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.”
They Weren’t Just ‘Customers’
Hawkins told Fox News Digital a group of about 15 people had gathered at the café to discuss a prospective ballot measure that would legalize abortion up to 24 weeks in Idaho, where most abortions are currently illegal.
Her 16-year-old son, Bear, a fellow with Students for Life, organized the gathering to recruit local volunteers.
Video footage shows Sheehan telling the group to meet at the public library instead.
He said he had politely asked the group on Facebook the day prior not to use his business for their meeting.
“Sunday she announced on a local community page they were holding this meeting at our business, naming it — I responded to the post politely asking them not to use our business as the agenda of the organization does not align with us,” Sheehan told Fox News Digital. “They showed up anyway.”
https://nypost.com/2026/08/20/business/idaho-coffee-shop-owner-defends-making-pro-life-group-leave-after-nonstop-death-threats/
………………………………………….
Turley linked this article from the NY/Calif Post in the hope that no one would actually read it.
The article reveals that the gathering WASN’T just random customers stopping for coffee. The meeting had been organized, on Facebook, the day before, naming the coffee shop as the designated meeting place.
Coffee Shop co-owner, Mr Sheehan, first learned of the meeting on Facebook and politely asked the group to NOT include his business.
Mr Sheehan and his wife are actually pro-choice liberals supporting the ballot measure to expand reproductive rights. Therefore, it appears this group deliberately chose the Sheehan’s coffee shop out of spite; a fact that Turley never, ever mentions!!
You leave out relevant information. It’s not a small place. It’s a large place where other political groups regularly meet. It’s not like this was unusual, the only difference is that the cause was pro-life, a cause he disagreed with.
it appears this group deliberately chose the Sheehan’s coffee shop out of spite
That’s your own paranoid delusions. You provide no evidence of that. It’s a commonly-used meeting place.
Unless there were 1000 chairs, a boisterous even 15 out-of-place rabble rousers would make a large disruption.
What better place to hold a Nazi rally to make it to the news. If they are ignored, they recruit more for an even larger disruption the next week. Or this.
Business and religion should not mix. If someone is in business to sell cakes, coffee, sandwiches, lasagne or whatever, they should not be allowed to refuse service to any member of public on the basis of their religion. Period. A cake emporium, coffee shop, restaurant or other business open to the public for business is not a religious institution or a forum for free speech. It seems to me that if the cake shop owner can lawfully discriminate against a same-sex couple and refuse to bake a cake to celebrate their marriage because it offends his religion, then the owner of a coffee shop should be allowed to discriminate against right-wingers who hold values with whom he disagrees. Contrary to Turley’s efforts to draw a distinction, there really isn’t one.
Meanwhile, if Turley wants to talk about freedom of speech, he should cover Pentagon Pete’s latest effort to dictate what is written about the military. First he barred reporters from the Pentagon who refused to sign an agreement to only publish information that the Pentagon first approved. Even Fox News balked at that, so their Pentagon press credentials were pulled. Now, he has fired the editor and staff of “Stars and Stripes” for daring to publish information he doesn’t like. Commentary from various sources (cited):
“Stars and Stripes has long maintained editorial independence despite being funded by the Department of Defense. Critics say the firings and recent policy changes — such as removing a decades-old regulation from the Code of Federal Regulations that protected its independence — threaten that autonomy
Broader Context
Recent Policy Changes: In January 2026, the Pentagon announced plans to “modernize” Stars and Stripes, which included restricting certain content, eliminating comics, and removing the Ombudsman position created by Congress in 1991 to monitor threats to free news flow. Military.com.
Legal Action: A federal lawsuit filed in June 2026 by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Suki Dardarian and Bill Church alleges the Pentagon violated the Administrative Procedure Act by removing independence protections without public notice. Military.com
Political Pressure: Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal have demanded an explanation for assigning an active-duty Public Affairs officer to a senior role at Stars and Stripes, warning it could undermine editorial independence. Radar Online
Reactions
Press Freedom Advocates: Groups like the National Press Club have condemned the firings as an attempt to dictate military coverage and called for reversal. US News
Stars and Stripes Staff: Korte said her CBS comments were simply reaffirming the Pentagon’s own stated independence, and that she had not been stopped from reporting as usual.
KNAU Arizona Public Radio
Public Concern: The controversy follows a history of Pentagon interventions in military media, including during the Trump administration, and has reignited debates over the role of government-funded outlets in protecting free speech. Devdiscourse.
Business and religion should not mix. If someone is in business to sell cakes, coffee, sandwiches, lasagne or whatever, they should not be allowed to refuse service to any member of public on the basis of their religion.
It would be hard to dream up a more unamerican statement. And it is yet more evidence that the Left’s instincts are always totalitarian.
