Below is my opinion on recent incidents involving customers being forced out of businesses due to their political views or associations. There is a crushing irony for some who supported efforts to force businesses to prepare products from cakes to websites despite religious and political objections. In these cases, the owners were refusing to offer the same services (not expressive products) that they offer other customers.
Here is the column:
“This is my place of business.”
Those words from Jim Sheehan, owner of the Wydaho Roasters coffee shop in Driggs, Idaho, have sparked the latest controversy over the right of businesses to refuse service on the basis of religious or political views.
Sheehan has drawn national attention after throwing out a group of pro-life teenagers, calling them the equivalent of a Ku Klux Klan meeting in his shop. Sheehan clearly caters to those who want their lattes with an added shot of rage.
However, this and a number of other cases have exposed the hypocrisy of many regarding the service businesses must provide customers with opposing views. From cakes to coffee, shops remain ground zero for an age of rage.
Years ago, politicians and pundits rallied around the effort to force Jack Phillips, a cakeshop owner, to create cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. Phillips objected that it 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 similar cases) under the religious clauses rather than treating it as a simple matter of free speech. In the end, the Supreme Court punted in a frustrating 2018 decision.
In 2023, however, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis. It ruled that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse to provide services for a same-sex marriage. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “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.’”
But 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.
The case of Wydaho is different. Sheehan refused the same general accommodation offered to all customers because he opposes pro-life causes. In the confrontation, Sheehan declared that “in my world” pro-lifers are no different from the Ku Klux Klan.
“This is my place of business,” he declared. “I did a lot of work to get people on the ballot so women would have the right to choose in the state of Idaho, and this is something I do not support, nor does my wife, and it’s our business. So we have that choice.”
In my view, they do have that choice. Yet it must also be acknowledged what Sheehan is doing is far more extreme than what Phillips did in Masterpiece Cakeshop. He is not being asked to create a coffee concoction opposing abortion, like a Cafe Au Life specialty drink. He acknowledges that other groups might use the shop — he just does not want these teenagers to use it to support pro-life causes.
The same controversy arose the same week across the country in Virginia. In Alexandria, Fatana Karimi, owner of the Karimi Salon, threw out a woman after she revealed that she was Israeli. Jessica Walton posted an account of the encounter, and a video was later posted on social media.
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.)
The Virginia Human Rights Act states that businesses cannot engage in “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 will likely argue she refused service not due to Walton’s religion or national origin, but due to her support for Israel — a political position.
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. However, in the video, the owner states that 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.”
Back in Idaho, Sheehan’s bizarre analogy to the KKK outraged many, to the point that he later apologized for it. However, it is fascinating that liberals are now celebrating the right to exclude others for political or religious reasons, even when they are not asked to engage in any expressive act or make any creative product that contravenes their beliefs.
If that is now the case, many owe individuals such as Phillips an apology for years of costly lawsuits, even after the Supreme Court gave him his first nominal victory.
Sheehan could be prosecuted if he were refusing general service or accommodations to the teenagers due to their race or religion. But he is refusing service on the basis of his own political views. Wydaho Roasters does not appear to want business from people who are pro-life, of whom there might be quite a few in Idaho. Karimi appears not to want either Israeli or possibly Jewish customers. It is a curious business plan to exclude such a large segment of the market, but some owners are sure to put their political views before their profits.
However, those on the left cannot have it both ways. They cannot reject the free speech rights of some owners to decline service while celebrating others’ refusal to do the same thing. None of this is likely to make society any more civil. No one wants a black eye to go with the red-eye espresso.
Of course, recognizing the free speech rights of an unhinged coffee shop owner does not require patronizing his establishment. Sheehan clearly does not want to serve pro-life citizens, and I expect the feeling is mutual.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
And yet we miss the forest through the trees? Listen, this is America, no one can force anyone for any reason to labor against their will. Not even the incarcerated can be forced to labor. Full stop, end of story. And so we and others here opt to play politicks. But our position is meaningless, since, see the previous statement, private business has the freedom to conduct itself as it pleases. And so the devil to pay and the devil take the hindmost, such is free enterprise in America.
No they don’t. If it were so many lunch counters and hotels would still be segregated today.
There is a well-known story, where Michael Jordan was once asked why he didn’t use his platform for Social Justice, and/or Change. His reply had the beauty of simplicity. He stated that both Republicans AND Democrats buy tennis shoes.
Unfortunately, that is something MANY today don’t seem to understand!
JT loves to post things about progressives not being so nice. How about when the same situation happens on the right? Mostly JT ignores reality, just like he pedophile master.
https://www.newsweek.com/what-karen-attiah-said-about-charlie-kirk-wapo-ordered-rehire-her-12358922
Turns out Karen Attiah was rehired after the NY Times improperly fired her for telling the truth about the white racist Charlie Kirk.
Did you even read the article you posted? Or do you just lack the capacity to understand what it said?
