You think that maybe signs posted in a place of business are business speech, not personal speech? If the guy posts that stuff in his basement, he’d be in the clear.
Can you point out where exactly in the first amendment do you see the distinction made between “business speech” and “personal speech”?
What part of “Too grainy, couldn’t read it” are you having trouble with?
As for the hate speech, if I were a customer coming into the establishment, I would probably ignore a poster or two regardless of what they said. But if there were multiple signs, posters, T-shirts and other displays all carrying the same hostile theme, and some or many of them were outright calls to violence against a protected group of which I am a member, then I’d consider the establishment to be a physically threatening environment. And if people in the establishment, employees or customers, who were not of my own minority gave subtle or not so subtle hints that they approved of the hostile theme, perhaps by making eye contact then giving a suggestive head movement toward said displays, I’d consider the threat to be amplified and active. Because hate speech is as hate speech does, donchaknow.
Ah cool. We move from “thought crime” to “suggestive head movement crime” and “eye contact crime”. Hilarious.
Actually I was thinking of commercial speech, which might not apply here.
But here is an article bemoaning the fact that workplace hostile environment laws restrict speech. The author finds the courts interpretation of these laws too broad in restricting speech, but he does not deny that they do.
A restaurant is a workplace - so bigoted signs could be seen as an example of this as well as a way of making visits by those disliked by the owner less likely.