Religious people are allowed to participate in the marketplace without forfeiting their right to act consistent with their religious beliefs. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The citizens are protected by 1A from government-compelled speech. The idea that if they don’t speak contrary to their religion, as the state directs them to do, they must be run out of the marketplace on a rail . . . is fascist to the core.
Business and religion should not mix. If someone is in business to sell cakes, coffee, sandwiches, lasagne or whatever, they should not be allowed to refuse service to any member of public on the basis of their religion.
It’s also a knowing misrepresentation of the facts by Gigi the liar. As Professor Turley points out as clear as day, Smith did not refuse service to anyone. He only refused to create an expression of ideas that he disagreed with.
What a stupd effort to draw a distinction. Smith DID refuse service based on HIS religion. If a business is open to the public, the entire public should be welcome–all races, genders, sexual orientations–whatever. If you don’t want to serve all members of the public, then don’t go into business. Go practice your religion in your church or home–but not in a bakery or, for example, a mechanic shop, bodega, gas station, dry cleaners or any other type of business. Using your logic, someone like Smith could deny service to a gay person because he believes that a gay person doesn’t deserve to have his car fixed, buy food, buy gas, or get his clothes cleaned because they are “sinners” or whatever negative connotation his religion dictates. That is ludicrious and discriminatory against people who don’t share his religious beliefs.
Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States. A decorated cake is NOT an “expression of ideas”–it is an item of food used to celebrate occasions, like birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, retirement, and marriages of all kinds, including same-sex. Based on his religion, Smith refused to provide a wedding cake because he thinks he’s entitled to use his religion to punish potential customers for choosing a same-sex partner, as if he not only has some right to an “opinion” that these people should not be allowed to marry, and therefore, that they don’t deserve a cake baked by him. The government is no longer allow to dictate who someone is entitled to love and marry or punish them if their choice is same-sex, and neither is Smith. What is done with a wedding cake is none of the baker’s business. His business is to produce a quality decorated cake to anyone who wants to buy one.
The blog’s Deceptive one states:
JT “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.”
This is a good example of how manipulators deceive you by dishonestly framing an issue. The issue is *not* whether Leftist groups support the two business *owners* (hair and coffee). The issue is that Leftist groups support Leftist customers, but not Conservative customers. *That* is their hypocrisy. That is their unprincipled activism.
Leftist groups that support the *customers* of Masterpiece (cake) and 303 Creative (website): The ACLU national and state, Lambda Legal, NAACP, Southern Poverty Law Center, League of Women Voters, and countless state LGB . . . groups. (And that just a partial list.)
And yet when it comes to *customers* of businesses pushing Leftist causes, those Leftist groups are MIA. (Which also proves that the Deceiver’s last sentence is a lie.)
Good catch, Sam. Also the issue has never been whether alleged civil rights organizations “celebrate” anyone’s actions. That is not the business they’re in. They don’t go around throwing parties celebrating one side or another. The blog liar you called out is simply acting consistent with his nature: every word out of his mouth is a lie.
Sam,
“Which also proves that the Deceiver’s last sentence is a lie.”
The Deceiver is lying? Say it is not so! I thought he was incapable of lying! Or of using AI.
All the more reason to just scroll past.
While I wouldn’t purposely antagonize someone with a mental illness, such as gender dysphoria, I certainly don’t feel obligated to validate a delusion. It’s clear that for many with gender dysphoria, and their enablers, this is insufficient, that I must address someone by their preferred pronouns; merely avoiding gender identifiers is insufficient.
This brings up the core issue for me: who owns pronouns? Clearly they believe they own “their” pronouns. But in my world, the pronoun choice is mine, part of my free speech rights. Why would someone demand that I use their choice of pronouns? If I’m a bad person for not acceding to their pronoun demands, wouldn’t they prefer to know that about me? The only reason I can think of is that they hope by forced repetition, I will eventually deny my reality and accept theirs.
The opposite of free speech is compelled speech.
“The only reason I can think of is that they hope by forced repetition, I will eventually deny my reality and accept theirs.”
Or at least pretend to.
Very well said.
What a great opportunity for a small business owner:
America Last Racists and Bigots Only Club
(BYOB Kryptie and STDs)
Oh what? There’s already a group like that?
The Democratic National Party
???
Cannot businesses hang a sign (akin to “No shirt No service”) that says “No Making Enemies or Babies on the Premises”
Or, “This is not a Public Forum. Keep your personal views to yourself.”
Or, “Service Provided to All. Agreement or Political Conversation Provided to None.”
Or, “Verbal Exchange Limited to Requested Service or the Weather.”
you get the idea, n’est ce pas?