An arbitrator ruled that she did not violate the collective bargaining agreement which required proof of “gross misconduct.” That’s a far cry from what you’re implying. SHE DID LIE ABOUT KIRK. There’s no question about that. The only issue before the arbitrator was whether her vile ignorant comments were “lies” (i.e., gross misconduct) or “opinion” (which wouldn’t qualify under the CBA). Her recent comments about reinstatement were that she felt she was doing her job as “an opinion journalist,” so we’ll assume that was her argument to the arbitrator (arbitration is a confidential process and not appealable).
However, your epic lie about Kirk being a “white racist” would not fall under opinion.
But please continue to assist the GOP in the GOTV!
However, your epic lie about Kirk being a “white racist” would not fall under opinion.
Actually it would. Calling someone a “white racist” is an opinion, and thus not directly subject to legal action for defamation. Depending on the circumstances it can sometimes be subject indirectly — if it’s expressed in a way that implies unstated facts, and those unstated facts aren’t true, then one can be sued for those, but not for the actual words, which remain an opinion.
Ignores? Try thinking, Turley is playing you into thinking he’s a bad guy (from your perspective) when in fact its all about website visits. Website ads will be coming soon. He’ll get filthy rich. Thanks to you. And me.
Is that what it will take to make you GO AWAY?
… and suddenly you disappeared…
Here’s the deal: A business owner, in my opinion, can announce, and has the right “to refuse service to anyone.” Full stop. Left-handed people? Not welcome. MAGA-hat wearing people? Not welcome. Blue-haired, nose-pierced DSA activists? Not welcome. Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Not welcome. It’s their option.
Because the business owner is an entrepreneur; a capitalist. She or he raised the capital to start the business, pays taxes, pays employees, creates jobs. If he or she decides that excluding anyone wearing a yellow T-shirt, or someone with a tattoo, or any other ridiculous reason, that’s a business decision. That’s their right. And if it causes them to lose business, so be it. That’s how the system should work. The government shouldn’t have a role in telling them how to run their business.
These socialists who think otherwise are free to take their business elsewhere, or start their own business where they will enjoy the same rights.
What if a Muslim in a MAGA (or any variation thereof) hat shows up, in a burka, with her dehydrated and limp 3 year old daughter, owner refuses – hates MAGA, hates Muslims – to give her water, she dies.
What then? Society needs laws regulating a businesses’ behavior and responsibilities, that wouldn’t happen. Laws work both ways.
I suspect the woman gets prosecuted for neglect for allowing her limp 3 year old child to become dehydrated.
That’s one way to interpret the situation. Now what if a leftist beat her and the child and stole their car and possessions, the leftist being the son of the business. Does the owner have an obligation to help?
Legally, no, an ordinary person never has a legal duty to assist someone else, no matter how dire that person’s situation, or how easy and risk-free it would be to help them. Some licensed professionals are required to render aid as a term of their license.
No, society doesn’t need such laws — but it has them anyway.
Agreed – just like to add, There has to be more than ‘1’ Coffee Shop in the town of Driggs Idaho.
This is a bit like “No-Smoking” request/ban in the early days.
Rise Coffee House
https://www.risedriggs.com/
Teton Grind Coffee Co.
https://www.facebook.com/tetongrindcoffeeco/
Just move on Kids
That may be your opinion of how it OUGHT to be, but it is not in fact the case. A business can’t do that, because the law says it has no right to, and if it does the law will come down on it and shut it down. Federal law says that a public accommodation may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or disability. It allows all other kinds of discrimination, but state and local laws often extend that list. In some states sexual orientation is also on the list; and in some states also political opinion.
You may be of the opinion that this law is unjust, but it remains the law nonetheless, and will be enforced.
The KKK were democrats, and though yes, there have certainly been morons on the right, I have yet to see an old picture of a modern Republican or other in black face at a white social gathering. The ignorance seemingly has no cure the leftist brainwashing would appear to be complete for far too many, and it spans all age groups.
“I have yet to see an old picture of a modern Republican or other in black face at a white social gathering.”
In the “new” pictures, they’re the ones with the white sheets pretending to be Democrats.
What “new” pictures would those be?
Its a joke.
@Upstate @Anonymous
Yes, pray tell, please share these ‘photos’. Would love to see them, as I am not a paid tool/overgrown child and am capable of changing my mind.
My expectation of your response: something along the lines of (insert dem narrative), ‘Well, the parties switched.’.
No, they didn’t. There have been plenty of bad actors on the right (but that is more uniparty stuff), but the dems in toto and their faux notions of aristocracy haven’t changed one whit since the Civil War (still a head-scratcher to me why generational Southern democrats are ‘proud’ of their lineage due to the fact that those ancestors fought a bloody war to KEEP the slaves). The progentors of the modern dems always wanted to continue to live as British czars or roylaty, and it absolutely KILLS them that they are so marginal without illegal tactics today. It’s in their DNA, or at the least their neural pathways.
