At the end of the week Think Progress put out a piece critical of Hyatt for hosting the ACT for America conference at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City.
I’m unfamiliar with the group, but they (along with half of America) are described by the Southern Poverty Law Center “as an anti-Muslim extremist and hate group.” A cursory reading suggests:
- Their Executive Director used to work for the Christian Coalition.
- They appear generally pro-Trump, count several allies in Congress and the national security establishment (Michael Flynn was a board member), and lobby against the use of foreign (code for Sharia) law in U.S. courts a position which seems to me unwise because foreign contract issues are often litigated in American courts by U.S. persons and foreign law provides the necessary context for how to resolve those claims, as long as so doing does not offend US public policy.
- They have also opposed the practice of female genital mutilation, which concerns many liberal human rights groups as well, although perhaps their motivations are more strategic than expressions of genuine concern.
The Think Progress piece reports on a petition with 100,000 signatures delivered to Hyatt demanding they back out of providing a venue to the event this coming week. The piece is exasperated that Hyatt “even offered conference attendees discounted rates” which is how conference contracts work, of course. Events guarantee a minimum number of sleeping rooms and the hotel sets aside those rooms at a set price.
Zohab J., a Hyatt loyalist disappointed in Hyatt for this decision, wondered if I might write something about a Hyatt hosting this conference — especially because I’m not sure the right way to handle it. I think this is actually hard.
Last year Marriott’s CEO made a stand for not picking and choosing conference groups based on the views held by those groups
The fact they are having a meeting with us and using our hotel does not mean we support their point of view. If I could wave a magic wand, I’d love to have it so that those types of groups never exist.
…Do we really want, as a society, for companies like Marriott and the peers in our industry and others to sit and make judgments or points of view on people sitting in our meeting rooms? I shudder to think that we really expect that my role or Marriott’s role is to say your views are not acceptable in our hotels and that another person’s views are..
We are serving people from all around the world, from all walks of life, with all points of views, equally and with a genuine welcome, with people who are equally diverse. Our arms need to be open.
By the way I am a long-time supporter of same sex marriage but always found it odd for people to call on businesses not to do business with people they disagree with while not supporting bakeries making the choice of which couples to make wedding cakes for.
I have to imagine the individual hotel signed a contract that the chain wasn’t involved in and now they can’t really just abrogate it. In fact I bet Hyatt corporate wishes the Hyatt Regency Crystal City hadn’t signed this event contract and put them in this position! But what do they do days before the event, when the group represents ideas shared by many, doesn’t bring with it the threat of violence, and there’s no reports of involvement in illegal activity?
If it is me as the hotel’s sales manager maybe I don’t host it, right? It strikes me as very much the right of the hotel to decline (or at least it should be), just as it’s the right of customers to choose not to do business with a hotel based on their decision, whether that’s wise or not.
The hotel’s ownership may not like me turning away the business and might even fire me but do I really want a part of this? Probably not.
Ballroom of the Hyatt Regency Orlando Airport, credit: Hyatt
Still I am not sure what the rule is here that works for a hotel chain and I am a bit loathe to say I know the right policy. Earlier this summer Hyatt found itself on the opposite end of similar criticism, targeted when the Hyatt Regency Orlando Airport hosted an event held by the Muslim Congress.
Freedom of speech only means something if it protects the speech you hate. There’s no need to protect popular speech.
Hyatt isn’t government, this isn’t a first amendment issue and I think they should have the right to choose whom they work with and host for conferences. At the same time I think the first amendment model is useful in terms of whether to criticize someone for offering a platform or speaking venue.
Even Nazis should be able to hold meetings. And we should criticize them whenever and wherever they express their views. Simply shutting down their expression can easily backfire in terms of sympathy and making groups more cohesive since they feel under attack.
People increasingly want to shout down their opponents and deny them a voice, rather than countering that voice. That seems unwise to me. Just last week the Chairman of the California Democratic Party called for a boycott of In ‘n Out Burger because the chain donates to the state Republican Party (as well as to Democrats).
And yet I understand people who feel less connected with a business that does business with people they disagree with and find offensive.
Does the groups a hotel chain hosts for conferences affect what you think of the chain? Should businesses that portray their values as inclusive have political or ideological tests for group sales contracts? Should customers “vote with their wallet” and choose to spend only with businesses whose associations they agree with?
I book Hyatts whenever possible and will continue to do so.
I am familiar with ACT for America and deplore their views. Nevertheless, they should have the same opportunity to have their meetings that I do. Forcing hate groups underground, it seems to me, only intensifies their belief of an “elite” conspiracy against them.
