A popular New York coffee chain has triggered a public and legal uproar after refusing service in practice to Rep. Dan Goldman, a Jewish Democratic lawmaker and prominent supporter of Israel, then attacking him online for his pro-Israel views. The incident began when Goldman entered one of the chain’s Brooklyn branches with his 7-year-old daughter and asked staff if she could use the restroom. He later bought a coffee for nearly $10, apparently as thanks for the staff’s kindness, and left.
After identifying him, the company posted a harsh message on its official Facebook page on Sunday, sharing his photo from inside the shop and a screenshot showing it had issued an unsolicited refund of $9.82. In the post, the owners mocked him by asking whether his coffee tasted like “genocide juice,” accused him of supporting genocide, said they did not want to serve “fascists, racists or genocide enablers,” and added that they did not need his money because it supposedly came from AIPAC. They ended by telling him never to come back.
The backlash was immediate. Legal experts and Jewish community leaders said the company’s use of AIPAC against a Jewish elected official amounted to a classic antisemitic “dog whistle.” Mark Treyger, chief executive of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, said the boycott was a clear violation of New York City and state human rights laws banning discrimination in public accommodations and businesses. He called blaming Jews or perceived Israel supporters for political disputes a precise form of antisemitism and said turning a cup of coffee into a test of Jewish loyalty was deeply harmful.
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division then announced a formal investigation and said it would take significant enforcement action if the allegations are confirmed. Lawyers also noted that the company’s conduct contradicts its website pledge to show “unconditional respect” to every person who enters and to treat each guest as sacred. Goldman responded calmly, saying he was sorry for the wording used against him, praising the clerk who had been kind to him and his daughter, and saying he hoped the tip he left for her would reach her. Even one of his political rivals criticized the chain, saying it had crossed a line. The post remained online as of the report.