They just got better at lying to people, and in 2026, they have elevated it to an art form. No one with a brain buys it anymore, and that is most of us. Tell your bosses at the CCP or whatever Islamic or globalist organization it is that signs your paychecks, that no, their engineered anchor babies will likely never be president where people are actually free. They mistake the United States for Western Europe with all of its capitulations due to those countries’ Constitutional neutering as citizens, and we sure as sh** ain’t that.
If nothing else, because we have to explain things to you, Moronymous, daily like you are a five year-old: we have a whole lotta guns, we aren’t giving them up, and we don’t play.
What F are you yapping about?
Fake Farmer
I thought you were starting “college” today???
You are obviously not paying attention in class.
You have commented multiple times before 10:00am, and all your comments are simply to agree with what others have said, rather than comments of your own about the matter at hand. You are obviously reading every single comment here, as usual.
You are a pathetic joke. You will spend all day here as usual.
You are neither a farmer, nor a college student. You are a Walter Mitty living in your own little world of fantasy.
And he was rejected by the US military for …. well, I won’t ask, and I won’t tell.
Poor, poor annony!
Never heard of this thing called Wi-fi? Or 5G? I am commenting from the student center waiting for my next class.
Must really kill you to know how successful I am that I can run the farm and goto school!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!!
@Anonymous
Seriously: why, other than for dollars per word, do you bother? You are like the annoying kid irresponsible adults bring to a grownup party. And we regard you as such. Go blow. Nobody cares and you aren’t ‘influencing’ anyone.
A drug induced word salad. You should take your own advice.
James,
Well said.
As I stated previously today, annony’s serve no purpose. They are useless NPC. They amount to nothing in life.
You’ve got that backwards. If you do see such a sight, it is guaranteed to be a Democrat operative pretending to be a Republican for the camera.
“The KKK were democrats”
The Klan at one time definitely were Democrats and the Republicans were abolitionists (though they mostly wanted to send freed slaves to Liberia or Central America and didn’t want them as neighbors). The ignorance you’ve mentioned is your refusal to acknowledge the general switch in stances. There are certainly some racist Democrats today but the bar is extremely low to be better than Republicans today. Read the leaked chats of Republican youth groups. As for Republicans appearing in blackface, I give you Bobby “Al Jolson” Berger in Maryland and Kasey Carpenter in Georgia.
Good morning!
Folks, we have an expert on race relations on board this morning
This board isn’t the place where race relations can be discussed sensibly, but I am pretty good on history.
You’re an enigma? Fooled me.
As for Republicans appearing in blackface, I give you Bobby “Al Jolson” Berger in Maryland and Kasey Carpenter in Georgia.
Oh, the “old” pictures. You sure dug deep for that. There are no records about his political affiliations. But I’m guessing blacks have extensive records and sources of white folks political acts and thoughts. Funny, to think I thought George Orwell was white.
Leaked chat huhs? Why don’t you do us all a favor and use facts.
Different Al Jolson, I tried to help you out and give you a state, but you relied on your ignorance.
As for leaked chats, a curious person might have done a search with key words like “Leaked chats Republicans” but you went with denial.
https://time.com/7325948/leaked-texts-young-republicans-offensive-language/
time.com? You’re kidding right. Time magazine? That’s it? What would be all be without time magazine to guide our moral compasses?
Geez… so white kids’ “offensive language” (assuming they are white, could be blacks infiltrated those social media accounts to make whites look bad) is your argument?
Actually, the majority of people in that group were Hispanic. Why would people of any race pretend to be white to make white people look bad when there’s you, doing a wonderful job on your own? If you don’t like a source, find another you trust instead of outright denial.
I wouldn’t put any reliance on anything that time.com prints. If I don’t accept the premise why would I seeka second opinion? An opinion that is replublished/rewritten? Tell me you at least think all media is biased.
Find a source? Well, just because time and you say its true, doesn’t make it true.
Something about a history of bias keeps me from believing time.com.
Does that make me an ignorant racist now?
It certainly makes you ignorant, by choice. Not accepting a premise is exactly why you would seek a source you trust. Unless of course, you can’t handle the truth.
Now if you choose ignorance so that you can continue to hold racist views, tell me what that is?
As for Democrats appearing in White face I give you the Keenan brothers and Dave Chappelle…
Who cares?
You obviously do.
Tell the truth. The Liberia thing was to keep them safe from the democrats.
Republicans were started to stop the slaving democrats and we still are.
The Liberia and Central America thing was to keep white people safe in the minds of many. Jefferson worried about letting go of the wolf by the ear, He supported colonization partly because he believed racial coexistence after slavery would be unstable and violent. James Madison worried that emancipation without removal (colonization) would lead to racial conflict. The concern for safety was much closer to home than worrying about slaves.
There was a concern backed up by federal troops, until a backroom negotiation over a disputed election (1876) caused Republicans to remove the troops and look away for a century.
Keep whiteys safe? That’s correct. And relive the white man’s conscious. What’s wrong with that?