This idea that a business should be called to account for every view of every customer is nonsensical and incompatible with a free society
1) SPLC is not a credible source for determining hate groups.
2) No Platforming is one of the worst movements to occur in US political history.
Excellent analysis Gary.
You don’t win in the war of ideas by branding other ideas as heresy and excommunicating the heretics from society. You win by convincing people that your ideas are better and their ideas are wrong.
The internet outrage mobs are doing great harm to our society.
We can only hope the Muslims do boycott the Hyatts.
Blue and BRteacher have it right.
Kudos to you Gary, that you rightly state that the discredited SPLC claims nearly 1/2 of America is a hate group.
I would also like to point out that some of the groups agitating about this, such as CAIR, likely don’t support same sex marriage, as well.
Always a strange marriage of convenience when a far left group such as Think Progress teams up with a group that purports to be a civil rights organization.
Last night I was watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Indiana Jones was at a Naxi book burning in Berlin. Even the corrupted Dr. Elsa Schneider was tearing up watching the book burning. Modern day book burning equals: Classify speech and the associated groups like Christian Coalition as hate speech/groups and remove them from the public square.
As you note, Hyatt and other hotel chains are not government actors and therefore may discriminate on the substance of a group’s speech.
But that is perhaps more a curse than a blessing, as it gives rise to an expectation that they MUST discriminate on the basis of speech when social pressures so demand. This leaves them with a dilemma the discretionless government never faces – which speech is so odious that we should discriminate? In a country of 330,000,000 people, surely they will piss SOMEONE off for making space available to the girl scouts. They will piss off more for hosting the Nazi Party, no doubt, but what poor meeting planning sap gets tasked with identifying just what any client is about and whether their agenda is unpalatable?
Were it me, I would set and follow objective policies about who is welcome. It could be that no one who advocates for the overthrow of the government may show up. It could be that no one who speaks to belittle on the basis of race, religion, etc., may show up. But it would be a terrible mistake to make decisions on the fly without criteria that are announced in advance. Otherwise, host facilities end up making decisions as they go along, unable to fall back upon pre-established rules to which they can cite when they end up in a PR kerfuffle like this.
Yeah, it sounds awfully formal and may make private industry as unable to accommodate exceptions as the government, but the discretion to discriminate based on content of speech may require guidelines on when they do so.
I’d suggest you rewrite the following, inaccurate, statement: “I’m unfamiliar with the group, but they (along with half of America) are described by the Southern Poverty Law Center “as an anti-Muslim extremist and hate group.””
The article works fine without the pejorative characterization of a worthy organization.
Excellent analysis, Gary. Great read.
So basically because rules are hard there are no rules. That’s pretty sad. I’m off this list and that’s a choice too
SPLC is a joke group. There’s this attempt by the left to say anyone supporting Donald Trump is somehow a hateful bigot Nazi. What nutters.
@Paul – I think they do good work but their definition of hate group is so broad as to include plenty of organizations that engage in very mainstream discourse. The point in including this statement is to say I do not simply accept their definition of ‘hate group’ which seems to be ‘anyone they disagree with’ even if it’s often people and groups that I disagree with as well.
Gary can you name some of the main stream organizations that SPLC labels a hate group. It would be good to understand where you are coming from.
Chadz above and the KKK agree! As do all White Supremacists….Boycott anyone who caters to hateful racists
Chadz above and all White Supremacists agree as does the Klan….Boycott anyone who caters to hateful racists
I have to admit that the call to boycott Hyatt over hosting this conference is confusing to me. If the guy baking cakes in Colorado cannot refuse to serve someone, how is it that Hyatt is going to refuse to serve someone? Don’t we have to apply the law equally to everyone? No flames, please, I’m just trying to understand . . .
Gary shame on you for disparaging one of the nation’s foremost civil rights groups! I will let my readers know of your shameful comment!
The Southern Poverty Law Center has done important work, some pioneering work especially in its first decade.
They also in more recent times declare people with views different than theirs outside the realm of acceptable discourse.
For instance they included pioneering African American surgeon and current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson on their ‘extremist watch list’. They called scholar Christina Hoff Sommers “prominent apologist of a vicious, far-reaching misogynistic online campaign that fed directly into both the Male Supremacy movement and what would ultimately become the alt-right.”
By the way they paid out a settlement of over $3m to Maajid Nawaz after labeling him an anti-Muslim extremist.
