New York Judge Rules It Is Legal to Refuse Service to Trump Supporters

Business, Donald Trump, Employment, Rundown, US Politics

There is always outrage when a Christian baker, florist or photographer refuses to provide their services for a same-sex wedding. Various state anti-discrimination laws have ruined Christian wedding businesses with large fines and legal fees, and also led to many others receiving abuse from LGBT activists.

The issue is now before the US Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a saga which began in 2012 when  Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. They were then sued under Colorado state law which bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. The Court is considering if the law violates the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

But businesses being forced to serve people whose beliefs/lifestyles they disagree with would appear to only go one way. Since the election of Trump, his supporters have found themselves the target of abuse and discrimination. Trump supporters are easily recognisable in public, proudly wearing the iconic Make America Great Again caps.

The wearing of this cap got one Trump supporter Greg Piatek, 31 kicked out of New York City bar The Happiest Hour after Trump’s inauguration. After receiving rude service from a bartender they were formally asked to leave by a senior staff member who told them “Anyone who supports Trump — or believes in what you believe — is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!”

Piatek decided to sue the bar in the Manhattan Supreme Court claiming they “offended his sense of being American”. The lawyer for The Happiest Hour argued the eviction was lawful because state and city anti-discrimination laws only protect religion, not political belief. The judge hearing this case agreed and dismissed Piatek’s case proclaiming that “Here the claim that plaintiff was not served and eventually escorted out of the bar because of his perceived support for President Trump is not outrageous conduct”.

This ruling could have ramifications around the United States and could mean that Trump supporters may have to hide their political beliefs for fear of falling afoul of their employer or dealings with other businesses.

A similar ruling was made in Australia in the past week, the Fair Work Ombudsman ruled that a Canberra party business did not break any workplace laws when it ended its relationship with contractor Madeline when she posted a Facebook frame on her profile picture of ‘It’s okay to vote no’ during the Marriage Law Postal Survey. The Ombudsman ruled that political opinion was not a protected attribute under Australian law.

This disparity between discrimination laws based on traditional left and right wing attributes does appear to be a double standard and an example of one rule for some and another for others. Surely our society has to decide if all workplace/business discrimination is wrong or the classical liberal principle of freedom of association should reign supreme.

*Update: A representative for the bar “The Happiest Hour” sent the following statement to The Unshackaled:
“At the Happiest Hour we firmly support womens’ rights, marriage equality, gun control, the environment, and regard for the truth- we don’t discriminate. What’s gotten lost in this story is that the guest wasn’t kicked out because he was wearing a Trump hat- he was asked to leave after being verbally abusive to our staff, which is something we don’t tolerate regardless of who you are. And this is after he spent almost $200- the 20% tip he left would seem to indicate he was satisfied with the service he received.”

  • Caleb Leung

    Wow, talk about double standards America.

    • dunstvangeet

      Not really. The protected classes for Public Accommodations Law in New York are: “race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability or marital status”. So, which one of those classes is being a Trump Supporter?

      • Caleb Leung

        The biggest concern is that these two gay couples claim that ‘when the business is open to the public, they need to serve everyone equally’. You see the key word is ‘everyone’ here. So if the public accommodation law states only certain groups get protected and everyone else that doesn’t fall in any of those categories don’t which is clearly not the ‘diverse’ society the left is trying to create.

        So either business have to be forced to serve everyone or they get to choose not to serve anyone at all. I’m fine with either extremes but don’t put parameters to protect who does and doesn’t have right to protection and call it ‘justice’ . If a shop won’t serve men or people like me for whatever reason, I’ll say fine, i’ll go somewhere else and let them go out of business. That’s how a free market should work.

        • dunstvangeet

          Actually, everybody is protected for those reasons. Even a WASP, each one of those is a protected class. White (Race), Anglo-Saxon (National Origin), Prostantant (Religion). Nobody can be refused service on any of those basis. Everybody is covered by every one of those classes, as everybody has everyone of them. Yes, they usually are enforced to protect minorities more than majorities, but that’s usually because the majority doesn’t get discriminated against.

      • Just Saying

        So, I can kick Democrats out of my business,because I think the Clintons are an odious and morally bankrupt family then ?

        • dunstvangeet

          Actually, yes. But since there are more Democrats in America than Republicans, you’d be kicking out about 35% of people, on average. Can your business really stand a 35% drop in business?

          • Just Saying

            Why the second paragraph?

          • dunstvangeet

            Blacks vote 95% Democrat. So, if you’re using that fact to discriminate against them as a stand-in for race, then you’re still discriminating on the basis of race, instead of political affiliation, which would be illegal.

            For instance, you can discriminate against people wearing hats, as long as you’re not using it as a stand-in for something else. If you only discriminate against people wearing yarmulkes, then that is discriminating against race/religion, as it is an obvious stand-in for discrimination against race/religion.