That part II sections needs clarification. What election? Blurting out incomplete incoherencies makes for …
I hoped to spur you to look something up on your own given you trust so few sources. The Presidential Election of 1876 with Republican Rutherford B. Hayes v. Democrat Samuel Tilden. It had all the things that resurfaced in 2020 like fake electors. It was resolved by the Compromise of 1877, and Posse Comitatus was tacked on the following year. I hold out hope you’ll actually learn something about American history but I’m not holding my breath.
Something? Anything? Funny thing with a word called interpretation… anyone who calls himself enigma in black makes me think something is amiss with your interpretation of American history.
Good thing I didn’t read 1619 project huh? You? I’m guessing you did, therefore your biased interpretation of facts? Maybe just an itsy bitsy?
There was no switch. Democrats enacted Jim Crow segregation laws. Democrats enacted poll taxes and literacy tests designed to prevent blacks from voting.
Democrat voters created the KKK to terrorize and lynch blacks and Republicans.
“Liberal” Democrat Senators Sam Nunn, William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, and Al Gore, Sr. all filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on purely racists grounds. They remained Democrats until they died. The only Democrat Senator who voted against the CRA and switched parties was Strom Thurmond.
Heck, Robert Byrd was a big shot in the KKK. Something called a Grand Kleagle, or recruiter. Democrats decided he was the perfect man to be their Senator Majority Leader as recently as 1989. When Klansman David Duke ran for office in Louisiana as a Republican, every high ranking Republican publicly disavowed him, including Reagan who was out of office and GHWB.
Republicans have not used government power against blacks in a way remotely close to the way Democrats did. I’m sure you’ll pretend requiring a photo ID is meant to make it hard for blacks to vote. It’s ridiculous. One study found less than 1% of registered voters lack a photo ID. Virtually every state that has passed a voter ID law gives lots of notice. Often two years. Some Republican states even offer free transportation to get a photo ID.
I’m sure you will want to talk about Nixon’s so called Southern Strategy – (ironically that is the strategy Democrats had relied on for power for a century.) Those states remained mostly Democrat. Bill Clinton won most of the former confederate states in ’88 and ’92 – almost two decades after the so called Southern Strategy. Many of those states had Democrat governors and/or Democrat majority state legislatures until this century.
There was not a magical switch.
It wasn’t a magical switch, it took several decades with events that caused waves of transitioning like integrating the military and federal government in 1948 and passage of the Civil Rights Acts in the miod-1960s. That “so-called” Southern Strategy has been used by every Republican President since Nixon, why would you think it isn’t real. Most Black people don’t oppose voter ID, it’s all the things that come with it.
“and the Republicans were abolitionists (though they mostly wanted to send freed slaves to Liberia or Central America and didn’t want them as neighbors).”
Your hyperbole causes you to seem unknowledgeable on this subject. I don’t think there are good numbers to be specific, but in general, there were three groups.
1. The Abolitionists: immediate emancipation
2. The Colonialists: send blacks to Liberia and other nations. Henry Clay voluntary removal; Lincoln started as a colonialist and then passed the amendments and stood for Constitutional Law. The colonialists mostly came from the border states
3. The moderate Republicans: Views fluctuated as the war progressed, starting with no expansion of slavery to acceptance of the amendments and civil rights.
I believe most people had empathy for the black slaves, but essentially there was white slavery (indentured servants) that preceded and had a higher death rate. This was not unusual, for slavery existed throughout the world and was normal for the times. Black Africa still deals in slavery. It was the white Englishmen who were the earliest political group to end slavery. The US paid heavily for slavery and abolished it, likely creating the freest country in the world. Prejudice is a two-way street, and we are seeing a lot of prejudice from black communities. Prejudice should cease to exist, but it seems human nature creates biases that cross the line.
Lincoln only changed his mind after a failed experiment on Cow Island off the coast of Haiti.
https://medium.com/the-polis/abraham-lincoln-americas-colonizer-in-chief-9d108ebe30a
Abolitionists and Colonizers weren’t mutually exclusive. Many abolitionists (including Lincoln) wanted to end slavery and then ship them off. This was after Lincoln expressed his willingness to accept slavery to preserve the Union. Try reading the Lincoln Douglas debates.
You’re confused about indentured servitude and a higher death rate for white people. Indentured servitude ended shortly after Bacon’s Rebellion when white indentured servants, Black indentured servants, and Black slaves burned down Jamestown, ironically based on the desire to rid the area of Native Americans. Slavery exists today all over the world (including America) but the places with the largest number of slaves are India and China, not Africa.
https://medium.com/the-polis/when-did-enslavement-end-all-over-the-world-cd6c55d41e1b
I/m only allowed two links but I’m sure there will be more chances to educate you as you so often get history wrong.
“Lincoln only changed his mind after a failed experiment on Cow Island off the coast of Haiti.”
Untrue! Why is that untrue? “ONLY changed his mind after a failed experiment on Cow Island…” Cow Island had a strong effect on Lincoln, without question, and it came close to changing his mind, but he also saw Black troops fighting for the Union’s cause. I don’t know, but Lincoln must have thought hard as to how he could ask black men to die for the nation and then tell them to leave. There were many causes for Lincoln’s change of mind, but Cow Island wasn’t the ONLY (your hyperbole) cause. Your hyperbole turns your facts into fiction.