Iowa is now in play for Democrats in large part because there is a major feeling of betrayal by the state’s farmers aimed at President Donald Trump.
Iowa Farmers’ Union President Aaron Lehman bluntly stated that the president’s policies, including a new plan to bring in imported beef, are doing nothing to help them out of their financial straits and are only making matters worse.
The exasperated Lehman said, “It’s ridiculous that when so many farmers are under economic stress to make it easier for cheaper product to come into our country from overseas.”
“It doesn’t help our farmers at all. In fact, it puts us at a huge disadvantage. It’s a huge move in the wrong direction,” said Lehman.
^ Yet another anonymous puppet, yammering about irrelevant stuff, and spreading Chinese Communist propaganda ^
The puppets are mostly ‘Anonymous’ today.
JT loves to cover any and all miss steps of those on the left. How about the trump administration?
Credible accusations that DJT is a pedophile
Tariffs that are illegal.
War that is illegal.
Killing school girls in their school with a missile, war crime.
Killing people in boats off South America, war crime.
And now, finally contempt charges?
https://www.alternet.org/trump-dhs-2677769922/
But Muh! Trump!
Don’t you even get bored of yourself?
Because that is called a straw man argument, and not the subject at hand.
War that is illegal
******************
Tell that to JFK & LBJ. Plus Clinton and O-dumber.
Little late for the game fool.
“… some owners are sure to put their political views before their profits.”
The Owner(s) need only to post: No one under the Age of 21 (or 18 whatever the States legal adult statue) Allowed.
Bars & Club, Adult Book stores do it, so why not Coffee Shops.
OT
“DeSantis, who helped remold Florida from the nation’s largest swing state to one dominated by Republicans, stayed on the sidelines for the primary. He declined to endorse a successor, including his own hand-picked lieutenant governor who ran in the race, and even early on criticized Rep. Byron Donalds, who won the GOP primary for governor. DeSantis didn’t campaign for anyone and he also didn’t attend the traditional GOP post primary rally held this week, which the party uses to highlight their ticket to bolster their chances in November.”
– Politico
____________
I thought there were patriotic conservative Americans in Florida. Will American voters give Florida away too? Looks like the governor could be very Jolly in November.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“On primary night, Jolly’s campaign circulated a memo from a poll by Hart Research, a firm that since 1989 has served as the Democratic pollster for the bipartisan NBC News Poll. It polled 600 likely Florida voters in mid-August and found that Donalds had higher negative ratings (43%) than positive (about 40%). Jolly, the poll said, had 20% negative ratings and 30% positive.
“This is after, the firm noted, Donalds spent more than $50 million, at least five times what any of his opponents spent.”
– Tampa Bay Times
Boxing legend Oscar De La Hoya had nothing good to say about a round of golf with President Donald Trump, accusing him of cheating in multiple ways.
De La Hoya said the president repeatedly bent the rules in his favor during a round they played.
The former professional boxer, who won belts at the super featherweight, lightweight, light welterweight, light middleweight and middleweight classes, recalled Trump moving his ball from the rough and onto the fairway. He also says the president did not count shots that landed in the water.
“It was unbelievable,” De La Hoya explained in an interview. “Golf is a gentleman’s sport. You don’t lie about your score; you don’t lie about moving your ball. It goes to show what we’re dealing with.”
Cheaters cheat.
At every chance they get.
At everything.
Cheats, lies, steals, rapes, defrauds… this is the list that never ends…
You forgot, “WINS ELECTIONS,” Einstein!
One would think that a law professor would understand the difference between a protected characteristic such as sexual orientation (in many states) and being a shit bigot which is unprotected.
The professor understands all of that. What part of the article are you referring to? He also understands the meaning of the First Amendment and how it protects against compelled speech. Jack Smith was willing to sell cakes to anyone. The one thing he refused to do is to create an expression of ideas that he disagreed with. I would think anyone who values freedom from dictatorship would favor the First Amendment protecting the citizens from being compelled by the state to express ideas they disagree with.
Freaks of nature have the right and freedom to be freaks. The owners of private property may deny access as trespass etc. Americans are free to hold the opinion that freaks of nature are freaks of nature and that women should have babies and make more Americans. Undefinable biological entities that are incoherent and hysterical are protected, as are all citizens. The Greeks did not allow women to vote when they created democracy in 508 B.C. for good and obvious reasons.
Why don’t you enlighten us all? A protected sexual characteristic?
If anyone understands shit, it’s our gal Sal.
So Sally I have to ask you, does being a citizen of Israel automatically make one a “sh*t Bigot” or does it take something like, oh you know, EVIDENCE of bigoted actions or speech?
