Guy wearing Trump hat sues bar for refusing to serve him

[Camp]

More from the tolerant, freedom-loving alt-left. Seems like a clear case of discrimination based on political beliefs. I hope this bar owner doesn't suffer as a cake baking business did when they were sued...

The bar owner should consider donating any tax benefit that he might receive when Trump decreases personal taxes, you wouldn't want to accept such a policy from someone you dislike so much.

Guy wearing Trump hat sues bar for refusing to serve him | New York Post

Bartenders at a West Village hot spot served up discrimination — with a liberal twist — refusing to serve a customer because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, according to a lawsuit.

Greg Piatek, 30, an accountant from Philadelphia, claims he was snubbed and eventually 86’d by workers at The Happiest Hour on West 10th Street over his conservative fashion statement, popularized by Donald Trump on the campaign trail, he told The Post.

“Anyone who supports Trump — or believes what you believe — is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” Piatek claims he was told as he was shown the door by a manager.

The shake-up started when Piatek and two pals, after a visit to the 9/11 Memorial, ordered drinks at the posh tavern around 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 28.

A female bartender served Piatek a $15 jalapeño margarita and his pals beers. But when he tried to order a second round, a male bartender noticed his hat — and skipped them, he said.

One of Piatek’s pals pointed out it was their turn to be served, but the bartender scoffed. “Is that hat a joke?” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit claims.

“Immediately it clicked,” Piatek said, adding that bartenders didn’t see the pro-Trump slogan until he turned his back to the bar.

“Ignoring me because I’m wearing the hat is ridiculous,” Piatek said. “It’s really sad.”

The “flustered” bartender got them a second round but allegedly “slammed the drinks down.”

A third bartender also asked Piatek if his lid was a joke and shouted, “I can’t believe you would support someone so terrible and you must be as terrible a person!” Piatek claimed.

“I wasn’t even trying to order a drink and she said, ‘Don’t even try to order from me. I won’t get you a drink,’ ” Piatek alleged.

A manager said he spoke to the bar owner, and was told, “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here. And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” according to the suit.

Bar owner Jon Neidich did not respond to calls. A manager at the bar refused to comment.

Piatek’s lawyer Paul Liggieri called the incident “humiliating,” saying it was his client’s “saddest hour.”

Hey, choices have consequences. It's a private business, not the government. You never read a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

That's just it. They can't do that any more. Imagine a bar that refused to serve dark skinned people.

The subjects of this thread were not refused service. They admit to having been served several drinks. There is no evidence whether they had been drinking before they entered the bar. That is a problem often encountered by bar owners and bartenders. A person comes in that is already under the influence to one degree or another. This case will be about a troublemaker suspected of being intoxicated and causing a problem being bounced out of the bar to prevent a possible violent confrontation.

That is supposition.

The supposition of the bartender is the one that will count in court. It is his or her legal responsibility to not oversell alcohol to an intoxicated patron. The patron could have handed his hat to the bartender to hold until he was ready to leave the bar. Not doing so may have been an indication his thinking may have been influenced by intoxication. A patrons insistence on wearing a hat that offends other patrons is a sign of arrogance or worse, belligerence and there is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk. Belligerent drunks are time bombs fused to explode into violence. The patron with the hat gave the bartender and management just cause for assuming he was intoxicated and providing further alcohol to him would be legally irresponsible and cause a public safety issue. Prevent fights and violence before it gets started.

 

[hadit]

More from the tolerant, freedom-loving alt-left. Seems like a clear case of discrimination based on political beliefs. I hope this bar owner doesn't suffer as a cake baking business did when they were sued...

The bar owner should consider donating any tax benefit that he might receive when Trump decreases personal taxes, you wouldn't want to accept such a policy from someone you dislike so much.

Guy wearing Trump hat sues bar for refusing to serve him | New York Post

Bartenders at a West Village hot spot served up discrimination — with a liberal twist — refusing to serve a customer because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, according to a lawsuit.

Greg Piatek, 30, an accountant from Philadelphia, claims he was snubbed and eventually 86’d by workers at The Happiest Hour on West 10th Street over his conservative fashion statement, popularized by Donald Trump on the campaign trail, he told The Post.

“Anyone who supports Trump — or believes what you believe — is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” Piatek claims he was told as he was shown the door by a manager.

The shake-up started when Piatek and two pals, after a visit to the 9/11 Memorial, ordered drinks at the posh tavern around 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 28.

A female bartender served Piatek a $15 jalapeño margarita and his pals beers. But when he tried to order a second round, a male bartender noticed his hat — and skipped them, he said.

One of Piatek’s pals pointed out it was their turn to be served, but the bartender scoffed. “Is that hat a joke?” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit claims.

“Immediately it clicked,” Piatek said, adding that bartenders didn’t see the pro-Trump slogan until he turned his back to the bar.

