Just when you thought Martha’s Vineyard couldn’t get any weirder than Larry David yelling at Alan Dershowitz in a porch showdown worthy of Judge Judy, along comes this week’s culinary crisis: A man, a dumpling, and a dream denied.
The scene: The tranquil, artisanal expanse of the West Tisbury Farmers Market, where kale is king, heirloom tomatoes have first names, and no one admits to eating Pringles.
Enter stage right: Alan (“I defended O.J. and Epstein and still got brunch reservations”) Dershowitz, Harvard Law’s legal Rasputin and seasonal Vineyard chaos agent.
Our protagonist arrives to buy pierogi — those humble Eastern European dumplings stuffed with potato, cheese, and, on this particular day, indignation.
But tragedy strikes. The vendor of Good Pierogi reportedly looks up from their hand-rolled dough, recalls last week’s T shirt reading “PROUD ZIONIST,” and says, in so many words, “Eh, we’re all full up on morally complicated dumpling-seekers today.”
Cue Dershowitz reaching for his Constitution and his iPhone simultaneously — because nothing says “peaceful resolution” like filming your own food-based civil rights violation.
“I’m being denied pierogi because of my political views,” he declared, while witnesses report he may have also shouted “Bigot!” and encouraged a dumpling boycott, a phrase no Vineyarder ever expected to hear without a wine-pairing suggestion.
Let’s be clear: This wasn’t just about pierogi. This was about justice, expression, and the sacred American right to get doughy pockets of mashed potato, even if you’ve defended constitutional crises and creepy billionaires.
Dershowitz, displaying the calm restraint of a man whose orange juice was clearly too fresh-squeezed, then claimed he might sue. Because nothing screams community harmony like suing over Slavic snacks.
West Tisbury Police were called. Officer Nate — who thought he’d signed up to direct traffic near zucchini stands — now found himself mediating a First Amendment face-off between a constitutional law professor and a seasoned pierogi artisan.
Three vendors complained. Four customers called it a disturbance. One chicken reportedly stopped laying eggs.
And while Dershowitz insisted that Zionism = Judaism = protected religious class, local lawyers (and every civics teacher ever) pointed out that Zionism = political belief, and that businesses, as confirmed by a 2023 SCOTUS decision, can refuse service based on politics. Yes, even if you’re wearing a shirt with bold fonts and historical baggage.
Still, the drama unfolded like a bad Netflix courtroom movie. Dershowitz compared the incident to racial or sexual discrimination, which is sort of like comparing a stubbed toe to a shark bite. He says he’ll be back this Saturday for Round Two. This time with friends. And a camera crew. And maybe Gloria Allred.
Meanwhile, the Good Pierogi team stood their ground, armed with potato filling, legal counsel, and a statement that basically said, “Just because you’re famous doesn’t mean you get our food.”
Island reactions have been mixed. Some want to rename the stand “No Soup for You Pierogi.” Others are planning a solidarity “Free the Dumplings” potluck. Still others just want to buy their damn produce in peace without watching Alan Dershowitz film a constitutional TikTok in front of the kale stand.
The Ag Society called the incident “troubling.” A produce vendor issued a manifesto. Tourists kept buying granola and honey. And Dershowitz, in a final flourish of irony, announced he would hold a pierogi party at home.
MORAL: When life denies you dumplings, you sue, you spin, and then you cater.
Roger Craver is a copy editor and essayist who lives in Chilmark. –Ed.
I’m curious: how is this “refusing pierogis” case the same or different from the Supreme Court decision that upheld a baker’s right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple? (This is a sincere question–I would love to hear from people with knowledge of this area of the law.) Reference: https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/supreme-court-upholds-bakers-right-disagree-gay-marriage-marketplace
My understanding is that the Supreme Court’s decision turned on the distinction between ordinary commerce and expressive conduct. A business cannot refuse service to someone because they belong to a protected class. The Court viewed custom wedding cakes as a form of artistic expression, which meant forcing the baker to create one would compel speech. Selling a ready-made cake or any other standard commercial good would not have been protected in the same way.
The pierogi situation is different. Pierogis are a standard, non-expressive product. Refusing to sell them to someone because of their political beliefs or affiliations is a commercial refusal, and commercial transactions do not receive the same First Amendment protections. However, whether or not Dershowtiz has enough juice in the current administration to get that changed by bringing a case to the Supreme Court is anyone’s guess and a concern in it’s own right.
Like wedding cakes, perogies are works of art, each one is different.
In the Colorado case the baker was happy to sell a cake to anyone. But once the cake required a decoration of same sex wedding , the baker refused. It was the decoration not the cake. In the pierogi case the vendor charges that the law allows discrimination for political differences and he might be correct. However what is legally and technically allowed should not necessarily be indulged in. Law and license are different.
I so wish I wrote this letter. (Instead I was furiously drafting indignant First Amendment arguments and then deleting them.)
Well played, sir.
When the Vineyard’s most off-putting fogey
Demanded his share of pierogi
The seller said, “Alan,
You’re just not my pal, and
I think you should move to Muskogee.”
Love it!
Excellent pay-by-play description of an annual Dershowitz disturbance. With all of the assaults taking place nationally on the Constitution by his (former) client. this is the hill he proposes to die on? My suggestion: learn to cook, Alan. Then you can have pierogis whenever you want them.
OMG sarcasm to the 9th power. I think I have found my soulmate. Here hoping you are single, Roger.
“First they came for the Dersh’s dumpling, and I did not speak out—
Because I don’t like dumplings.
Then they came for Dersh’s chocolates, and I did not speak out—
Because chocolate is fattening.
Then they came for Dersh’s orange juice, and I did not speak out—
Because I prefer lemonade.
Then they came for my eggroll—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Hilarious! Well done!
The Vendor should seek an order of protection against Mr Dershowitz for his harassing behavior and threat to return for more.
Denying service solely because a business owner dislikes someone’s politics, religion, or ethnicity can violate anti-discrimination laws and expose the business to potential legal action. Whether you like Alan Dershowitz or not is no reason to discriminate against him.
Nope. Anti-discrimination laws do not extend to political preference. “According to local attorneys, businesses do have a constitutional right to refuse services to a customer, as long as the reasons are non-discriminatory. Dershowitz is partly claiming politics as a reason for discrimination in this instance, which the law has historically disagreed with, experts said.”
The vendor should hire Larry David.
A true “First World” conundrum.
Hey Alan,
How about you do something useful, such as using your influence to get the President to back off from Harvard?