Refusing to Serve Sarah Sanders Was Wrong

Refusing to Serve Sarah Sanders Was Wrong

Refusing to Serve Sarah Sanders Was Wrong

So why can’t those who sympathize with her see that it’s far more harmful to refuse to serve gay and lesbian couples, as Masterpiece Cakeshop did?

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

A Virginia restaurant’s decision over the weekend to refuse to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders has many conservatives rightly riled up. To turn away a paying customer because she is Donald Trump’s press secretary flouts not only rules of civility, but an essential premise of an open society: that public spaces and public businesses should be open to all. But being uncivil or rude is not illegal. And those objecting to the Red Hen’s treatment of Sanders, many of them conservatives who identify with her and feel her pain, should consider the implications of their reactions for the much more common, harmful, and illegal phenomenon of businesses refusing to serve gay and lesbian couples seeking cakes and other services to celebrate their weddings.

Public-accommodation laws are designed to ensure that everyone has equal status in the public sphere. A democratic society is premised on the equal dignity of all its citizens, and public spaces are public precisely by virtue of their not being exclusive. In private arenas, we can and do make choices about whom we invite and serve. But once one chooses to operate a business open to the public, one takes on at least a moral—and often a legal—obligation to adhere to the norms that underlie the very definition of “public.” When a business turns away a customer, whether it’s the Red Hen refusing service to Sanders, or Masterpiece Cakeshop refusing service to Charlie Craig and David Mullins, it says, “You aren’t a legitimate member of the public.” (The ACLU, of which I am national legal director, represented Craig and Mullins in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.)

There is an important difference between the kind of refusal Sanders was subjected to, and the one Craig and Mullins suffered. When a business turns someone away because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity, it is refusing to serve them because of who they are. Such exclusions have historically played a critical part in the subordination of marginalized groups, thus contributing to inequality and sending a profoundly stigmatizing message. Think Jim Crow. That is not the case with a decision to refuse someone because of what they said or did.

This fundamental difference is reflected in public-accommodations laws. Forty-five states, the federal government, and many cities prohibit discrimination by businesses and other establishments open to the public. They differ in the types of discrimination they forbid, however. All 45 states prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. Most also bar refusals of service on the basis of sex and religion. Many list sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. But almost none prohibit discrimination on the basis of political ideology or affiliation. Only the District of Columbia, Seattle, and the Virgin Islands expressly bar such discrimination in public accommodations. That fact reflects the reality that discriminating against someone because of their membership in a marginalized group is especially pernicious. And attempts to prohibit discrimination on the basis of political ideology or affiliation—as DC, Seattle, and the Virgin Islands do—raise First Amendment concerns otherwise not present when a law prohibits discrimination based on identity without regard to speech.

So what the Red Hen did to Sarah Sanders was not illegal. But, in my view, it was still wrong. Individuals have a right to choose with whom they associate in private. But when a business makes the choice to open its doors to the public, it should honor the implicit premise of the public sphere—everyone stands on equal footing—whether or not it is legally required to do so.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x