“Abolitionists and Colonizers weren’t mutually exclusive. Many abolitionists (including Lincoln) wanted to end slavery and then ship them off.”
As I said, in other words, the situation was fluid to many, and I said Lincoln changed his mind. You are confused by the fluidity of the situation. Abolitionists wanted black freedom here.
I didn’t mention slavery in China or India because we were dealing with black slavery, and the word could extend to slavery right here in America that came with Biden’s open immigration policy. Where does black slavery mostly exist today? Africa, but if you disagree, explain your position.
“you as you so often get history wrong.”
Then copy a quote of mine that is wrong instead of changing my words and calling those words wrong. On the other hand, I have copied your exact words and proved them wrong continuously.
You said abolitionists and colonizers were different groups when the mostly overlapped. You asked for a quote.
“I believe most people had empathy for the black slaves,”
It’s true that’s your opinion but it’s dead wrong. What you want to be true and what is true are often very different things.
“You said abolitionists and colonizers were different groups when the mostly overlapped.”
Yes, I said that. Abolitionists are different than the colonizers. The abolitionists wanted black freedom here not elsewhere. I also explained that things were fluid, so one has to look at time. People like Lincoln changed from a colonizer type to abolitionist minded. Listen to what the abolitionists stood for: Freedom Here.
I appreciate any corrections whenever you can provide them, as long as you restrain from your constant hyperbole.
You obviously don’t know anything about white people.
Canada debanked their own citizens because they disagreed.
Debank? I do it to my kids. And wife.
Now we need to have a sit-in? The leftys have bailed on equality.
“They drove my family out of Bayside”
This whole business is replete with contradictions, selected rights, and downright unfairness to some but perfectly permissible to others. For example, private property owners can exclude others from their land, homes, or businesses (trespass laws). Private clubs, religious organizations, and many employers can set membership or hiring criteria and exclude people who do not meet them, subject to anti-discrimination statutes that protect specific classes.
• Abortion: My body, my choice.
• Employment: No vaccine, no job.
• Right to work: Join a union or no job
• Government: Contracts only go to union companies.
• Schools: Right to counsel trans children without informing parents.
The whole business is a mess. There will be no fair and equitable solutions. And the Court’s ruling will not stop anything.
50 states, 50 opinions. That’s not a mess. Its law. Its crystal clear.
I think by “mess” he was referring to much of the hypocrisy.
My body my choice VS you must get the jab.
Want to work? You must join a union and pay them.
Responsibility for children: parents VS schools?
These are hypocritical and inconsistent positions that require significant cognitive dissonance to accept.
On the narrow issue (any POV hypocrisy aside, as it has zero legal implications) I agree with Turley, but I would state it more strongly: private property is exactly that – private; and rights over private property are not curtailed because the owner has invited selected persons onto that property to do business with them.
What if a simple sign on the door states: open for business?
Except that there are in fact laws that complicate that. Public accommodations aren’t permitted to discriminate on a list of grounds, depending on the location, but race, religion, and national origin are federal so they apply everywhere in the USA. To that limited extent private property isn’t so private. Maybe those laws shouldn’t exist, but they do.
Surprisingly, if you open a thesaurus to the page containing hypocrisy you will find one of the synonyms to be the word Democrat. Also, if you look up the word obfuscator you will find that one of its synonym is also Democrat with the adjective tragic also used as part of the definition.
Looking at the page right now, nothing about Democrats. But I do see that that under the bull_shi*, your mime appears.
made you look!
Come On Man! HYPOCRISY – it is the orthodoxy of the illustrious DEMOCRAP! And now with the addition of the Socialist Wing they are ready to take flight to begin aerial bombardment of anything that is not Communism (oops, I mean Socialism because they are soooo radically different – NOT). Let’s see how many IDIOT AMERICAN VOTERS take the bait of of the faux promise – “you can have everything for FREE after we take it from the rich but you get what you pay for.”
Take a Valium buddy.
What does a Virginia Employment Law have to do with a potential vendor-customer relationship?
A basis for social interaction in VA.
Over the weekend after reading Turley’s articles and the comments it’s pretty hilarious how much cognitive dissonance permeates the right. Hypocrisy, double standards, and plain dishonesty with the facts is par for the course for Turley.
As usual he relies on the gullibility and lack of intellectual curiosity to rely on his readers to take his assertions as gospel. Ironically it’s exactly that kind of ‘dishonesty’ the fake polling column he criticized and its effectiveness on weak minded individuals that he relies on to disseminate his views.
Turley defends the right of conservative business owners to deny service based on who the customers are marrying, but feigns horror when a liberal business owner does the exact same thing based on what a political group advocates for. He bends over backward to legitimize discrimination when it is wrapped in religious conservative branding, but labels it “unhinged” when a secular business owner exercises the exact same autonomy. That’s hypocrisy in a nutshell.