They list the Family Research Council as a hate group. I disagree with most things about the Family Research Council, but their views aren’t the same as the Ku Klux Klan either. They list Tea Party Nation as a hate group, too. Now, I’m not sure the Tea Party is a thing anymore, and there are people who say stupid racist things who were part of tea party groups, but they were also a part of mainstream political discourse in the U.S.
They’ve listed LewRockwell.com alongside the John Birch Society. There are some kooky folks at LewRockwell.com, but there doesn’t seem to be an understanding of nuance or difference here.
That’s why I do not accept on its own designation by this group as actually equating with ‘hate’.
Allen, the SPLC is just a big cash machine. Do your research before shilling for them. Thank you.
Lost me at the unsupported SPLC comment. Was there anything else of interest in the post?
@LarryInNYC see my comment above I don’t think it’s “unsupported”
They’re an organization that’s done good work but also – recently – seems to classify those who disagree with them as hate groups outside the realm of acceptable discourse. Frankly I disagree with many of the people they disagree with, too! But I can’t really rely on their label.
Family Research Council is a hate group Ben Carson is a racist whose policies destroy black lives. And Art, as a civil rights activist I guarantee you I have done my research and don’t degrade my intelligence just because I stand up against hate. Gary, u keep defrading organizations like this that fight discrimination, it just makes those of us who fight for equality fight even harder. I’m through with this site that disparages people of color and that insults their civil rights work. Good bye and I will ask my readers to leave also
@Allen, Chadz, and Robert. Many investment gurus are arguing that Nike made a genius move in signing Colin Kaepernick to a new multi year contract. In fact, the King (no La Bron not Trump) has already stated his support for it. Google it, I am not making it up. Go out an buy Nike stock, for social justice, the world, and all that. It is called social justice investing.
Disclaimer: My comments above are based on John Belushi’s Samurai stockbroker skit. If I can get lefties who love SPLC to make bad investments, it would be really funny.
@Gary – Am I reading this bullet point above wrong?
“They have also opposed the practice of female genital mutilation, which concerns many liberal human rights groups as well…”
Aren’t we, as a reasonable society, supposed to oppose any form of female genital mutilation (as practiced in Africa and other male-dominated societies)? I thought this was a horrible tool of suppression.
I’m guessing that bullet point has a typo of some sort.
@VX you read this correctly. and i view it the same way that you do. where’s the typo?
@Allen – as I say I *disagree* with many of the people that SPLC disagrees with. However I am not comfortable lumping them in with nazis, kkk, etc and simply defining them as outside the bounds of discourse.
“Et tu In-N-Out? Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party… it’s time to #BoycottInNOut […]” — California Democratic Party Chairperson Eric Bauman, Twitter, August 29, 2018.
Although California Democratic Party Chairperson Eric Bauman has since said “there is no boycott” regarding his tweet, this is a great example of making people fear to donate to causes that they support. In the case of In-and-Out, it is the flip side of campaign finance disclosure laws that few people talk about. In the case of Hyatt, it is purely a case of would-be boycotters exercising their civil rights in a way that undermines the civil rights of others rather than welcoming discourse.
For lack of a better ideas about how to discourage such intimidation, I have reestablished my Hyatt Gold Passport membership (although the fact that it lapsed shows how little value to Hyatt there may be in that) and will have lunch today at In-and-Out Burger, a chain I have patronized perhaps once or twice in the past five years.
Gary,
Your citations are correct. I would add Ayan Hirsi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
and for more information on Majid Nawaz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz
1. The southern poverty law center has morphed into its own type of hate-group. They antagonize, sue, and libel anyone they don’t agree with. Some like violent KKK, black panther, and nation of islam belong there. But just because someone believes in traditional marriage and family (American College of Pediatricians or the Coalition of African-American Pastors) doesn’t mean they should be persecuted for those beliefs.
2. If muslims want to boycott Hyatt … great. Have at it. If democrats want to boycott In-N-Out burger, great.
To “Allen” … please “take your readers with you”
I know my liberal friends won’t like this, but there is definitely more a tendency among left wing groups to try to shut down free speech than there is a tendency by right wing groups. Look, um, at today’s Senate confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. It would literally be impossible for any lawyer in America to be a better human being than Kavanaugh. Yet, the organized left was not willing to even let him speak today. That kind of tells you what Hyatt is up against here. You literally can’t win.
The obviously correct position for a hotelier is to allow anyone to pay you money to hold their conference at your hotel. The only plausible exception would be a “hate group” that BOTH sides of the political spectrum would identify as a “hate group,” or a group that advocates or engages in criminal behavior. Otherwise, take their money and politely ignore the fools.
