Aggregator

"This Is My Place Of Business": How Cakes And Coffee Continue To Be Groundzero In An Age Of Rage

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
"This Is My Place Of Business": How Cakes And Coffee Continue To Be Groundzero In An Age Of Rage

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

"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." He is a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 11:20
Tyler Durden

Rabobank: Bessent's Buyback Looks A Lot Like "Whatever It Takes", And Druck Isn't A Fan

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Rabobank: Bessent's Buyback Looks A Lot Like "Whatever It Takes", And Druck Isn't A Fan

By Michael Every of Rabobank

US Treasury Secretary Bessent took out a tactical nuke in saying he could use $1trn from the Treasury General Account to fund Special Military Operation Twist bond buybacks vs. the $2bn per round increase we saw last week. That looks a lot like the ‘Whatever It Takes’ mentioned yesterday: his former mentor Stan Druckenmiller is not a fan, apparently.

He also launched ‘Operation Economic Outcast’ to isolate and squeeze Iran further on top of US sanctions and a blockade against its oil. Those helping Iran will face secondary sanctions escalating to their removal from the US dollar system, as nuclear a weapon as financial warfare can wield. However, when asked why he didn’t impose them immediately, Bessent replied, “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?” He will first try to persuade key parties to walk away from Iran: yet some have real nuclear weapons and others control rare earths and global supply chains. The stakes here are therefore sky high, unless this is a bluff.

Tehran said it would retaliate to sanctions by land, sea, air, or cyber-attacks; trolled it might kill Barron Trump, as Israeli PM Netanyahu claimed it had threatened one his sons too; continued to threaten ships transiting Hormuz; the Houthis struck a Saudi tanker in the Red Sea, which neither Egypt nor Turkey responded to; the Saudis held talks about a state-backed war insurance plan for shipping like the US one that didn’t work; China sent PLA jets to drill alongside Egypt’s; China reported it has boosted coal's economic value by 700% after turning it to liquids, underlining it’s much more energy secure than before; a US defence start-up is making thousands of drone interceptors in the UAE for $5,000, cheaper than Iranian attack drones; and Greece warned Turkey against violating its “sovereign rights” and vowed to respond from a “position of strength.”

In Ukraine, EU leaders, and no US representative, offered help to Kyiv as it faces another €23n defense funding hole, albeit managing to hit Russia's Afipsky oil refinery as well as another e-commerce giant. Russia threatened to hit UK factories making defence parts for Ukraine.

Trump may impose a 7.5% ‘overcapacity’ tariff on China ahead of the Xi state visit, clearly a negotiating card. He will also raise the tariff on Canadian autos and trucks from 25% to 50% from 1 January in response to PM Carney’s ‘elbows up’. Ottawa now faces the choice of matching those tariffs, retreating, or doing what those who oppose tariffs as self-harm never do: slash their levies and enjoy cheap imports replacing local production. Alberta Premier Smith, where a vote on a secession referendum looms in October, had to stress it’s “not viable” to cut off energy exports to the US; and with warnings US-Canada trade war could affect their defence relationship, Carney said he will begin negotiations with the EU about deepening trade and defence relations.

That makes political but not geostrategic sense. Canada isn’t in Europe so can’t join the EU, but if it were to enter a customs union it would surrender sovereignty: and would Europe buy Canadian cars, trucks, planes, agri products, or its fossil fuels given plans to decarbonise? They’d like its critical minerals, but can buy them now. Canada would be sending its goods to a bloc far away over seas neither it nor the EU have the navies to protect, as both are defense under-spenders relative to their huge needs. Both rely on the US for defense and, increasingly, for AI. Yet both assume a benign US stance if they push ahead without it, strategically, even while saying they are doing so because they don’t see the US as benign. That logical inconsistency implies either the strategy is hollow, or will need filling with a greater shift to economic statecraft replete with risks.

Equally, some may picture a ‘blue’ bloc from Canada to Armenia as Yerevan said it will hold a referendum on EU membership soon, shifting the bloc further east and Russia-EU tensions higher. UK PM Burnham also made more mandate-free noises about rejoining in the future. 

Yet Politico underlines the German AfD -- cosy with the Kremlin and wishing to leave the euro and Schengen -- will win the 6 September state election in Saxony-Anhalt. The plan to deal with that ranges from ignoring to defunding Saxony to banning the AfD: are those a basis for long-term political stability? In early 2027, France then has a presidential election that could pit nationalist Le Pen vs. leftist Melenchon: both want to tear norms up, the latter to tear French debt up too. What’s the correct interest rate or FTA for these kinds of structural problems?

The new Rhine Group think tank led by Draghi states that for the EU, “The stakes are existential.” It underlines, “Europe is in a harder place than when the future of European competitiveness report was released… If stagnation continues, the continent will progressively lose the ability to fund the core obligations of a modern state: defence, public healthcare, pensions, education, climate investments, and safety nets for those who lose their jobs… Decline is not inevitable, but it is the direction we are heading unless we take urgent action.” The warning that “slow agony” lay ahead without radical, rapid EU change failed to produce anything much: will this report do the trick?

Meanwhile, showing how the world now works, the US(!) is opening up Venezuela’s telecom sector while excluding Chinese firms, as Fortune magazine floats the idea of the country adopting the US dollar.

In the US, the Supreme Court issued a ruling with potentially huge consequences. It has allowed, for now, a Trump executive order to proceed which strictly monitors mail-in voting and requires tighter control of who is listed as a voter and the envelopes used to do, at a time when the president has quietly asserted control over the postal service, according to the New York Times. Those making market, or geostrategic, gambles on midterm outcomes assuming that the magical mystery tour of mail-in votes will be cast in the same way they have may be in for a surprise – or so Republicans seem to feel. 

The Trump admin also proposed a staggering $103,000 fee for H-1B visas, effectively shutting off that avenue for all but the highest-earning immigrants, and is preparing to revoke the visas of up to 200K foreigners in largest mass action ever. That looks like a midterm-focused policy.

In short, there is a lot of economic outcasting going on right now. It’s just not clear who is going to be in and who is going to be out, and with whom, when the dust settles – and we can expect serious dustups in that process.

None of that mattered to the RBA’s majorly monomaniacal meeting minutes, which showed that it left rates on hold on the view that inflation was easing and so was the tight labour market. All of the above backdrop was cast out of that forecast, as is the case with other central banks. To be fair, how does one include it? To be just as fair, how can one exclude it? Maybe Warsh will have something to say on not saying anything about that on Friday.  

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 10:40
Tyler Durden

zero rss