            So, if you go, “I’m not going to serve black people, because they voted for Hillary Clinton”, that’s illegal. You’d have to be very careful on how you reject someone.

          • Just Saying

            So, very interesting.

  • RealMcCoy

    Trump supporters aren’t a protected class. They have a CHOICE. Homosexuals and people of color don’t CHOOSE to be gay or P.O.C. See the difference?

    • Malcolm Smith

      People do not choose the colour of their skin, but they do choose their sexual behaviour. Believe it or not, nobody, either heterosexual or homosexual is forced to have sex. Everybody is capable of chastity. However, that is beside the point, because the cases in question do not involve refusing to serve homosexuals, but a refusal to assist in their activities.

      • RealMcCoy

        Actually, baking a cake for a wedding is no more “assisting in activities” than selling them a bag of rice to throw as they come out after the ceremony. Stop being such a complete and utter moron and pretending this is about anything except using religion to cover your hatred and bigotry. Nobody “chooses” their sexuality.

        • Malcolm Smith

          Actually, selling a bag of rice is assisting in the activity, but people normally buy rice without any saying what it is for. If there are generic wedding cakes sitting on the shelf, people will just walk in and buy it without further ado. But when you ask someone to plan, design, and handcraft a cake, you are insisting they assist in the ceremony, just as if they had ordered a made-to-measure wedding dress.
          Also, you obviously missed the point that everyone is capable of chastity. But I never mentioned religion or hatred, and “bigotry” is just an insult used by hate-mongers against people they disagree with. An insult is not an argument. So stop being such a complete and utter moron and pretending this is about anything except anti-religious bigotry and hatred, along with the promotion of unchastity.

      • dunstvangeet

        The Christian Legal Society tried a similar argument in their case, claiming that they weren’t actually discriminating against gay people, but on the belief that gay conduct is wrong. They lost that case in the Supreme Court.

        • Malcolm Smith

          So what, that only proves that the Supreme Court was wrong, both legally and morally.

      • RealMcCoy

        When did you CHOOSE to be straight?? I didn’t. I did not have a choice in whether I found men or women sexually attractive. Stop promoting your inane belief that gays “choose” to be gay. Your argument is nonsensical and the rest of the world knows it.

        • Malcolm Smith

          Once more, you are confusing temptation with behaviour. People do not choose to “be” straight, be they do choose to be chaste ie not have sex with anyone except their lawful wedded spouse. I can’t see why gays are not capable of the same self-control.

          • RealMcCoy

            Ah, but YOU do not want them to MARRY, and don’t want to even sell them a wedding cake if they DO. What you have said has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the issue, here. People can choose to be chaste until they marry, but you want to prevent them from marrying, thereby forcing them to be chaste their entire lives. Unless they’re straight, in which case, you’re more than happy to sell them condoms, lube, whatever, even if they aren’t married. Stop prevaricating. What you want to do is to legally be allowed to discriminate against people for their sexual identities.

          • Malcolm Smith

            “Unless they’re straight, in which case, you’re more than happy to sell them condoms, lube, whatever, even if they aren’t married.”
            Did I say any such thing? I consider that unchastity in heterosexuals has produced far more social evils than homosexual activity. But you don’t fix the problem by defining a non-marriage as a marriage, and calling a same-sex union a marriage is the same as passing a law saying that two nuts or two screws can form a bolt.
            It should also be noted that, throughout history, a large proportion of the population has been unable to marry – through mental disorder (such as this), physical illness, religious vocation, poverty, family responsibility, geographic isolation, or simply being unlucky in love. As I belonged to the last category for my first 50 years, I do not regard chastity as a difficult virtue.
            However, it is my observation that the current campaign for homosexuality is part of a much bigger campaign: that of total sexual licence. Are you prepared to disabuse me of that view? Can you list any sexual activity between consenting adults which meets your disapproval?

          • RealMcCoy

            I don’t consider sexual activity between consenting adults to be any of my farking business. I guess that is really where we differ, Malcolm.

    • Just Saying

      Discrimination is discrimination no matter what. It’s a two edged sword, and just because you have self interested judges making rules up does not mean that the decision is correct or fair.

      • RealMcCoy

        Your inability to understand the distinction between a protected and non-protected class has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. Sucks to be you, I guess.

  • Malcolm Smith

    The Queensland Labor Government added “political opinion” to the list of protected classes. I knew this would eventually end up rebounding on members of the left. Last year a pub was successfully sued for refusing to allow its premises to be used to promote an anti-Islamic group.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5041597/Pub-ordered-pay-compensation-anti-Islamic-party-founder.html
    For your information, I think the political opinions of the anti-Islamic group were correct, but since the pub’s management didn’t agree with them, they were within their rights to refuse them.