He asserts that “liberals are now celebrating the right to exclude others for political or religious reasons.”
But, He provides exactly zero evidence of any mainstream liberal or civil rights organization celebrating the actions of the coffee shop owner or the salon owner. In reality, mainstream civil rights advocacy has consistently pushed for the expansion of public accommodation protections, not their erosion. Inventing a collective “liberal celebration” out of the isolated actions of a few small business owners is a classic strawman tactic.
He relies heavily on the distinction that a custom cake is an “expressive product” (protected speech), while a latte is a “general accommodation” (not protected).
This legal hair-splitting is a distinction without a difference in practice. In both scenarios, a business owner is looking at a customer, disapproving of their identity or beliefs, and refusing to serve them. Turley pretends that designing a basic website is a sacred act of artistic expression, but making a coffee is purely transactional, using this shaky premise to justify why one form of discrimination is noble and the other is a symptom of an “age of rage.”
The hypocrisy here is almost theatrical. Turley—who is actively promoting his book titled Rage and the Republic—uses hyper-charged, emotional language (“abusive treatment,” “unhinged,” “added shot of rage”) to stoke the very resentment he claims to despise. He isn’t analyzing law; he is generating traffic. By framing isolated, local disputes as a coordinated national cultural war, Turley is doing the exact thing he accuses the coffee shop owner of doing: serving his audience a daily dose of outrage.
Turley defends the right of conservative business owners to deny service based on who the customers are marrying, but feigns horror when a liberal business owner does the exact same thing based on what a political group advocates for.
Apples and dump trucks. Phillips said he would sell them any pre-made cake. He didn’t refuse their business, only his time to make a specialty cake. The Wydaho weirdo kicked them out of his shop.
Not close to the same thing…
Please note, Turley didn’t write those laws. Defend or not, he’s entitled to an opinion. His opinion has more weight than yours, a common variety of blog pest.
His opinion is flawed. Obviously he’s fair game. His opinion’s “weigh” worthless when it’s incredibly easy to rebut it. He’s rage-baiting to sell books.
Flawed? And George wants you to think he’s smarter than Turley. George, clown doesn’t begin to describe you.
“Jonathan Turley has received an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and public interest. He is also recognized as one of the most cited law professors in the country and has been featured as one of the most influential persons on public policy by Washingtonian. A lawyer, book author, speaker.
American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism.[3] A professor at George Washington University Law School, he has testified in United States congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. He has also testified in multiple impeachment hearings and removal trials in Congress, including the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and both the first and second impeachments of President Donald Trump.[4][5] Turley is a First Amendment advocate and writes frequently on free speech restrictions in the private and public sectors.[6][7][8] He is the author of the book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,[9] as well as Rage and the Republic.
As an attorney, Turley has worked on notable cases in civil rights defense including the defenses of Sami Al-Arian, NSA whistleblower David Faulk, protesters at the World Bank/IMF demonstrations in 2000, and the Brown family in their challenge to Utah polygamy laws. Turley has also served as counsel on prominent federal cases including the defense of Area 51 workers, and as lead counsel in the 2014 challenge to the Affordable Care Act.”
Honorary law doctorate? Oh you mean the gifted doctorate aka the participation trophy of the academic world? Wow.
Having all those degrees does not make you smart. Isn’t that often the case with conservatives hollering about elitist professors and experts?
Nothing you posted exempts his claims from criticism or proving they are flawed. What you have not done is show they are not.
Turley is missing the fundamental legal reality here. Political views are not a protected class. If a coffee shop owner doesn’t like a group’s pro-life activism, he has the legal right to kick them out—just like a business can throw out customers shouting political slogans.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop case was entirely different because it targeted a protected class: sexual orientation. Jack Phillips didn’t reject a political message; he rejected a gay couple because of who they were. He would sell them a generic, blank cake, but refused them the exact same service he provided to straight couples. Discrimination based on identity is illegal; refusing service over political opinions is not. Turley is conflating a civil rights violation with a simple business choosing its clientele.
“Political views are not a protected class.” Then cite the requisite legal decisions stating such. You’re a lawyer right?
You know how google works, right? You don’t need to be a lawyer to do that.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)
Google huh? So you’re a google lawyer? Good to know. Gives you a lot of credibility.
More than you. That’s for sure.
“Political views are not a protected class.” Then cite the requisite legal decisions stating such.
There don’t have to be any decisions. If YOU are asserting that political views ARE a basis on which discrimination is prohibited in Idaho, then YOU must cite the statute or court decision that says so. The fact is that no such statute exists, and nor has any court found such a thing in its tea leaves. It is perfectly legal in Idaho to discriminate on the basis of someone’s political opinions or his sexual orientation. In Colorado it’s legal to do so on the basis of the person’s political opinions but not his sexual orientation.
X wrote, “If a coffee shop owner doesn’t like a group’s pro-life activism, he has the legal right to kick them out…”
Does that mean you agree that, ‘If a coffee shop owner doesn’t like a group’s pro-abortion activism, he has the legal right to kick them out’?
