Fatihah v. Neal
In this week's blog assignment, the establishment clause within the First Amendment and is once again the focal point of the case I will discuss. The case I will assess is Fatihah vs Neal and took place in rural Oklahoma in Oktaha. The suit was filed on February 26, 2016, but was later dropped in mid 2019 when the establishment in question had replaced the controversial sign which was at the focal point of this case. I decide to go forward with viewing and assessing the case because I believe there are important lessons which can be learned from the suit in question.
In Fatihah vs Neal, a practicing Muslim named Raja’ee Fatihah was asked to leave a gun range and store owned by Chad and Nicole Neal in Okatah, Oklahoma. Chad and Nicole Neal have owned this establishment, named ‘Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range’ for over 15 years and had never had any problem with members of the gun club or customers in their store. On October 23, 2015, Fatihah entered into their gun range to shoot and practice his aim with a military style pistol and a military style assault rifle, with over 200 rounds of ammunition combined for both weapons. In addition to this, Fatihah had entered dressed in what some have called military style clothing. While many details in this case are unclear, it was reported that this gun range and store had a small sign positioned in the front window of their store that read “Muslim Free Establishment”. This sign was used in the ACLU brief which stated the disproval of the treatment given towards Fatihah. After Fatihah was removed from the gun store and range, he had contacted the ACLU of Oklahoma and filed suit against the ‘Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range’ for discrimination and the violation of Oklahoma’s non-discrimination law in conjunction to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case will be defended by the ACLU of Oklahoma for Fatihah and the American Freedom Law Center on behalf of Nicole and Chad Neal. The AFLC defends the accusations of discrimination and the violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by stating that Fatihah was an individual of question and his presence at the gun range was very unsettling. The AFLC stated that his dismissal was because he had been an individual of suspicion and he had made employees scared with his presence. He had showed up on a rainy day, which is not ideal for shooting outdoors when the weather is inclement. As stated previously, he entered the range with two loaded military style weapons with over 200 rounds of ammo, but he also had a small recording device with him in his pocket. Along with these facts, Fatihah had never been to this gun range before, and his home was in Tulsa Oklahoma which is over an hour and a half from his home. Something else noted in the case details was there were many gun ranges on the way from Tulsa to Okatah, so employees had wondered why he chose this range over others closer to his home.
The ACLU of Oklahoma is heading the suit against the Neals and their establishment. According to the ACLU, Fatihah identified himself as a muslim on the liability forms, and after this was seen, the staff had drawn their weapons and asked Fatihah to leave. If this fact holds water in court, it would be incredibly evident that Fatihah was discriminated against because of his religion which is unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. Furthermore, the ACLU claims that the sign on the front of their store was discriminatory and in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Their lawsuit expresses their anger and disappointment with the treatment towards Fatihah after he had admitted that he was a muslim, and further they express that this treatment is unconstituttional and cannot be overlooked.
In my assessment of this case, I look upon the recently ruled and highly controversial case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In this case, the owners of a cake shop in Colorado decided not to make a cake for a gay couple. This denial was brought to the Supreme Court and was later proved to be constitutional and not in violation of the First Amendment and its establishment clause. The defense of the cake shop owners was that making this cake for a homosexual couple was against their religion and this was held to be permissible by the Supreme Court. Given what I am aware of in this case, my opinion would coincide with the opinion made in the Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in supporting the business and its right to turn away customers. I wholeheartedly disagree with the anti-muslim sign which was adorned at the front of the store, but I believe that the evidence against Fatihah in this case was enough to justify his dismissal. Another point in my support of the store and the Neals was that this establishment has existed for over a decade, and it would be foolish to assume that Fatihah was the first muslim this store had seen, regardless of the sign or not. Because of this, I believe that the evidence referenced by the AFLC was enough to deem this individual a suspicious person that could be asked to leave the premises of the store without violating the First Amendment.
Once again, I find myself agreeing with the author of this post. While it does not sit right with me that the store owners would keep such a sign in their window, it's imperative that we look past our personal values when considering these cases. I want to note that I disagree with the author's statement that this case is linear to that of the Colorado baker. That case concluded that the baker had the right to turn away a same-sex couple who wanted a cake for their wedding, since homosexuality is considered a sin in Christianity, posing direct conflict for the shop owner. From what I can tell, the difference here is that being Muslim doesn't necessarily go against the Christian religion; instead, turning away a customer on the basis of their religion would be plain religious discrimination. However, I think the context of this case is important. It was written that the man in question entered the store in a full military-style outfit, an extreme amount of ammunition, and military-grade weapons. Not to mention, he was from very far away and wasn't a regular customer to the store, which isn't illegal, but it surely did not make him look less suspicious. Additionally, the shop owners cited their reasoning for turning him away as that his ensemble was making them extremely uncomfortable in their own store. As we know, store owners have the right to refuse patrons business on their own accord. If the store owners said they turned him away on the basis that he was making them uncomfortable and never said that it was due to his religious preference, then I don't think there is stable case to be made for the patron. For these reasons, I would rule in favor of the shop owners.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the author on this post. While I do understand that there may be a right to turn individuals away for a business owner's religious beliefs, it is different when the religious beliefs of the consumer are in question. Additionally, the author points out that when he indicated he was Muslim, the shop owners threatened him with guns and forced him to leave. While they may have the right to turn him away, even though I find it wrong, they do not have the right to threaten a man just because they believe he seems suspicious and is Muslim.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with the author on this post, primarily when considering the detail that, when the shop owners first learned that he was Muslim based on his liability forms, they decided to act in a threatening manner. This makes it clear, in my eyes, that their decision was grounded in their opposition of the man's religious preference. While the shop owners do have the right to refuse patrons based on their discretion, I find that it is very difficult to not consider this aspect of the case, in particular, the timing of their harsh behavior and dismissal of this customer.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Court would rule that the gun range was guilty of discrimination. I do not believe that Masterpiece would be applied as precedent because in that case, the bakery was allowed to not provide their services because their service of the creation of a wedding cake was directly being supplied to a same-sex wedding, which was against the bakery owner's religious convictions. I do not think Masterpiece could be applied in this instance because the gun range owner is not promoting a religious practice he does not agree with but rather outrightly discriminating against the local Muslim population based on their prejudice.
ReplyDeleteChris, I agree with your assessment. It is without a doubt wrong to post a sign like that in a store window, or even to have a policy like that. However, private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose. It makes me think of our current situation with the mask policies in stores. Stores have the right to refuse service to anyone not wearing a mask. Though I think the two scenarios are very different, they both deal with the right to do what you want in your own business.
ReplyDelete