Without taking sides on the recent pierogi debacle, I feel the need to discuss a broader view of the federal law that allows businesses to discriminate quite easily.

The Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intended to prevent businesses from discrimination, named five protected classes: race, color, religion, sex and natural origin. That was surely a milestone then, but after almost 60 years I think needs some revision.

Though I think the pierogi business had the right to refuse service under current federal law, as they cited the customer’s representation of the Epstein event for their refusal to serve pierogis, there was something about that encounter that seemed very un-American. Someone not causing any trouble, waiting in line, with the proper money, just wanted to buy a product in a quick sale, and was possibly justifiably and legally refused service. Think of parents now telling their children not to wear any provocative clothing that identifies them with any political position, or they could be refused service and embarrassed in public.

Now let’s examine this federal law and expand it further. We can agree Martha’s Vineyard is primarily a liberal community with a much greater majority of democrats. Let’s imagine a billionaire republican decided to buy, at any price, every grocery store, gas station, liquor store and most restaurants on the Island. So what if it cost them $2 billion when they have $100 billion.

Now let’s say all these newly purchased businesses now had a sign out front that said unless you can prove you are a registered republican, you can’t do business in our store. Perfectly legal, but think of the ramifications. Of course the businesses might not be profitable, but the billionaire could care less.

Here is my proposal for a change in federal law. For any short transaction or where the customer does not have to interact with the merchant for any long duration of time, like the purchase of a pierogi or an ice cream cone, grocery shopping or getting gas, a business could not discriminate if the customer was well behaved and had the funds to purchase the respective item.

Longer duration sales, like a hair dresser, an architect, a builder, in which the merchant needed to interact with the customer for a longer duration of time, would be protected by the existing federal laws. So only duration was a factor.

So under my new federal law, if Jeffrey Epstein came to buy a pierogi, yes you must sell to him. If he wanted an architect to design him a house, which takes numerous meetings, that architect could say no.

Had I been that pierogi salesman, under current law, in which it seems he was justified to refuse service, I would have said, “I will of course sell you my pierogi, as long as you give me 20 minutes to discuss with you your past behaviors that I abhor.”

That way the merchant gets a sale, and simultaneously gets to possibly change someone’s mind. To me that’s the American way.

Paul Adler

Chilmark