Interesting.
What is the legal framework?
Here in Australia we have key legislation, including the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA).
In the State of Victoria there is also the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which targets (among others) making public statements at a meeting or a public rally that incite hatred of people of a particular race or religion.
The current right wing government of Australia and certain media elements herein have made overturning the RDA (notably clause 18C) a” cause celebrate”, under the claim of infringed free speech, whereas, in reality, they want the freedom to voice public discrimination based on hatred and dog whistle politics, lacking the logical imperative in reasoned policy debate (they conveniently ignore the exemptions under clause 18D): this abetted by a nasty personal campaign by government members against the Human Rights Commissioner under parliamentary privilege.
So…some questions:
Shouldn’t a supplier (aka Hyatt, etc) take reasonable steps to ensure they are not aiding a potentially illegal activity (depending on the operant legislation)?
Organisations generally have a code of conduct, which itself includes guidelines for their behaviour in relation to discriminatory practice – shouldn’t they seek to follow their own code?
Bear in mind that those who bully and abuse and often the very ones who claim they have been wronged when called out for their divisive behaviours (role reversal in who is the victim).
People should also remember why our societies have such legislation and values of social justice: for example, it is relatively recently that indigenous (i.e. “aboriginal”) people were granted the right to vote in Australia (1962) – the USA’s history on such matters is also vexed.
If folk do not make a stand against an erosion of societal values then rights that have been hard won can erode in our complacency.
.
@Platy. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states: “Congress shall make no law….prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…..”
This means that the USA government cannot pass any law that curtails speech, even hate speech. Europeans countries, or former Commonwealth countries such as Australia or Canada, do not have governmental prohibition. Therefore, they pass laws curtailing various type of so called “hate speech” like you cited (that is in the State of Victoria there is also the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001) all the time. Such hate speech laws would be illegal under the First Amendment.
However, the First Amendment is silent about whether or not a private organization, such as Hyatt, restrict free speech. Most large companies have morality clauses, which allow a person to be fired if they say anything that embarrasses the company.
@chopsticks. Respectfully disagree. The right wing has a long history of shutting down discourse. What about the (hon.) Mitch McConnell shutting down ALL discourse on the bona fide and timely nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court? He set the stage and the standard and is reaping the rewards with whatever protests can be delivered against Mr. Kavenaugh.
@garyleff. “I’m unfamiliar with the group, but they (along with half of America) are described by the Southern Poverty Law Center “as an anti-Muslim extremist and hate group.” ” Whatever your opinion, this is a snide way of putting it, and as a result you have made this blog political. I do not read it for that. Methinks that those who start statements like “I have always supported same-sex marriage,” leaves a taste in th mouth like “Some of my best friends are Jewish…” Best avoided.
@Tom Teasley – well some of my best friends ARE jewish (and so am i).
And I link to a discussion of my past support for same sex marriage with that statement. I hosted Andrew Sullivan for debates on the subject giving him a platform nearly 20 years ago back when this was all first getting started. I think you are taking the statement out of context. The point was to say that my support is strong and clear, but that doesn’t mean you shut down people with strongly held opposing views.
putting aside whether or not the group is officially classified as a hate group that promotes bigotry, the hosting of the group would seem to contradict hyatt’s own code of conduct, which says its employees should “recognize disrespectful behavior if you see it, and help to stop it.” in the “integrity section of the code, it also states that “Caring for people includes a commitment to corporate social responsibility.”
whether allowing ACT to hold a conference at one of their properties violates their commitment to social responsibility is something only they can answer, but it should be noted that other hotel chains including hilton and sofitel have refused to allow hate groups on their properties.
>>It would literally be impossible for any lawyer in America to be a better human being than Kavanaugh.<>Yet, the organized left was not willing to even let him speak today.<<
some may be unfamiliar with the way these hearings work, but kavanaugh gave the remarks today he was scheduled to give. this sort of thing is scheduled so that all the committee members make opening remarks on day one, as does the nominee at the close of day one. he is not supposed to respond to any comments nor speak until the end of the day.
Bravo to you, Gary, for defending our most cherished right under the Bil of Rights (in this case in a quasi private setting), I.e., the freedom of speech (and, its corollary right, the freedom of religion)!
And to Tom Teasley, you cannot compare the use of the rules of the U.S. Senate to the uncivil and obnoxious actions of the spectators at the hearing for Judge Kavanaugh today. You need to study the Socratic method before venturing into such a debate.