Or better yet, is being Jewish make one a “sh*t bigot”? If so I believe that makes you a “sh*t bigot”. You flaming a**hole.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, as you say, illegal in some states. So is discrimination on the basis of political opinion. In Idaho neither of these is illegal, so a business may refuse to serve both gays and Democrats, if it likes.
The KKK were Pro-Choice. They were DEIsts (i.e. bloc ideologues), specifically racist.
Human life begins at conception. It’s viable around six weeks. The same time that homos are believed to trans genders.
Elective abortion is a wicked solution to abort lives deemed a “burden” of state, State. It is a human rite performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. It is an integral Choice under RAAT doctrine and policy.
Babies at six weeks’ gestation are NOT viable outside the womb. Not that that should make any difference, but it’s a fact, and it’s wrong to misrepresent facts.
For that matter, babies six weeks after birth are still not “viable” — they’ll die without care. I don’t see how that’s different from being “not viable” without being in a womb.
That’s a good point. Viability outside the womb is irrelevant to personhood. Otherwise personhood would depend on the present state of the art in medical technology, which changes over time. Personhood is an inherent characteristic of a living human being, it does not depend on external factors.
After many years of reading Professor Turley’s articles, I am still somewhat surprised at the number of commenters who justify their differing viewpoints by leaning on personally attacking him.
I think high schools should bring back debate class—teach teens how to defend their viewpoint in an articulate way!
I sent my kids to a private classical school for a while.* One class they had to take was called informal logic (formal logic being a branch of math). It dealt with these types of arguments – how to make a good one, and what types of arguments were weak, such as attacking the person rather than the substance of the issue. The school my kids attended happened to be a Christian school, but informal logic is not a religious subject and it could (and should) be taught in any private or public school.
*Classical school means it was based on the classical pedagogy called the trivium (three ways) – grammar, logic, and rhetoric. In classical terms, grammar means getting the basic building blocks down (elementary school), logic is about thinking skillfully (middle school), and rhetoric is about communicating skillfully (high school).
Were the “group of pro-life teenagers” wearing”Lets Go Brandon” Tee shirts?
What ever happened to the High Schoolers that brandish the “Lets Go Brandon” Tee shirts?
Did the Adults of the School ever get punished and records made for creating the Life Tracking “incident-reports” of these Children’s lives?
NO – They just ruin there lives and eventually collect their School System retirement. AS if they did nothing wrong.
Tracking (Permanent Profiling) of these “teenagers” (Kids) is the issue that ruined there future. Stupid Adults need to pay for their ridiculous opinionated-claims.
They are not mistakes, they are the ones that do the ‘branding-for-life’ of a Child.
“Take only an Eye for an Eye” and these Kids are going to grow up to do just that someday. These Adults ‘took-Life-away-from-Them’ by placing them in a profiled-tracking category. They will grow up to ‘take-Life-away-from-Them (The Adults that did the deed)’.
What goes around will come around eventually.
Sheehan has drawn national attention after throwing out a group of pro-life teenagers, calling them the equivalent of a Ku Klux Klan
Pro-lifers believe unborn children are human beings and, as such, deserve protection from being killed. The KKK, by contrast, seeks to exclude particular groups of people from such protections – and in fact, in many cases it has been about causing the deaths of those people. So basically, in terms of their beliefs on protecting vulnerable segments of the population from violence and death, pro-life and KKK are opposite. The former liberal-Democrat governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, Sr., was adamantly pro-life due to his liberal political belief that people should be protected from violence and death. He was the real deal, and so he was popular even among Democrats in PA.
On the race issue, it can also be noted that while African American women comprise about 14% of all women, they account for about 35% of all abortions, and nearly 50% of their unplanned pregnancies end in abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Planned Parenthood knows this and often sets up shop in minority neighborhoods of cities. Pro-lifers consistently favor the protection of life for unborn children of all races.
Dear Mr. Turley, we have two small “Mom and Pop” businesses. Sometimes we have had to ask folks to leave the premises. Not due to political considerations but because they were causing a ruckus. This is our standard: if someone is disruptive, then we ask them to please leave. They will protest of course, but we have to stand firm. Only a couple of times did we feel the need to call the authorities. Most of the time they will leave on their own. The best course of action for the coffee shop would have been to serve the people and get them on their way as quickly as possible. It did not sound like the customers were going to make any kind of “scene”. The coffee shop owner may have been impressed by the courteous behavior of these folks!!
A business owner may be able to boot out people for political views. But they cannot boot out Jews or Israelis because that is based national origin or religion. It is exactly the same as booting blacks out of your lunch place in the 60s.
Indeed. And that is federal law, so it applies in all states and cities.
Boy oh boy Ben looks pissed. All it has to with is TV ratings. This is going hit the spot.