Right of Refusal

Alan Dershowitz has made the headlines by threatening to sue a food vendor at the West Tisbury Farmer’s Market on Martha’s Vineyard[1][2] for refusing to sell him their pierogies. The vendor allegedly based their decision on Mr. Dershowitz’ words and actions. Subsequently, Mr. Dershowitz allegedly tried to get other patrons of the market to boycott said vendor, allegedly claiming initially that he was being denied service because of his political beliefs then, allegedly modifying his statement to assert that he was being denied service because he is an avowed Zionist. Neither of these categories are protected classes under the law.

Protected Classes

            Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[3], as amended, protects individuals from discriminatory treatment based on their membership of a protected class group and guarantees their Constitutional rights despite that status.  

Protected Class groups under Federal Law in the United States include the following:

• Race
• Color
• Religion
• Sex (including sexual orientation and transgender status)
• National origin
• Age
• Pregnancy
• Disability
• Genetic, medical history

[Many U.S. states and local governments have additional protections.]

I have been asked countless times about whether political beliefs are a protected class—the answer is ‘no’. I am then often asked, “Why not?”

The answer is this: A protected class group is established based on a demonstrated pattern of discriminatory treatment based on a person  being a member of that group. For example, Black Americans can easily demonstrate discrimination based on their Race through abundant evidence of refusal of service at lunch counters, buses, trains, hotels, grocery stores, gas stations, schools, public pools, hospitals, movie theaters, banks, and etc.

Women can demonstrate discrimination based on their Gender through abundant evidence of being denied equal employment opportunity by companies that refused to hire women or only hired women into low paying jobs, or paid women less than men doing the identical work based on identical experience and qualifications, being denied access to credit or housing, and being subjected to Sexual Harassment.

What is not protected is my interest in gardening or cooking or reading or traveling or other hobbies of mine. Nor is my being a member of a particular organization, such as the YWCA.

Rule of Law

When I have investigated claims of disparate treatment (being treated differently based on belonging to a protected class group), I looked for evidence to support the claim. Have other members of the same group also been denied service? Have members of other groups been provided service? Have members of other groups been treated differently than the members of the protected class group? In other words, is the pierogi vendor selling their goods to other members’ of Mr. Dershowitz’s ‘in groups’ (political or other) or also refusing them service? If not, I would not be able to make a determination of  ‘probable cause’ (meaning it is probable that discrimination occurred).

If a vendor finds ones’ words and actions offensive and as a matter of principle refuses to provide a service based on that position, it is not illegal. [Note: While I am not a lawyer, I have investigated thousands of discrimination claims (under Title VII of the CRA[4] and protections from discrimination under state and local laws in my career.] When incidents such as this involve people who are widely known based on television appearances and their relationships with very famous and infamous people, it would be difficult to separate their publicly made statements and easily documentable actions from face-to-face interactions and observations.

At a time when the current administration is dismantling the protections of members of the classes listed above and banning the very language that we use to describe the circumstances that made it necessary for these laws to exist in the first place, it is bitterly ironic that supporters of these actions attempt to use that same language to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions.

I have been writing for years about the importance of words as actions and also the importance of accountability. See Newton’s Third Law (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). When someone behaves in a deplorable manner, it is appropriate that someone else informs them that their behavior is unacceptable.

Onward!

Wendy

August 3, 2025

[1] https://www.wtfmarket.org/

[2] https://www.mvtimes.com/2025/07/31/dershowitz-takes-west-tisbury-farmers-market/ https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2025/07/31/dershowitz-takes-issue-farmers-market-after-pierogi-denial

[3] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act

[4] https://www.eeoc.gov/equal-employment-opportunity-laws