Judge rules New York City bar can refuse service to Trump supporter wearing MAGA hat

[txradioguy]

A Manhattan judge ruled Wednesday that kicking a Trump supporter out of a bar does not violate the law â€” because the law does not protect against political discrimination.

Greg Piatek of Philadelphia claims he was refused service and eventually removed from a New York City bar in January 2017 for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, in a lawsuit against the establishment.

“Anyone who supports Trump â€“ or believes in what you believe – is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” Piatek claims the staff of The Happiest Hour told him.

Piatek claimed the incident “offended his sense of being an American,” The New York Post reported.

The lawyer representing The Happiest Hour, Elizabeth Conway, argued that he was not discriminated against because only religious, not political, beliefs are protected under state and city discrimination law.

“Supporting Trump is not a religion,” Conway argued.

Piatek’s attorney, Paul Liggieri, responded in court, “The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial.”


http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/04/25/judge-rules-new-york-city-bar-can-refuse-service-to-trump-supporter-wearing-maga-hat.html

[txradioguy]

But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...

[WingNot]

But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...

Or put up a sign at a Philly Cheese steak joint sayin:  "This Is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING `SPEAK ENGLISH."'

Then Everyone loses their minds.

[ABX]

Isn't that religious discrimination?

[Oceander]

But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...

Because the statute in question doesn’t protect against political discrimination.  If the statute had prohibited discrimination on the basis of political views, he would have won. 

[WingNot]

Isn't that religious discrimination?

Trump is God after all.  So yes.  Yes it is religious discrimination.

[txradioguy]

Because the statute in question doesn’t protect against political discrimination.  If the statute had prohibited discrimination on the basis of political views, he would have won.

Ummm First Amendment anyone?

[Night Hides Not]

Trump is God after all.  So yes.  Yes it is religious discrimination.

Secret footage from an Orange Brigade meeting:

[Machiavelli]

Supporting Trump is not a religion

It is to some people.

[skeeter]

It is to some people.

As is opposing him.

[Night Hides Not]

Ummm First Amendment anyone?

Obviously depends on the judge's definition of the First Amendment...

[Fishrrman]

What we need is a hidden camera, and the following folks enter that bar with MAGA hats and ask to be served:
- A black guy who appears to be gay
- A black woman (gay or not)
- An Asian
- An obiviously-Hispanic woman with a heavy accent

Let's see what happens with them!

Addendum:
Throw a muslim-looking woman with a hijab in there, as well!

[Cyber Liberty]

Ummm First Amendment anyone?

Freedom of association is dead, Tex.

[Oceander]

Ummm First Amendment anyone?

Ummm, the First Amendment doesn’t generally apply to private businesses like the bar in question. 

Reading 101 anyone?

[txradioguy]

Ummm, the First Amendment doesn’t generally apply to private businesses like the bar in question. 

Reading 101 anyone?

Freedom of speech applies in this case.  Do you think the guy would have been turned away from the bar if he'd been wearing a F**K Trump hat?

They'd probably have bought him a drink. 

Either way the person is free to put something like that on a hat and wear it in public because our First Amendment protects their right to do that.

In addition the 1st most certainly applies to political speech.  And that MAGA hat definitely falls under the definition of political speech.

What was that you were saying about reading 101? 

[WingNot]

They thu Ron White out of a bar in NYC for wearing a cap. 

[Oceander]

Freedom of speech applies in this case.  Do you think the guy would have been turned away from the bar if he'd been wearing a F**K Trump hat?

They'd probably have bought him a drink.

IN addition the 1st most certainly applies to political speech.  And that MAGA hat definitely falls under the definition of political speech.

What was that you were saying about reading 101? 

How does it apply?  Please, counselor, enchant is with your brilliant legal mind.  How does the First Amendment limit, on its own terms, the conduct of a private business like a bar?  How does the First Amendment make it unconstitutional for a privately owned bar to discriminate against potential patrons with the “wrong” politics.

[driftdiver]

Bake me a cake and shut up

[txradioguy]

How does it apply?  Please, counselor, enchant is with your brilliant legal mind.  How does the First Amendment limit, on its own terms, the conduct of a private business like a bar?  How does the First Amendment make it unconstitutional for a privately owned bar to discriminate against potential patrons with the “wrong” politics.

So you want me to prove a negative?  How cute.

Look I know you're still pissed over how I schooled you on the 2nd Amendment thing...do you really want to go through that kind of embarrassment again?

Let's try it this way...show me either by case law or in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution where it says a business is allowed to kick someone out of a bar for wearing a hat the owner doesn't like.

Go ahead...I'll wait.

[Cyber Liberty]

They thu Ron White out of a bar in NYC for wearing a cap.

I'd say they had a pretty good reason, no?

[txradioguy]

They thu Ron White out of a bar in NYC for wearing a cap.

Was it a Red Sox hat?

[Oceander]

So you want me to prove a negative?  How cute.

Look I know you're still pissed over how I schooled you on the 2nd Amendment thing...do you really want to go through that kind of embarrassment again?

Let's try it this way...show me either by case law or in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution where it says a business is allowed to kick someone out of a bar for wearing a hat the owner doesn't like.

Go ahead...I'll wait.

No, I want you to prove that the First Amendment applies to a privately owned bar and makes it unconstitutional for that privately owned bar to exclude a patron because of that patron’s expressed political views. 

Come on genius, if, as you say, you “schooled” me, this should be a walk in the park for you. 

[txradioguy]

No, I want you to prove that the First Amendment applies to a privately owned bar and makes it unconstitutional for that privately owned bar to exclude a patron because of that patron’s expressed political views. 

Come on genius, if, as you say, you “schooled” me, this should be a walk in the park for you.

Look clearly you are intellectually challenged on the First as well as the Second Amendment.  You've decided that enough time has passed since your last tantrum here that you want to start trying to pick fights again to see if I'll take the bait.

Sorry not your Huckleberry.  Go peddle your Liberal view of the world to people that actually are interested in what you have to say.

Or just go away again for awhile and cool off again.  Your call.

Either way I'm not playing your stupid juvenile game.  You're just not worth it.

[Cyber Liberty]

I've gotten a world-class edumacation here on why the First Amendment applies to private businesses on all those threads where it was patiently explained to us rubes why Christian cake bakeries must be compelled to trade with people who commit acts of abomination.  I fail to see how refusing to trade with a man wearing a MAGA cap is not a violation of that same principle.

The laws must be written (and court approved) that restrictions can only apply on people with conservative political leanings.  That's the only thing my puny mind can noodle out about this. 

Personally, I think the bar was in their rights to do what they did, but I am consistent because I also believe the people who bake cakes and photograph weddings are entitled to the same latitude in their businesses.  I guess that must be the hobgoblin working on my simple mind...nevermind.

Seeyaluvyabye.

[Oceander]

Look clearly you are intellectually challenged on the First as well as the Second Amendment.  You've decided that enough time has passed since your last tantrum here that you want to start trying to pick fights again to see if I'll take the bait.

Sorry not your Huckleberry.  Go peddle your Liberal view of the world to people that actually are interested in what you have to say.

Or just go away again for awhile and cool off again.  Your call.

Either way I'm not playing your stupid juvenile game.  You're just not worth it.

In other words, you can’t.  And for good reason.  The First Amendment only applies to government actors.  It’s right there in the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law ....”