Business owner refusing service to Trump supporters

[philosslayer]

There has been so much divisiveness in the two weeks since the presidential election, but an Albuquerque business is going a step further by refusing to have any dealings with Donald Trump supporters.

Matthew Blanchfield runs 1st in SEO, an Albuquerque-based internet marketing company. He's making his case pretty clear in a blog post, writing “if you are a Republican, voted for Donald Trump or support Donald Trump, in any manner, you are not welcome at 1st in SEO and we ask you to leave our firm."

In an interview with KOB Tuesday, Blanchfield said he has a moral obligation to stand up for what he believes is right and against injustice.

“It is my firm belief that we elected a fascist as our next president,” he said.

http://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/business-owner-refusing-service-president-elect-donald-trump-supporters-matthew-blanchfield-1st-in-seo-internet-marketing-company/4325531/


Best of luck to him. I hope his business thrives.

[HassleCat]

1. I sympathize, but he probably can't do that.

Violates the First Amendment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. No. The First Amendment applies to government actions,

not those of private entities; but there are state and federal public accommodation laws that prohibit private businesses from denying service on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Trump voters, however, aren't a protected class. So he probably can do that.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. Exactly n/t

[rzemanfl]

13. Until they get the law amended to protect the class of stupid assholes and leave others out. nt

Last edited Thu Nov 24, 2016, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

[Dustlawyer]

20. It's what the Cake Baker tried to do to the gay couple

except gays became a protected class. The Trumpsters not so much! Now some will know how it really feels to be discriminated against! Oh the irony!!!

[djg21]

41. No it doesn't.

We are talking about a private business, and not the Federal Government or a State.

The First Amendment precludes the Federal Government from impinging on rights such as speech, religion, association, assembly etc. It applies to States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A private business generally many elect to conduct business, or to not conduct business, with anyone it chooses. It's a free country!

A refusal of a private business to do business with a person or another business may violate anti-discrimination laws, or antitrust laws, or other laws depending on the circumstances. But such a decision would not implicate the First Amendment

[philosslayer]

3. You are under no compulsion to do business with Nazis

Rest assured

[HassleCat]

6. The aggrieved parties may sue him.

If a Jesus bakery can be punished for discriminating against gay men, I suspect this company could be sued for punishing Trumpets for their political associations. Also, there is no way to verify how somebody voted, so it seems shaky from the start. I expect some right wing legal foundation will ride to the rescue and harrass this guy, so he's going to have a rough ride even if he prevails legally.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Political party isn't a protected class though n/t

[forgotmylogin]

21. People can choose not to support Trump.

Unlike race or sexual orientation.

It's like "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

It's like not choosing to cover family planning or dispense the prescriptions or sign gay marriage licenses.

A Trump supporter could also just make sure that politics doesn't enter their business dealings.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. I know

Not sure what your point is - I agree that there is no reason the business owner can't do this.

[forgotmylogin]

24. Sorry, I was replying to the general "they can't do that" response.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. Ah, got it n/t

[djg21]

42. No.

An internet marketing firm is not a place of public accommodation, and being a dumbfuck doesn't make one a member of a protected class.

[Initech]

12. True. Where's Elwood and Jake when you need them?

Last edited Thu Nov 24, 2016, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

[mopinko]

30. elwood and jake.

??

[X_Digger]

7. The first amendment, and the second, and the third.. all of 'em -- only apply to the state.

It's not an abridgment of your free exercise of religion as protected by the first to say that if you start proselyting in my house, you can get the fuck right out.

I can also tell you to shut up for expressing political speech that I don't like. That has nothing to do with free speech.

You can't sue me for a fourth amendment violation if I root through your wallet or purse. (Your state's laws may have privacy protections, but they're not based in the 4th amendment.)

No, the bill of right and its protections are about protecting people from the government, not each other.

The preamble lays it out well:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Abuse of whose powers? Restrictive clauses against whom?

eta:
Specific rights are protected in private places of business by the Civil Rights Act II of 1964, and your employer has to make reasonable accommodations for your religious practices, and can't prohibit certain kinds of speech. But each of these cases depends on separate, specific legislation, not the bill of rights. Heck, for a large chunk of our country's history the BoR only applied to the federal government, not the state governments.

[mopinko]

31. it violates the interstate commerce clause,

was my understanding from the days of lunch counter protests.
but as said below, the man is free to put it out there and defend himself if he ends up in court.

[Feeling the Bern]

37. That is a very loose interpretation of the ICC.

I doubt it will stand muster. As for the sit ins at lunch protests. . .they were protesting for the 13th - 15th amendments. I doubt the ICC has merit here.

But I hope some dumb Trumper sues.

[whopis01]

38. No, it does not.

The Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between states (and with foreign nations and Indian tribes).

I think you are getting confused with the Civil Rights Act. The commerce clause was used to defend the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act. But the commerce clause itself gives no protections to people.

[mopinko]

40. i am just remembering a jfk joke.

about mrs somebody's boarding house, in the context of civil rights and lunch counters. maybe i am confused.

