Image 01 Image 03

DOJ Sues Coffee House in Oakland, CA for Refusing to Serve Jewish Customers

DOJ Sues Coffee House in Oakland, CA for Refusing to Serve Jewish Customers

“It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers”

It’s amazing that this kind of open antisemitism is happening in America in 2025.

From the DOJ website:

Justice Department Sues Coffee House for Refusal to Serve Jewish Customers

The Justice Department announced today that it filed a lawsuit against Fathi Abdulrahim Harara and Native Grounds LLC, the owners of the Jerusalem Coffee House in Oakland, California. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants discriminated against Jewish customers, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation.

“It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Through our vigorous enforcement of Title II of the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibiting race and religious discrimination, the Justice Department is committed to combatting anti-Semitism and discrimination and protecting the civil rights of all Americans.”

The lawsuit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that defendants discriminated against Jewish customers through policies and practices that denied them the full and equal enjoyment of the Jerusalem Coffee House’s services, accommodations, and privileges. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that on two separate occasions, Harara ordered Jewish customers — identified because they were wearing baseball caps with Stars of David on them — to leave the coffee house.

During one incident, an employee told a Jewish customer who was trying to make a purchase, “You’re the guy with the hat. You’re the Jew. You’re the Zionist. We don’t want you in our coffee shop. Get out.” During another incident, Harara accused another Jewish customer who was with his five-year-old son of wearing a “Jewish star,” being a “Zionist,” and supporting “genocide.” Harara repeatedly demanded that the customer and his son leave and falsely accused them of “trespassing” to the Oakland police. Neither customer stated anything about their political views to Harara or any other employees while at the coffee house.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 0 
 
 1
destroycommunism | June 10, 2025 at 10:12 am

of course this should be national news with hoards of people protesting in front of the blmplo business

but then to get that you’d have to be a 15yo wht kid singing the actual lyrics to a song that is only offensive when sung by wht people


 
 0 
 
 2
destroycommunism | June 10, 2025 at 10:12 am

wonder if this coffee house isnt funneling money to blmplo terror orgs??

“It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers”
I thoroughly disagree with everything except “illegal.” I am of a fairly closed mind about private businesses and the right to associate. (And I think the idea of ‘public accommodations’ is a bogus infringement on individual rights.) Only the government should not be allowed to discriminate.


     
     1 
     
     3
    ztakddot in reply to GWB. | June 10, 2025 at 11:27 am

    I go back and forth on this, On the one hand you can have complete denial of services everywhere which is intolerable. On the other hand you have the right to associate as stated by you, Frankly I think business give up some of that right when they open to the public for business. They don’t give up all of that right. They don’t have to be a cake for cause they disagree with, but they can’t refuse to serve a standard product because of someone’s perceived identity. You can’t have a functioning integrated society if you allow that and that is more important that any rigid ideal.


       
       1 
       
       2
      GWB in reply to ztakddot. | June 10, 2025 at 12:14 pm

      You can’t have a functioning integrated society if you allow that and that is more important that any rigid ideal.
      I would prefer the local citizenry chase out the people who would be jerks by refusing to do any business at their establishment. These sorts of things should be handled by a community, not by law. Making it an issue of law only serves to make it 1) abusable and 2) less able to change hearts and minds. IMO.


       
       0 
       
       2
      GWB in reply to ztakddot. | June 10, 2025 at 12:17 pm

      But, an important note: you came back with an argument in civil language. NOT with “You’re a bigot! You must secretly be a Jew-hater!”, etc. And that means I can respond and we can come to a place of agreement, possibly.

      Unlike some commenters on the interwebs.


     
     0 
     
     2
    Milhouse in reply to GWB. | June 10, 2025 at 4:31 pm

    “It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible

    I thoroughly disagree with everything except “illegal.”

    I take almost exactly the opposite view. I think it is intolerable and reprehensible, but ought to be legal. As you yourself say later, “these sorts of things should be handled by a community, not by law”. It is intolerable and reprehensible, so all decent people ought not to tolerate it, and to reprehend it; but the law should be value-neutral.


       
       1 
       
       0
      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | June 10, 2025 at 8:12 pm

      Fasten your oxygen helmets! GWB commented about what the law “is,” and Milhouse responded with how the law “should be.” Next stop — the Twilight Zone!

      For the record, I almost agree with Milhouse. I differ on whether such things are “always” intolerable and reprehensible.

      After 9/11, a number of gun shops refused to serve Muslims. After 2016, there were gun shops who refused to serve Biden voters (based on bumper stickers, paraphernalia, or personal knowledge).

      Hillsdale College refuses to serve students who pay with government money. The Curves gym in town (all towns, actually) refuses to serve men, Many restaurants refuse to serve customers peacefully exercising their Second Amendment rights== hey, where’s the marching in the street over that?

      There’s little difference between this and the centuries old peaceful practice of “shunning.” It is how societies have always enforced community standards WITHOUT politics.

      The only questions that matter are:
      1. Is the community standard “intolerable” because you don’t agree with it?
      2. Does it violate an actual negative right, not some BS positive right like they make up in Canada or the UN?
      3. Was it arrived at “democratically” (i.e., by the majority)?
      4. Are you free to contravene it peacefully if you disagree (i.e. associate with people others will not)?

      Remember, freedom always protects you to doing certain classes of things that somebody else isn’t going to like… by definition.


 
 3 
 
 3
diver64 | June 10, 2025 at 12:23 pm

I actually disagree. A private business should be able to serve who they want. It is the publics business to make them famous and boycott them


 
 0 
 
 2
The Gentle Grizzly | June 11, 2025 at 1:27 am

All this in the inclusive, loving, no hate Bay Area. Not in some right wing stronghold like someplace on the south.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.