A performer claimed a venue “canceled” them after backlash to a social-media post supporting Israel.
They said it was discrimination. The court said it was politics.
TL;DR: A federal court dismissed a discrimination case under Section 1981, a law that prohibits race discrimination in contracts. The performer claimed a Northern California venue canceled a Hanukkah concert because of Jewish identity. The court said that even if every allegation in the complaint were true, the facts described a business reacting to political controversy, not race discrimination.
📄 Decision: No. 25-cv-02852-CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9 2025)
A concert canceled after social-media backlash
According to the complaint, a Jewish musician who performs devotional rock music proposed a Hanukkah concert at a Northern California retreat center where they had performed many times before. The venue agreed and signed a contract in December 2024.
Soon after, the performer received online messages accusing them of spreading “genocide music” because of a prior Facebook post supporting Israel after the October 7 Hamas attack. The performer alleged that the criticism grew and included public comments accusing them of supporting violence against Palestinians.
Within days, the venue canceled the concert, citing “severe negative feedback,” a desire to “avoid politics and divisiveness,” and safety concerns. It offered to let the performer visit the property but not perform.
The performer alleged the cancellation caused emotional distress, financial loss, and reputational harm, including lost merchandise sales and future bookings.
The court draws a clear line between politics and race
Because the case was still at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court accepted all the allegations in the complaint as true. Even so, it found that the performer had not described facts that supported a plausible claim of discrimination under Section 1981.
-
The complaint itself said the venue canceled to avoid political controversy, not because of religion or race.
-
The performer alleged they had performed at the same location before without issue, which made it harder to infer anti-Jewish bias.
-
The timing of events also worked against the claim: the venue had willingly agreed to host a Hanukkah concert, then reversed course only after a wave of online complaints. That sequence suggested it was reacting to public pressure, not acting out of prejudice.
-
The complaint did not allege that the other performers who criticized Israel were non-Jewish or that the venue even knew about their posts.
The court explained that political controversy is not the same as racial discrimination. Even if the performer viewed Zionism as part of Jewish identity, the allegations did not show that the venue acted because of that identity.
Because Section 1981 requires proof that race was the “but-for” cause of the decision, the claim failed.
Why this ruling matters for employers
Section 1981 doesn’t just apply to musicians or contractors. It also applies to employment. The same law that protects someone’s right to make and enforce contracts also protects employees and job applicants from race discrimination in hiring, pay, promotion, and termination.
Here’s what that means in practice:
-
Political views are not protected characteristics under federal law.
Section 1981 prohibits race-based decisions, not reactions to political or social statements. Employers can respond to workplace disruption or reputational risks if race is not part of the motive. -
Intent is everything.
The key question is why an employer acted. A business decision tied to behavior or controversy is not discrimination unless race was the reason for it. -
Documentation matters.
Clear, contemporaneous documentation of the legitimate business reason for an action helps protect against claims of bias. -
Consistency builds trust.
Consistent treatment of employees in similar situations shows fairness and helps defeat discrimination claims.
The takeaway
Courts don’t treat cancel culture as discrimination without proof of bias.
This case shows the difference: being “canceled” for politics may sting, but unless race or religion drives the decision, it isn’t unlawful.