“Ignoring me because I’m wearing the hat is ridiculous,” Piatek said. “It’s really sad.”

The “flustered” bartender got them a second round but allegedly “slammed the drinks down.”

A third bartender also asked Piatek if his lid was a joke and shouted, “I can’t believe you would support someone so terrible and you must be as terrible a person!” Piatek claimed.

“I wasn’t even trying to order a drink and she said, ‘Don’t even try to order from me. I won’t get you a drink,’ ” Piatek alleged.

A manager said he spoke to the bar owner, and was told, “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here. And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” according to the suit.

Bar owner Jon Neidich did not respond to calls. A manager at the bar refused to comment.

Piatek’s lawyer Paul Liggieri called the incident “humiliating,” saying it was his client’s “saddest hour.”

Hey, choices have consequences. It's a private business, not the government. You never read a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

That's just it. They can't do that any more. Imagine a bar that refused to serve dark skinned people.

The subjects of this thread were not refused service. They admit to having been served several drinks. There is no evidence whether they had been drinking before they entered the bar. That is a problem often encountered by bar owners and bartenders. A person comes in that is already under the influence to one degree or another. This case will be about a troublemaker suspected of being intoxicated and causing a problem being bounced out of the bar to prevent a possible violent confrontation.

That is supposition.

The supposition of the bartender is the one that will count in court. It is his or her legal responsibility to not oversell alcohol to an intoxicated patron. The patron could have handed his hat to the bartender to hold until he was ready to leave the bar. Not doing so may have been an indication his thinking may have been influenced by intoxication. A patrons insistence on wearing a hat that offends other patrons is a sign of arrogance or worse, belligerence and there is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk. Belligerent drunks are time bombs fused to explode into violence. The patron with the hat gave the bartender and management just cause for assuming he was intoxicated and providing further alcohol to him would be legally irresponsible and cause a public safety issue. Prevent fights and violence before it gets started.

Or he could have just been having a good time with his friends and the bar's management had a snowflake meltdown when they saw his hat. Since there was no controversy until he turned around, apparently no one else was offended. "Belligerent drunk" has not been established.

 

[jknowgood]

Trouble makers should stay out of bars. The guy should have stuffed his hat into his back pocket when it became obvious he was offending some people. Same if it was a black lives matter hat, don't force your politics on people in a bar. That is how fights get started.

Oh, come on. Wearing a hat doesn't force your politics on anyone.

I live in a Resort with lots of bars and none of them allow hats. Hats and bars do not mix well unless you like to have lots of fights in the bar.

Lol I see you live in a liberal community. Getting butthurt for no reason. Snowflakes.

 

[jknowgood]

More from the tolerant, freedom-loving alt-left. Seems like a clear case of discrimination based on political beliefs. I hope this bar owner doesn't suffer as a cake baking business did when they were sued...

The bar owner should consider donating any tax benefit that he might receive when Trump decreases personal taxes, you wouldn't want to accept such a policy from someone you dislike so much.

Guy wearing Trump hat sues bar for refusing to serve him | New York Post

Bartenders at a West Village hot spot served up discrimination — with a liberal twist — refusing to serve a customer because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, according to a lawsuit.

Greg Piatek, 30, an accountant from Philadelphia, claims he was snubbed and eventually 86’d by workers at The Happiest Hour on West 10th Street over his conservative fashion statement, popularized by Donald Trump on the campaign trail, he told The Post.

“Anyone who supports Trump — or believes what you believe — is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” Piatek claims he was told as he was shown the door by a manager.

The shake-up started when Piatek and two pals, after a visit to the 9/11 Memorial, ordered drinks at the posh tavern around 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 28.

A female bartender served Piatek a $15 jalapeño margarita and his pals beers. But when he tried to order a second round, a male bartender noticed his hat — and skipped them, he said.

One of Piatek’s pals pointed out it was their turn to be served, but the bartender scoffed. “Is that hat a joke?” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit claims.

“Immediately it clicked,” Piatek said, adding that bartenders didn’t see the pro-Trump slogan until he turned his back to the bar.

“Ignoring me because I’m wearing the hat is ridiculous,” Piatek said. “It’s really sad.”

The “flustered” bartender got them a second round but allegedly “slammed the drinks down.”

A third bartender also asked Piatek if his lid was a joke and shouted, “I can’t believe you would support someone so terrible and you must be as terrible a person!” Piatek claimed.

“I wasn’t even trying to order a drink and she said, ‘Don’t even try to order from me. I won’t get you a drink,’ ” Piatek alleged.

A manager said he spoke to the bar owner, and was told, “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here. And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” according to the suit.

Bar owner Jon Neidich did not respond to calls. A manager at the bar refused to comment.

Piatek’s lawyer Paul Liggieri called the incident “humiliating,” saying it was his client’s “saddest hour.”

Hey, choices have consequences. It's a private business, not the government. You never read a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

That's just it. They can't do that any more. Imagine a bar that refused to serve dark skinned people.

