I’m not taking sides with the Klan. I’m not taking sides with any particular group. That’s something you should understand about this type of law, and my position when explaining it.
It’s about not “taking sides” at all. I wholeheartedly disapprove of the KKK, and what they stand for, but they are not allowed to be blankly discriminated against by business owners - anymore than gays can be discriminated against by Chik Fil-A.
Other laws and considerations may come into play if a specific person or group’s presence on site causes problems for a business owner (or private individual - the nudist beach argument is that type of claim, but the nudists claim they’re good for the local economy).
If a KKK event was going on, and members were harassing people who worked at the hotel, or the owner’s forefather had been lynched, and a circular went out discussing how the Klan still had control over the black community - my answer would be different.
EDIT: Here’s the “nudist beach” argument I was referring to - it’s a parallel thread here on BB In that topic, a house owner has closed a private beach used for decades by nudists, and claims their presence has made sale of the property a difficulty. (They’ve been there since the 1930s, the new house owner since 2006.)
The nudists have begun swimming at the public beach right next door. They also claim that their presence has encouraged increased tourism to the area, thus increasing the economy, and so their presence is a good thing,
