In an era marked by the rise of extremist groups, business owners are increasingly challenged to champion diversity, ensure the safety of both employees and customers, and safeguard their brand image from potential associations with bigotry. This climate has ignited crucial questions about the legal boundaries of businesses refusing service to customers based on discriminatory viewpoints. As contentious gatherings, such as white supremacist rallies, become more frequent, understanding these boundaries is paramount. Businesses, particularly restaurants and public accommodations, possess valid arguments for lawfully denying entry or service to individuals visibly linked to hate groups.
Understanding the DC Human Rights Act
Federal law in the United States currently lacks explicit prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations based on ideology. Consequently, individuals denied service due to their anti-diversity stances must often rely on local legislation. In Washington, D.C., the Human Rights Act, specifically Section 2–1402.31(a), offers some protection. This act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and employment based on “political affiliation,” among other factors. Crucially, “political affiliation” is narrowly defined as “the state of belonging to or endorsing any political party,” requiring a formal party connection, not just a general political viewpoint.
Both the D.C. Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia have interpreted “political party” according to its common understanding – an entity that nominates candidates for public office. This interpretation led the D.C. Court of Appeals to rule that a private club in the District was within its rights to expel a member known to be associated with the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization.
Furthermore, legal precedent supports a business’s right to refuse service based on an individual’s “political” conduct. For instance, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld a local university’s decision to demote a diversity officer who signed a petition against same-sex marriage, finding no violation of the DC Human Rights Act.
Therefore, D.C. law, as interpreted by the courts, does not appear to restrict businesses from “discriminating” against customers based on their white supremacist views, organizational affiliations, or political actions. Public accommodations in D.C. have a legal basis to exclude both individuals and organizations associated with hate ideologies.
Legal Landscape in Virginia and Maryland
Outside of Washington D.C., in neighboring Virginia and Maryland, legal protections regarding political ideology, conduct, or affiliation are less prevalent. Neither Virginia nor Maryland state laws prohibit public accommodation discrimination based on political ideology or affiliation. The exception in the immediate vicinity is Prince George’s County, Maryland. Section 2-220 of the County Code prohibits public accommodation discrimination based on “political opinion.” However, Section 2-186(a)(15) defines “political opinion” as opinions related to government, governmental conduct, or political parties authorized to participate in Maryland primary elections. In Prince George’s County, a business excluding a hate organization or member should emphasize that the exclusion is based on their discriminatory views or actions targeting protected groups (race, etc.), not merely on political opinion.
Alternative Actions for Businesses
Beyond the legal right to refuse service, business owners have compelling public relations and ethical reasons to distance themselves from patrons strongly linked to extremist rallies. These individuals can pose safety risks to other customers and employees, particularly those targeted by hate groups. Even without overt violence, their association with extremist movements can create a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere. Businesses also risk negative media attention if they are perceived as tolerant of hate groups. Fundamentally, a business and its leadership may find it morally repugnant to serve individuals whose discriminatory beliefs directly contradict the company’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.
To navigate these complex situations, businesses should consider proactive strategies:
-
Develop Identification Protocols: Businesses should train employees to recognize indicators that may suggest a patron should be asked to leave. This might include specific clothing or paraphernalia associated with hate groups. Establishing a hotline to a designated corporate resource can provide on-the-ground managers with immediate support and guidance when facing difficult situations.
-
Employee Training for Sensitive Interactions: Training employees who may need to refuse service is crucial. This training should encompass safety protocols and, importantly, how to communicate the denial of service respectfully. Employees should be equipped to explain that service is being refused due to the individual’s apparent support for oppressive ideologies and the concern that their presence will create a hostile environment for others.
-
De-escalation and Expulsion Procedures: Employees trained to expel patrons should be instructed to do so politely and without resorting to threats, intimidation, or coercion. They should be trained to clearly warn patrons who refuse to leave that the police will be contacted.
-
Prepared Communication Strategies: Proactive preparation is key. Businesses should draft press releases and social media messages in advance to be ready to respond swiftly and effectively to any incidents that may occur.
-
Visibly Affirm Diversity: Displaying signs that celebrate diversity prominently on the business premises can act as a deterrent to hate groups from the outset, sending a clear message about the business’s values.
Given the variations in laws across jurisdictions, businesses operating outside the Washington D.C. metropolitan area confronting similar challenges should always seek counsel from legal experts to ensure compliance and best practices.
