The Red Hen's Legal Woes: Free Speech Or Discrimination?

The Red Hen controversy erupted in June 2018 when the restaurant's co-owner, Stephanie Wilkinson, asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave, citing her role in the inhumane and unethical Trump administration. This incident sparked intense debates and backlash, with critics arguing that The Red Hen was within its legal rights to deny service based on political beliefs, which is protected by the First Amendment, while others drew parallels to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, where a baker refused service to a gay couple. The controversy surrounding The Red Hen's decision and the subsequent political and social fallout raise questions about the boundaries of free speech, discrimination, and the role of businesses in political expression.

The Red Hen's actions were lawful

The Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, acted within its legal rights when it asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave the premises. The co-owner, Stephanie Wilkinson, cited Sanders' role in the "inhumane and unethical" Trump administration, specifically mentioning that Sanders had publicly defended the president's cruelest policies.

Wilkinson's decision was based on Sanders' position as a public official promoting bigotry against lawfully protected individuals, specifically the LGBTQ+ community. This was not about race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, but rather a political statement similar to that of the protesters in the NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. case, which upheld the right to boycott businesses based on political beliefs.

The Red Hen's actions sparked intense backlash, including online harassment, conspiracy theories, and threats. However, the restaurant's decision was lawful and highlighted the growing political animosity between the right and left in the United States.

The Red Hen's actions sparked debate about civility

Some commentators criticised the restaurant's actions as a failure of civility and an example of anti-conservative bias. They argued that such incidents contribute to a growing political divide and enable institutions to retaliate with similar policies of refusing service to those with differing views. The controversy prompted discussions on the boundaries of free speech and the right to refuse service, with some advocating for legislative changes to include political affiliation in anti-discrimination laws.

However, others defended The Red Hen's actions as a legitimate form of political expression. They argued that the restaurant's decision was not tied to race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, but rather a stand against a public official promoting bigotry towards protected groups. This incident mirrored historical protests led by civil rights activists, who boycotted businesses that supported racist policies.

The debate surrounding The Red Hen incident highlighted the complexities of balancing free speech rights with protection against discrimination. It raised questions about the role of businesses in political discourse and the potential consequences of alienating customers based on their political beliefs. Ultimately, the controversy served as a reminder of the ongoing tensions between political civility and the expression of strongly held beliefs in public spaces.

The Red Hen controversy also led to discussions on the role of businesses in political discourse. Some argued that businesses have the right to express their political views, just as individuals do. Others worried that businesses might face backlash or boycott campaigns if they openly supported certain politicians or policies. This debate highlighted the delicate balance between an institution's right to free speech and the potential impact on its customers and public perception.

The Red Hen's actions were discriminatory

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits denying service to individuals based on race, religion, national origin, or colour, but political affiliation is not included in this list. The Red Hen's actions were discriminatory towards Sanders' political beliefs and her association with the Trump administration. The restaurant's employees, some of whom were gay, were uncomfortable with Sanders' presence and did not want to serve her. This incident sparked a political debate about civility and the role of businesses in accommodating customers with differing political views.

The Red Hen's actions were a form of political statement and an exercise of their agency over who can patronize their restaurant. They believed that Sanders, as a public official, promoted bigotry against lawfully protected individuals, such as the LGBTQ community. The restaurant's decision to refuse service to Sanders was based on their opposition to the Trump administration's policies and Sanders' role in communicating those policies to the public. This incident highlights the complex nature of balancing free speech rights with protection against discrimination in the business world.

While The Red Hen's actions may have been discriminatory, they were not illegal under Virginia law. This incident raises important questions about the role of businesses in society and the boundaries of acceptable discrimination. It also underscores the potential for institutions to retaliate with similar policies, refusing service to those with opposing political views. The Red Hen controversy serves as a reminder of the ongoing political divisions and the need to address discrimination in all its forms.

The Red Hen's actions were in response to Sanders' defence of Trump's policies

The Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, became the centre of a political controversy in June 2018 when it asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the then White House press secretary, to leave. The incident was a response to Sanders' defence of Trump's policies, which the restaurant deemed "inhumane and unethical". Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of The Red Hen, said that her restaurant upholds standards of "honesty, compassion, and cooperation" and that Sanders' presence went against these values.

The incident sparked a debate about civility and the role of political figures in public spaces. It also brought to light the legal grey area surrounding discrimination based on political beliefs. While refusing service based on political affiliation is illegal in Washington D.C., Seattle, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, it is not explicitly prohibited in most states, including Virginia, where The Red Hen is located.

The Red Hen's actions were not without consequences. The restaurant faced intense backlash, including online harassment and conspiracy theories, with some people even posting the owner's home address on the internet. Unrelated restaurants with the same name were also targeted. The incident also ignited a discussion about the role of businesses in political discourse and the potential for institutions to retaliate with similar policies, refusing service to those with opposing views.

In the end, The Red Hen's actions highlighted the complex nature of political discourse in the United States and the ongoing tensions between the political right and left. It also brought to light the need for a legislative fix to address the lack of protection against discrimination based on political affiliation in public accommodations.

The Red Hen's actions were comparable to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case

The actions of The Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, which asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave because of her association with the Trump administration, have been compared to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In that case, a Colorado baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs. While the situations differ in some ways, there are also some notable similarities.

In both cases, the businesses exercised their freedom of association, choosing to disassociate with individuals whose beliefs or actions conflicted with their own. The Red Hen's co-owner, Stephanie Wilkinson, stated that Sanders worked for an “inhumane and unethical” administration and had defended the president's "cruelest policies." Similarly, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner, Jack Phillips, declined to create a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony due to his personal convictions. Both businesses faced public scrutiny and backlash for their decisions, with some praising their courage to stand by their convictions and others criticising their actions as intolerant.

Legal experts have pointed out that sexual orientation is protected under civil rights laws, while political beliefs are not. As a result, The Red Hen's actions were within the law, while the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was more legally complex, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling in the baker's favour. However, the ethical implications of both cases have sparked ongoing debates about the role of businesses in society and their right to refuse service.

The comparison between The Red Hen and Masterpiece Cakeshop incidents highlights the complexities of balancing freedom of association, non-discrimination laws, and ethical considerations in a diverse society. While some may view these incidents as examples of businesses standing up for their beliefs, others may see them as acts of discrimination or intolerance. Ultimately, these cases underscore the ongoing tensions between personal freedoms and the protection of civil rights in the United States.

Frequently asked questions