When a Martha’s Vineyard food stand can ban a customer over his politics and police say that’s allowed, every American who cares about equal access and free association should pay attention.
Refusal of Service Over Politics at a Community Market
At the West Tisbury Farmers Market, Good Pierogi co-owner Krem Miskevich refused to sell attorney Alan Dershowitz pierogi after citing his representation of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, turning a routine purchase into a flashpoint over political discrimination. Dershowitz called the refusal “McCarthyism,” framing it as punishment for his legal advocacy and pro-Israel stance. He threatened legal action aimed at requiring vendors operating at the market to serve all customers regardless of viewpoint under market rules.
Media coverage reports that a second encounter followed, with police involvement and accusations that Dershowitz harassed and misgendered the vendor during the dispute, which Dershowitz denied while posting his own video account. Local reporting noted lines forming at the stand afterward, reflecting a community rally effect. The public debate now centers on whether a private vendor at a public-facing market can deny service based solely on a customer’s political associations.
What the Law Covers—and What It Does Not
Massachusetts public accommodations law broadly prohibits discrimination based on protected classes like race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, but it does not list political ideology. Legal analysis suggests any claim premised on viewpoint alone faces long odds unless tied to a protected characteristic or a market policy requiring service to all. That gap between social norms against blacklisting and statutory protections leaves outcomes hinging on market bylaws and contract or tort theories.
Police on scene reportedly told Dershowitz that vendors could refuse service, and officers escorted him from the market after tempers rose. That on-the-ground position reinforces the legal ambiguity: absent a protected-class hook or a market rule, a vendor’s refusal may stand. The market’s management now sits at the policy fulcrum, weighing vendor discretion against customer access while anticipating potential litigation that could force clearer, viewpoint-neutral service rules.
Why Conservatives See a Broader Pattern
Conservatives watching this dispute see a familiar pattern: ideological gatekeeping that marginalizes dissenting viewpoints in civic spaces. The refusal did not involve expressive, custom work; it was premade food, with the customer denied due to who he represented and what he believed. That dynamic sharpens concerns that progressive enclaves normalize political litmus tests, creating a soft segregation of public commerce and corroding equal access expectations many Americans assume apply in open markets.
The episode also echoes national clashes over compelled speech versus general sales. Court precedents protecting artists from being forced to create custom messages do not easily apply here, because the vendor objected to the buyer, not an expressive product. That distinction matters for limited-government advocates who oppose compelled speech while also opposing viewpoint-based blacklists in ordinary transactions. Clarity from courts or market policies could protect both free expression and equal service in non-expressive sales.
What Happens Next—and What’s at Stake
As of mid-August 2025, reports indicate Dershowitz has threatened but not filed suit, while legal commentary underscores the state-law hurdles. If the market’s rules require vendors to serve all customers, contract-based claims could come into play; if not, Massachusetts’ omission of ideology as a protected class may leave only narrow paths. The controversy’s immediate legacy is a louder call for institutions to adopt viewpoint-neutral service rules that preempt politicized denials.
Longer term, farmers markets and small vendors may seek training on refusals, filming, and de-escalation, and boards may clarify bylaws to deter future standoffs. For a conservative audience, the practical takeaway is simple: where statutes lag, local rules matter. Citizens should press community venues to codify equal-service expectations that safeguard civic space from partisan blacklisting, while courts and legislatures debate whether political discrimination deserves explicit protection in public accommodations law.
Sources:
Dershowitz’s feud with Martha’s Vineyard vendor escalates
Are You Aware Of The Alan Dershowitz Martha’s Vineyard Pierogi Situation?
After Dershowitz Dustup, Islanders Line Up for Pierogis
Dershowitz v. Good Pierogi: Does Alan Dershowitz Have A Discrimination Claim for “Pierogigate”?
Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz confronts pierogi stand again, accused of misgendering chef