[Feeling the Bern]

36. All Trumpers will claim this, but the 1st amendment says "Congress shall pass no law. . .

It says nothing about private businesses, citizens or enterprises. Or as I tell people: "Your first amendment rights stop at my property line."

[Demsrule86]

43. No it does not...is is wise?

I don't know, but it is legal. People don't get what the first amendment means...it means you can not be dragged from your warm bed in the middle of the night by the government for your speech. The government can not stop you from saying oh Donald Trump is a fascist scum sucking piece of crap. However, you can get fired for saying it. You are not protected in the workplace...now private companies can not discriminate according to our law (so far) in the areas of racial , religious or sexual discrimination. But your boss can fire you because he does not like your politics if he/she chooses. Here on DU, people complain about 'free speech' sometimes but this is a private website and can require any rules it chooses.

[liberalla]

4. he'll probably get a lot of support and possibly more business.

i know that if i need a service or a product and i have a choice, i'll always choose to support the blue businesses.
good luck to him!

[alittlelark]

5. I live here and will do everything I can to support him....

Seriously.....

[ToxMarz]

8. I'm constantly being solicited by SEO companies

I ignore them, if they're looking for me it's because no one is looking for them. I may have to reach out to these guys.

[ailsagirl]

11. Remember in the hippie days?

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"

Time to resurrect that?

Just sayin'...

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Several times in life

I bought something from a business that didn't like me for some
reason, be it attitude, beard, indeterminate ethnicity ... they didn't
refuse to do business, they're always ready to take your money, but
they just underperformed in some way - spit on your car, or did a
shoddy job. That's where we're all headed .... sadly

[ailsagirl]

29. That's awful

[7962]

14. Wonderful to see discrimination rear its head in public, isnt it?

Thats what this is. And we're happily backing him? No, I'm not. This is WRONG.
When you open a business, you open it to serve the PUBLIC. This guy is an asshole.
If a business owner put up the same sign referring to Hillary voters, everyone here would be apoplectic. And rightfully so.

The proper way to do it would be to display a large sign showing his support for Hillary's campaign. Any Trumpers could then avoid his business on their own.

[hatrack]

23. As has been noted above, political affiliation is not a protected class

.

[7962]

26. Being "legal" doesnt make this right. Its discrimination.

Maybe not the type you could win a lawsuit over, but its still wrong for a business to do it.
As I said, if it were the reverse, we'd all be totally against that owner.
Its wrong to do this stupid shit in THIS country

[Statistical]

33. It is still wrong.

Single parents aren't a protected class. Short people aren't a protected class. Redheads aren't a protected class.

Would if be right or wrong to deny services to those people?

[HipHipHillary]

35. This is right

Show that you support Hillary and let the Trumpsters decide not to come in.
Trying to block Trump supporters makes this guy an asshole.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. A slippery slope

and akin to wedding cake denials, but since they did it to us, I don't
see why this guy can't do it if he likes

[LS_Editor]

16. You can't support this and complain about refusal of services to LGBT community.

Or other communities. That's hypocrisy.

[7962]

27. Apparently few here agree with you

But i do. its wrong regardless of "protected class" or group or whatever

[dembotoz]

32. ls i agree

guess the question is if he refuses service

[SCantiGOP]

18. Everybody missing the point

He said he was "asking" Trump supporters to stay away. He didn't say he would fire people or refuse service. He is just expressing his opinion in very strong terms.

[paleotn]

19. Hats off to them....

As long as they're not a protected class it's perfectly legal to do business with whomever you damn well please. Party affiliation or political views are not a protected class anywhere in this country. If such was passed by Congress, it would apply to all political affiliations or it would not pass constitutional muster.

[mountain grammy]

28. I wish him well, and completely agree.

It is also my firm belief that a minority of American voters elected a fascist as our next president.

[Statistical]

34. Sorry it is wrong.

Note I didn't say explicitly illegal but wrong.

Single parents are not a protected class. Would DU be cheering about a restaurant that had a sign which said:

"Unwed mothers and other whores are not welcome here. Please leave"?

I mean what happens when other businesses start doing the same thing. It is a race to the bottom and a more divisive intolerant future. I am not saying you need to invite your neighbor who voted for Trump to the BBQ but generally speaking a business which is a public accommodation is held to a higher standard.

I would point out for those saying "this is nothing like refusing service to people based on sexual orientation" .... IT IS EXACTLY LIKE THAT. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. There are some protections in some states but it isn't universal. Discrimination is wrong ... PERIOD.

[Demsrule86]

44. And they have been refused service...but you can not do it based on a person's sex...IE being female

I don't know if it wrong or not...bu it happens. My daughter is going for a job with a firm probably headed by a Trump supporter...you can be she won't discuss politics...if he knew hers he would not hire her. If he asks her...she will say she is not political probably...but it could cost her the job...no protection there wrong or right.

[louis c]

39. He couldn't do it if there was a union contract

Ironic, isn't it? The assholes who voted for Trump are protected by the entity that the Republicans want to destroy. If they are employees at will (non-union) they can be terminated "without cause".