Secondly, there is a difference between not being allowed to take action against someone due to their beliefs, and not having to offer people a private platform for their beliefs. For example, if I refused to sell a house to a pirate party member because they were a pirate (unless they agreed to limit all political speech), that would be actionable discrimination and suppression of free speech. That is because that would be a public service offered to anyone. This is not the same thing. This is a private contract, entered into by invitation, without openings to the public.

Forcing people to accommodate people they dislike or who they think will be harmful (as they can very reasonably believe that the Pirate party will be harmful to their business, not through their actions but through the controversy surrounding their presence) is an authoritarian measure.

Freedom means accepting that people won’t act morally. That’s the situation here.

Secondly, there is a difference between not being allowed to take action against someone due to their beliefs, and not having to offer people a private platform for their beliefs. For example, if I refused to sell a house to a pirate party member because they were a pirate (unless they agreed to limit all political speech), that would be actionable discrimination and suppression of free speech. That is because that would be a public service offered to anyone. This is not the same thing. This is a private contract, entered into by invitation, without openings to the public.

Forcing people to accommodate people they dislike or who they think will be harmful (as they can very reasonably believe that the Pirate party will be harmful to their business, not through their actions but through the controversy surrounding their presence) is an authoritarian measure.

Freedom means accepting that people won’t act morally. That’s the situation here.

You are missing the fact that a lot of people in America and elsewhere are coming down on the side that the First Amendment and the laws in other countries around the world are NOT just meant to prevent the federal government from infringing on free speech, but are meant to keep private companies and people from doing that as well.

There is NO consensus, except among extreme conservatives, that the First Amendment ONLY covers infringement on free speech by the government.

Breaking a contract, btw, is NEVER illegal. You do not go to jail for violating a contract, it is a civil matter, not legal.

The best recourse the PP could have here would be to sue the organizers of the expo for breach of contract in CIVIL court. Since no doubt their contract with the expo gives the expo a way out (which they obviously took), the PP’s claim would lie somewhere along the lines of a Breach of Covenant of Good Faith; the argument being: The PP incurred expenses in the attempt to fulfill their side of the contract (employees need to plan the event, hire help, buy supplies, plane tickets, hotels, etc) under the Good Faith assumption that the PP was welcome at the event. The expo, at the last minute, declared the PP was not welcome for reasons that the expo was aware of beforehand, thus negating the possibility of the PP using the same time & money to advertise elsewhere.

Of course this is based on my knowledge of US law. For all I know spitting on a contract in Sweden gets you shot.