Thank you, Gary!
The SPLC has degenerated, like similar organizations into a biased smear factory. It has been taken over by the most rigid fringes of the left, which ultimately ends up discrediting an organization with a brilliant past, and, now, a murky present and future.
ACT is a very bigoted group of people, an anti-Muslim group which is funded and supported by a bunch of very questionable characters, some of which even have a history of advocating violence of questionable nature, and are known racists and religious bigots.
As much as I am very critical of ACT and its xenophobic brethren groups, such groups have a right to express themselves in lawful ways. And hotels have a right to host such groups and then get criticized for doing so too. But hotels are probably best in the business if they don’t apply a political litmus test and conduct a political inquisition prior to doing business with conference organizers or others who have booked hotel services.
Also, such open hosting of ACT enables people to know who these xenophobic nutcases are and to track them. I would rather see these anti-American enemies of religious freedom and liberty in ACT be in the open than to have them be like a hidden snake waiting to attack.
ACT’s got a lot of characters who have been supporters of racist wolf-packs hunting down perceived Muslims in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere in Europe. Given it’s encouragement of illegal action abroad, ACT members and backers may be subject to some travel restrictions due to their hate-mongering ways.
Freedom of speech and expression doesn’t mean freedom from all consequences, whether it be the freedom of speech/expression of the hotel or the hotel customers.
Trump’s Ben Carson is an anti-Muslim xenophobe. He is a hate-mongerer of the religous bigot sort. Trump and Carson share in their political hatred of Muslims, Americans or otherwise, and were keen to support the “Muslim ban”.
Those who hate on a religion of c. a billion plus people may be fairly identified as hate-filled extremists by many. It’s not like Trump and Carson are big supporters of freedom of religion for Muslims in America.
@GUWonder Ben Carson is a good man with whom I have serious disagreements. He doesn’t seem “hate-filled.”
Ben Carson just isn’t a good man, and his fire-breathing against Muslims and Islam in general would be called out by more — including maybe the author of this blog — if Carsob talked about Jews and Judaism the way he has talked about Muslims and Islam.
Does an ideological love for libertarianism and the advancement toward dismantling of a regulatory state trump your opposition to xenophobic and religious bigotry? Or does it depend upon who and what is the target of hate.
Just calling it as it is. And you know me for that honesty. 😉
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a left wing hate group. It has zero credibility…zero. It’s funny how groups on the right are characterized as extreme or as a “hate group”, yet you never…I repeat never…hear of a left wing group being labeled as extreme or filled with hate – despite the fact that left wing extremist groups in sheer numbers dwarf those on the right. The Left is comfortably the most dangerous element in the US right now, from elementary schools to the university to the media to groups like Southern Poverty Law Center. Hyatt has the right to have any group stay and meet at its properties, even left wing hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center
GUWonder said
“ very bigoted group of people”
”bunch of very questionable characters”
”advocating violence of questionable nature”
”known racists and religious bigots”
”xenophobic nutcases”
“like a hidden snake waiting to attack.”
“lot of characters who have been supporters of racist wolf-packs”
“illegal action abroad”
“hate-mongering ways”
“xenophobe”
“hate-mongerer”
“fire-breathing”
(1) “Just calling it as it is. And you know me for that honesty.” Me too. So much hate in one person, hard to process. Are you like a Crazzzzy Person? GUWonder. Inquiring minds want to know.
I was under the impression that it is the government’s job to force people to talk or think “correctly.” There’s not enough room in the pushy-demanding club to admit non-government members.
Neither hotels nor civil rights groups should be able to usurp the government’s “social justice” powers —as clearly stated in The Constitution.
LOL… the only ones who think Act for America is a hate group are those of the fascist left. So no one of consequence should worry about their opinions. They are scum.
OJS,
A Trump-supporter are you, one in favor of crazy Trump’s “Muslim ban”? That’s a rhetorical question. 😉
Trump ran on hate, crazy hate, and you can bet that I didn’t vote for that hate-spewing, narcissistic New York clown in love with his own real estate but whose mind may have been adversely impacted by one too many STDs. 😉
OJS,
The US makes some speech illegal, under laws passed by the US Congress.
There isn’t necessarily any general freedom of speech to lie to law enforcement in the US; and Congress has passed, and the Courts upheld, laws that make some speech illegal in the US. A false verbal declaration to US CBP at a US port of entry may constitute a crime under some circumstances — as not all speech in the US is protected by the First Amendment. That is but one example amongst others.