-g
Of course. At least in Idaho, and in many other states. In some states this is not legal.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop case was entirely different because it targeted a protected class: sexual orientation. Jack Phillips didn’t reject a political message; he rejected a gay couple because of who they were. He would sell them a generic, blank cake, but refused them the exact same service he provided to straight couples.
That is not true. The fact that he would sell them a generic cake proves that he was perfectly willing to do business with them. He was even willing to make them a custom cake for any event but their “wedding”. Therefore he was not discriminating against them.
What he refused to do was become an accomplice to their moral crime of contracting a purported marriage, which to him would be just as wrong as becoming an accomplice to a bank robbery. A car rental clerk should refuse to rent a car if he knows that the customer plans to use it as a getaway car for a bank heist; in exactly the same way a decent person who knows that same-sex “marriage” is wrong must refuse to provide any service for such a purported event. That is not discrimination, and not only is not illegal but it can’t be made illegal. A person cannot be forced to violate his conscience. The first amendment forbids it.
Discrimination based on identity is illegal
No, it isn’t. Discrimination based on certain kinds of identity is illegal. The precise list of which traits one may use as the basis for refusing a customer and which one can’t varies from place to place, but in all one is free to discriminate on any basis, including identity, that doesn’t appear on the local list. In Idaho it’s perfectly fine to refuse to do business gays OR Republicans. In Colorado one must do business with gays, but needn’t do so with Republicans. But in neither state can one be forced to participate in an ACT one believes to be wrong.
Geezzzz George I have to give you some credit, you wrote the book on cognitive dissonance. I was kidding about writing a book, from what we’ve seen, you can’t write a coherent sentence. You are jealous of Turley’s renown and career. You, a nothing, a nobody, an anonymous bigmouth with a singular focus on… Jonathan Turely.
Anonymous, you just proved my point. Thanks. You don’t have an argument and you seem to hang on to every one of my posts. Hilarious.
George, you just proved my point. Thanks. You don’t have an argument and you seem to hang on to every one of my comments. Hilarious.
X! You’re back! Excellent!
I was worried that something had happened. Perhaps you had opened a book or otherwise educated yourself in some way. Nope! Still spewing the same ignorant nonsense! Obviously still utilizing AI as well.
Continue! Your ignorant drivel is the best thing since The Far Side!
Awww….you missed me.
X, you didn’t even know what cognitive dissonance was,- or reading comprehension and context, until I used them in some comments here a few years ago. Your entire sponge-like character on this blog shows us nothing but an impressionable amoeba that absorbs all and keeps what impresses him, to adopt as his own. The more you get called out, the more you began to get your opinions and info from AI. We all see through you but you keep swingin, the uglier you get.
ROFL!!!! Anonymous. You’re hilarious.
You’re just upset because you cannot offer anything better than insults and whataboutisms.
You have not shown any evidence you understand what the phrases you allegedly “showed me”. You’re projecting your insecurities onto others. It’s really sad.
I can tell that his comment touched a nerve, hit home. You are so funny.
George says “You have not shown any evidence you understand what the phrases you allegedly “showed me”.
that’s pretty funny.
That’s why he has to steal ideas and words from others or lift and paste, use AI
He can’t even build a meaningful correct sentence on his own.
X does not use AI! He is too smart for that! He is the smartest person he knows! Just ask him! He knows everything about everything! Elections, foreign policy, plumbing, rent, paint, and more than you! We need more people like X to tell people like me what to think!
Maybe we should revisit this in time and see how the Wydaho Roasters does business wise. There were similar episodes to this around Washington DC in the first Trump administration when some staffers were asked to leave restaurants and Trump and Republican groups were denied venues for meetings and it still happens.
I fail to see the sense of denying customers over their political views. I would think you would always want all the customers you can get. Competition in the business world is intense enough without handicapping yourself. You could find yourself de-banked. Another type of discrimination that has happened to Trump in the US and Nigel Farage in
England.
A risky decision to run your business that way because the public is very mercurial and can turn on your intolerance quite suddenly. I think that the owner here should be more thoughtful. He literally may screw his own business.
Risky decision? Ever run a service business? Didn’t think so. What business is it of yours how the onwner runs it? As you said, its risky.
Waiting on the Christmas Day when a Chinese restaurant refuses to seat supporters of the State of Israel.
The Chinese are not that stupid, at least the Chinese in America that are true capitalists.
GEB,
Well said.
As we have seen, the degree of intolerance of Democrats is impressive. The lengths they will go to exclude anyone who disagrees with them.
Just do not frequent their businesses. Easy enough.
As we have seen, the degree of intolerance of MAGAots is impressive. Straight out of the uneducated and upper middle class (on paper mind you) blog clown. Oh, and rejected by the US military. Live in a trailer, never married.. ummmmm
Oh, no. Poor, poor annony is having another one of his mental meltdowns into delusions about people he has never met.
Your mommy has your medications and a nice Hot Pocket for you.
