By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. News & World Report offers a weekly email newsletter called “Getting In!” designed to help parents navigate the college application process. Subscribers will receive the “parent playbook” directly to their inbox every Thursday. By signing up, users agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy. This service provides updates from U.S. News & World Report and its partners.
Read the original article here
So, the whole situation boils down to this: the Trump administration, during its time in power, essentially pointed fingers at Hilton Hotels, claiming they were refusing to provide rooms for ICE agents. Now, as someone just trying to make sense of all this, the immediate thought that comes to mind is, why? What’s driving this alleged denial of service? And, more importantly, what’s the big deal?
First off, it’s pretty clear that businesses, generally speaking, have the right to choose who they serve. It’s their property, their rules. This isn’t a new concept. The arguments presented, in a way, are reminiscent of older battles, with a dash of modern political theater thrown in for good measure. You have people citing the Third Amendment, the one about not being forced to quarter soldiers, as a kind of ironic touchstone. It’s a bit of a stretch, but it underscores the general sentiment of not wanting to be forced into something.
Then you get into the nitty-gritty of why a hotel might want to avoid housing ICE agents. One major point brought up is the potential impact on the hotel’s existing guests. Imagine trying to get a good night’s sleep with protests happening outside because of the presence of ICE. It’s a legitimate concern. Beyond that, there’s the optics. Public perception matters, and ICE isn’t exactly a universally beloved entity. For a business, especially a customer-facing one, associating with an organization that’s often viewed negatively could be bad for business.
Another layer to consider is the impact on the hotel’s staff. It’s not hard to imagine that some housekeeping staff, for instance, might not be thrilled about working in rooms used by ICE. This is a crucial element to consider, as this highlights that it is not just about the customer experience but also about the experiences of those who work at the hotel.
And the conversation then drifts into the bigger picture. Some people bring up the idea of using tax dollars wisely and question whether the government rates offered to hotels are fair. The suggestion of alternative accommodations, like tents, is brought up, echoing the notion that luxury isn’t a requirement. This ties into the broader ideological divide, with some arguing for limited government and individual liberties, while others champion the need for fair treatment.
On top of all of that, there is the comparison to other, similar situations, such as Kim Davis refusing to provide service to same-sex couples. The central point being made is that Hilton, just like any other private business, should have the same rights as businesses which may have different personal, religious, or political beliefs.
The whole thing quickly morphs into a culture war debate. This is where things get interesting (and contentious). We get arguments about businesses being allowed to refuse service for any reason, with the obvious counterpoint of protected classes and discrimination. There’s even a reference to the Nazis, highlighting how the idea of a business refusing to associate with something they see as morally reprehensible is often rooted in history. It highlights how businesses may choose to choose who they provide service to in the name of political or moral beliefs.
Then you get the passionate opinions. Some people are openly cheering Hilton, saying they’ll actively choose to stay there in the future. They see Hilton as taking a stand and making a statement. Others are sarcastic, expressing indifference. The idea of “punisher patches” and toughing it out on the sidewalk is floated, further showing the degree of feeling.
The general sentiment, at least in this discussion, is that Hilton has the right to refuse service. People may not like it, but it’s their business, their call. And in a world where everyone seems to be scrutinizing every move, it’s not surprising to see businesses taking stands, even if it comes with the potential for blowback.
It’s clear that it isn’t a simple situation. It’s a mix of politics, personal beliefs, and business considerations. The whole exchange is a perfect illustration of how complex issues can become when they intersect with culture wars and the desire to make statements.