Jew of whom now has a civil rights violation.
Legally you say? And you know that because you’re NOT a lawyer. Right?
I don’t need no stinking lawyers! Stayed at Holiday Inn express last night pal!
Actually, I was a Contractor at one period of life. There are non-refundable deposits true, these have to be stipulated as such and retainage of the deposit is often subject as to which party may default in execution of the service agreement. In this case, it appears that the Owner defaulted denying the customer service, ergo refund. Otherwise, you could have a company taking deposits and then defaulting on service or goods without refunding anyone’s money. It’s fraud and/or theft.
The article notably does not say that Karimi discussed politics with Watson, or heard Watson express support for Israel. Only that Watson was part Israeli.
It seems all to easy to say, I won’t serve any Israeli because they are assumed to support Israel. That is a direct violation of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discriminating based on national origin.
To clarify, they did not discuss support for Israel before Karimi kicked Watson out. And Watson’s express reason had to do with national origin:
“I can’t provide service to an Israeli. It’s against my political beliefs. You need to leave immediately.
Commenters trying to pretend otherwise are lying about the facts.
Having hard time coalescing your thought eh? So everyone else is lying, just not you? Gawd, you’re stupid.
Having trouble reading, eh? I quoted the statement by the shop owner.
Is it from the shop owner or from someone claiming it’s what the shop owner said?
Professor Turley sure loves his double standards. It’s always amusing when the professor contorts himself so much just to implement a double standard.
In the video cited by Turley, the salon owner explicitly states her restriction is aimed at “those who support Israel” (conduct/political belief), not explicitly the Jewish race or faith.
In the LGBTQ+ cases, Turley argued that refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple was not discriminating against gay identity, but rather refusing to participate in the conduct of a gay wedding. If Turley accepts that loophole for the baker, he must accept it for the salon owner. Turley is flipping his own legal standard.
Turley relies on the Virginia Human Rights Act to claim the customer has the upper hand, but he glosses over (big surprise) the actual text of public accommodation laws to fit his narrative.
Public accommodation laws protect citizens from discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin. Crucially, they do not protect political affiliation or political beliefs.
The Salon owner explicitly stated ”those who support Israel” which is a clear political belief.
By admitting that the salon owner framed her refusal around “political beliefs,” Turley accidentally defeats his own argument. Under the law, “Supporting Israel” or “Zionism” is widely classified as a political and geopolitical ideology. Because political ideology is not a protected class in Virginia public accommodations, the salon owner is acting within the exact same boundaries as a business owner kicking out a political extremist.
Saying one is part-Israeli is not expressing a political belief, only acknowledging a nationality.
X knows that. As usual, X is lying through his teeth.
The video is gone. What proof remains?
X I agree. Turley kind of twists himself into a pretzel trying to distinguish between ‘good Christians’ refusing service to gays and ‘bigoted Muslims’ refusing service to Israeli sympathizers (or something like that).
“KInd of twists”? Now how does one do that? Get a law degree before you start with the laughable mental gymnastics.
Professor Turley correctly pointed out that the cakeshop owner did not refuse service to gays.
I disrespect him for that.
George X sure loves his double standards. It’s always amusing when crazy George X contorts himself so much just to implement a double standard.
Fixed it!
PS. Folks, George is not a lawyer, lies and makes up facts.
The city council supports Israel. The property’s taxes are going up, doubling. All such salon taxes are increasing.
haters gonna hate.
Here is the oath of allegiance that (legal) immigrants take to become a naturalized U.S. citizen: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Perhaps the oath of allegiance should be amended to specifically include acknowledgement that violation of the terms of this oath would be grounds for denaturalization and deportation. If naturalized U.S. citizens are permitted to violate this oath with impunity, what good is the oath at all?
I don’t remember the article about Dershowitz”s being denied pierogi on Martha’s Vineyard. But the Dershowitzes came from the same Galician shtetl that my Catholic great-grandmother did. So eating pierogi is part of our shared culture.
On the other hand, people named Miskevich come from Belarus and Ukraine, so his claiming to make “The Good Pierogi” is pure cultural appropriation.
Michael is Estovir with another first person account, this one involving a Catholic great grandmother.
^ This is Estovir ^
Karimi is a fascist slime ball.
Is karimi Moslem?
Yes, she denied service to an Israeli. She began to chant free palestine like warding off vampires with garlic. It speaks of irrational thinking. Otoh she’s quite decisive. No lines crossed, ifs,ands or buts. This decisiveness could have been used by yesterday’s man, Mr. Allmer and his unfaithful marriage.
Islam is a political system and the penalty is? We’ve seen beheadings? This is where all powerful totalitarian primitive religions lead? Karimi had to chant?
Islam is a political system. Deny service to moslems for their political system. I don’t recognize them as a religion nor must I?
They’ll congregate in neighborhoods as they’ve done in the now nonexistent UK? Hasan Piker and blood running in the streets rhetoric? Thanks scotus.
It is not clear from the story or the video whether any service was started. If it were, then stopping mid-treatment based on the owner’s politics might be actionable.
And this is why you should always pay with a reversible payment form like a check or credit card, so you can stop or reverse payments made in good faith to nutjobs who act in bad faith.
And … if the roles were reversed? A Jewish delicatessen refusing to sell food to someone in a head scarf?
1. This is not remotely similar to the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. 2. Jews want to flood the country with people like this, so yes they will have to live with the consequences just like everyone else.
And if a 100-year-old Jewish deli refuses service to a new Muslim immigrant, you’re ok with that?
Please cite the instance where that happened.
I have long held that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. On the other hand, if I owned a business, I would serve everyone and anyone.
One element here really sours Karimi’s look. It wasn’t present in the religious speech cases. Karimi took the position she could keep the money while admitting she refused service because Watson is Jewish. That does not look like a legal excuse for nonperformance. Nor keeping the money after nonperformance. If the Virginia UDAP statute is anything like Texas, that gets into unconscionability. Not simple breach of contract. Watson apparently mitigated her contract damages through her bank. But if these facts make out a deceptive trade practice, that can get into tort type damages such as mental anguish, generous notions of consequential damages, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs. There may be punitive multiples of damages for knowingly deceptive state of mind. The point being other law can give the Indispensable Right a leg up from time to time.
Where I get my hair cut is a full-service salon. Everiybody pays after the service is performed.
I don’t think whether money was paid in advance or actually refunded is relevant. Person was refused service for illegal reason.
under what theory? section 1981? go ahead and sue and let’s see how far it goes. farfetched Sal sar.
No, section 3904. (I almost said 3901, but that regards lactation.)