Is Political Affiliation a Protected Class?

Representative Dan Goldman, a member of Congress and a vocal supporter of Israel, recently faced off and lost against Brad Lander, former New York City comptroller, who was backed by Mayor Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Their opposing views on Israel became a central issue in the election. Lander argued that Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide, while Goldman, who received support from AIPAC, consistently defended the idea of sending military aid and assistance to Israel. It’s been widely perceived that these divisions over Israel contributed to Lander’s win in the primary.

The controversy surrounding Israel followed Goldman beyond the election, demonstrating that supporters of Israel could face discrimination.

Two days before the primary, Goldman visited a coffee shop called Poetica in New York with his seven-year-old daughter, who needed to use the restroom. Goldman decided to purchase something as a gesture toward the business for using its facilities.

On the coffee shop’s Instagram page, they tagged Goldman and wrote, “[D]o you see how it doesn’t taste like genocide juice?” referring to the coffee Goldman purchased that day. They then wrote, “here at Poetica, we don’t serve racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers, or anyone in between. Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would’ve turned you away.” The post continued, “enjoy your loss on Tuesday. Don’t ever come to Poetica.”

Goldman responded to the post, which was later deleted, by saying, “I'm sorry to see this post, the barista could not have been nicer to my 7-year-old daughter and me… I made sure to buy a coffee in return for her kindness…”

This incident was brought to the attention of federal government officials who began investigating the coffee shop. Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, wrote on Monday on X that “The [DOJ Civil Rights Division] is aware of the denial-of-service taunts to @danielgoldman by Poetica Coffee in Brooklyn,” and added that federal law “prohibits public accommodations such as coffee shops from discriminating against patrons based on their race, religion, or national origin.” Meanwhile, Goldman shared in an interview with CNN that he would prefer that the Department of Justice focus on investigating other antisemitism cases targeted against people with no public platform.

The situation continued to draw public attention as protests were held outside Poetica Coffee following the incident. Supporters of Goldman and his pro-Israel stance gathered to show their frustration over the coffee shop’s treatment of him.

This controversy raises a broader legal question: Can a business refuse service based on a customer’s political beliefs, or does that refusal violate anti-discrimination laws?

A similar legal question arose in January of 2017. A man named Greg Piatek, who was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, claimed that he was refused service at the Happiest Hour bar in New York City and was told by a manager that he had to exit because the bar doesn’t welcome any Trump supporters.

Piatek brought the case to court, where he explained that after being thrown out, he felt “extremely humiliated…and emotionally distressed.” He alleged in court that the refusal of service was in violation of both New York state and city human rights laws and that it constituted unlawful discrimination.

However, in that matter, State Supreme Court Justice David B. Cohen dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Piatek’s political beliefs were not protected under the cited laws because he hadn’t proved that his “Make America Great Again” hat was connected with religion, which is what is protected under the cited laws. The court also found that “Here, the claim that plaintiff was not served and eventually escorted out of the bar because of his perceived support for President Trump is not outrageous conduct.”

That ruling suggests that if Poetica’s actions towards Goldman were solely based on political views rather than religion or another protected category, current New York state and city law might not consider their actions unlawful.

While New York generally doesn’t treat political affiliation as a protected class under state and city anti-discrimination laws, some other jurisdictions in the U.S. do. For example, the District of Columbia and California include political affiliation as a protected class in their anti-discrimination laws. This shows that the legality of refusing service based on political beliefs depends on the jurisdiction.