Liberal don’t have consistent morals, they change constantly to align with the situation. A black can’t be refused service because that is discrimination, but a Jew can be refused service because that is righteous.
You have to be immoral or insane to hold those two beliefs at the same time.
I agree when it comes to artistic production, whether a website or cake, as long as they don’t refuse to design just a website or cake but only refuse to make it and artistic creation their religious beliefs are against that is legal. Other than trouble making what I don’t understand is why you would want to go to such a person, you will never get their best work if they morally and religiously disagree with you, find a baker or website producer that aligns with what you desire. Of course the whole point is to make trouble and liberal propaganda.
Why don’t they push the gay issue with Muslims? Ask a Muslim to make a gay marriage cake or website? It’s very telling it is always Christians or Jews that are harassed legally.
“Liberal don’t have consistent morals, ” geeezzz… where to begin.
So liberals and Muslims are one and the same ideologically?
It’s a marriage of convenience between jihadists and communists. The divorce will be written in blood.
Curious… when and where did the marriage take place? Only in rightist media.
The purge is coming. Better pick a winning side now.
Suggest you try the hemlock drink.
The Jihadist Muslim and Communist alliance is well known, except to those whose brains were fried by drugs or alcohol. That alliance is powerful, dangerous, and violent. Even normal Democrats are afraid of them and presently yield. They will be drinking the hemlock later.
Yes. The globalist/leftists. Queers for Palestine. There are so many internal contradictions to the Democrat Party that the only thing that could possibly unite them is a pathological bigotry against whites and Jews.
Why? Because, if there is an objection to the refusal, a Muslim will tear that individual’s arms out and then burn down his/her house. It’s the fear of that sort of reprisal that keeps governments in line and out of their ‘no go zones’. Anything to keep the peace, so say the French, and others of that ilk.
“However, those on the right cannot have it both ways. They cannot reject the free speech rights of some owners to decline service while celebrating others’ refusal to do the same thing. ” Fixed it.
Example Neville?
You fixed nothing because you don’t understand the issues, or anything else for that matter, your comments always just come from the same place, liberal delusion. It is not a refusal of just declining to do something as Mr. Turely pointed out like bake a cake or design a website. It is a refusal to go against their religious beliefs to make an artistic creation for a cake or website.
Or would you support a Pro lifer going to a Planned Parenthood web designer abortionist supporter to design a Pro Life website and enforcing that with the courts if the abortion supporter refused? You can’t have it both ways. In not you are a huge hypocrite, which we already know.
Funny how you assume to know where complements come from. Yours? From an ideology that hates change, religion, Muslims, foreigners, blacks, LGBQT, women etc., just about everyone. And you assume to know?
There is no less tolerant group in America than today’s leftists. They demand ideological conformity to a degree that would even embarrass their forebear Joseph Goebbels.
By your comemnt, one could say that you are intolerant of other’s ideology.
Celebrating the October 7 massacre, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the assassination of Brian Thompson, and the multiple attempted assassinations or President Donald J. Trump … it’s an ideology that’s a bridge too far.
There is no common thread in the events you state. You’re assuming it political, then show the proof. A s s u m i n g. What about facts?
How in the world can you assume to know things that no one else knows?
A bridge too far. Run up to it and jump off.
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq.
Well said.
We see it by their words and actions.
Who is “their”? I can’t begin to imagine the devils coursing through your warped mind….
Youre stupid.
Personally I’m intolerant of intolerance. If a business owner wants to exclude certain segments of our community from his business I would suggest he post his policies on his storefront or website so that the public can make an informed decision as to whether or not to support him. Personally I would likely avoid such businesses on their displayed attitude alone.
Hate has no place here. Ever see those lawn signs. So those people who post those, hate people who hate? I get that right?
That is correct
……brings to mind the want ads of ‘daze’ gone by which read…’White, Christian only’. Or the signs which read ‘No dogs or Jews’. All the legislation which was promulgated to prohibit same has gone into the crapper along with the brains of the offenders. Beware of the government when they announce ‘we are here to help’.
unadulterated,
I agree.
Form up two differing, parallel societies/economies. One that serves only one group, and the other that is open to any and all groups. Then, let us see how it works out.
Form-up? That’s not even a word in any dictionary. You’re just yapping away like a myna bird.
“Then, let us see how it works out.” Obviously a lack of education prevents you from knowing certain historical facts.
I’m intolerant of anyone who poses a threat to my family, friends and the future of my country. I believe them when they say they want to tear this country down.
In his Inaugural Address, Joe Biden passionately professed his dedication to “UNITY”. LOL
What does that have to do with Wydaho Roasters?
In his Inaugural Address, Joe Biden passionately professed his dedication to “UNITY”.
he was passionately expressing his dream of one day of having one brain that was capable of UNITY in thought
As Rodney King once said. . . .”Can’t we all get along?”
In the “rage” groups these days, it is those who can only see their reflection in a mirror that clouds their thinking.
“rage” groups? Yo make that up just now? What rage group do you id with?
You…sound angry.
You sound very angry….