The subjects of this thread were not refused service. They admit to having been served several drinks. There is no evidence whether they had been drinking before they entered the bar. That is a problem often encountered by bar owners and bartenders. A person comes in that is already under the influence to one degree or another. This case will be about a troublemaker suspected of being intoxicated and causing a problem being bounced out of the bar to prevent a possible violent confrontation.

That is supposition.

The supposition of the bartender is the one that will count in court. It is his or her legal responsibility to not oversell alcohol to an intoxicated patron. The patron could have handed his hat to the bartender to hold until he was ready to leave the bar. Not doing so may have been an indication his thinking may have been influenced by intoxication. A patrons insistence on wearing a hat that offends other patrons is a sign of arrogance or worse, belligerence and there is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk. Belligerent drunks are time bombs fused to explode into violence. The patron with the hat gave the bartender and management just cause for assuming he was intoxicated and providing further alcohol to him would be legally irresponsible and cause a public safety issue. Prevent fights and violence before it gets started.

So if two queers walk into a bar and it offends the bartender. He can tell them to leave?

 

[BoSoxGal]

Political opinion is not a protected class - I doubt the case will go far.

 

[jknowgood]

Trouble makers should stay out of bars. The guy should have stuffed his hat into his back pocket when it became obvious he was offending some people. Same if it was a black lives matter hat, don't force your politics on people in a bar. That is how fights get started.

Oh, come on. Wearing a hat doesn't force your politics on anyone.

I live in a Resort with lots of bars and none of them allow hats. Hats and bars do not mix well unless you like to have lots of fights in the bar.

While I think that is a silly rule, the decision should ultimately rest with the business. Such a dress code rule would make me walk past such an establishment, though. I love me a ball cap. lol

In the day time, the hats are OK. At night, too many drunks, male and female, who want to try on another person's hat.

Do you party with a bunch of kids?

 

[Camp]

Hey, choices have consequences. It's a private business, not the government. You never read a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

That's just it. They can't do that any more. Imagine a bar that refused to serve dark skinned people.

The subjects of this thread were not refused service. They admit to having been served several drinks. There is no evidence whether they had been drinking before they entered the bar. That is a problem often encountered by bar owners and bartenders. A person comes in that is already under the influence to one degree or another. This case will be about a troublemaker suspected of being intoxicated and causing a problem being bounced out of the bar to prevent a possible violent confrontation.

That is supposition.

The supposition of the bartender is the one that will count in court. It is his or her legal responsibility to not oversell alcohol to an intoxicated patron. The patron could have handed his hat to the bartender to hold until he was ready to leave the bar. Not doing so may have been an indication his thinking may have been influenced by intoxication. A patrons insistence on wearing a hat that offends other patrons is a sign of arrogance or worse, belligerence and there is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk. Belligerent drunks are time bombs fused to explode into violence. The patron with the hat gave the bartender and management just cause for assuming he was intoxicated and providing further alcohol to him would be legally irresponsible and cause a public safety issue. Prevent fights and violence before it gets started.

Or he could have just been having a good time with his friends and the bar's management had a snowflake meltdown when they saw his hat. Since there was no controversy until he turned around, apparently no one else was offended. "Belligerent drunk" has not been established.

You may be correct, but when and if it gets to court, the defense will make it clear that legally, it is the person serving the patron alcohol who is responsible for determining whether the patron is intoxicated to the point of the establishment having a legal obligation to stop serving the customer alcohol. The management and bartender can be held civilly and criminally responsible for overselling alcohol.
Selling alcohol in a bar is not the same as selling a cake or providing other services. The repercussions of "cake abuse" are not the same as "alcohol abuse". Belligerent behavior is a subjective opinion. If a person knows something is annoying or offending you and your customers and the trouble maker behaves as if they don't care and are going to continue with the annoying or offending behavior it is fair to judge that person as being belligerent. Guy wearing an annoying hat, or at least a hat that annoys the other patrons of a bar, is being belligerent. Alcohol was an issue. The customer was not going in a store to buy something and leaving. He was in an environment with people drinking alcohol and hanging around for an unknown length of time. After consuming several alcoholic drinks the bartender or management determined he was becoming a problem so they did what bars do every day all over America. The bar bounced the guy from the bar. He wasn't a victim, he was an asshole that thought a trump hat gave him permission to be an asshole.

 

[esthermoon]

It is a private business so they should be able to refuse service. Now where are the Liberals spitting blood because someone was refused service ? Waiting, waiting .........

Of course they are able to refuse service. But they should have a real and logical reason.
Refusing service just because you don't agree with somebody else hat is ridiculous

 

[Camp]

Trouble makers should stay out of bars. The guy should have stuffed his hat into his back pocket when it became obvious he was offending some people. Same if it was a black lives matter hat, don't force your politics on people in a bar. That is how fights get started.

Oh, come on. Wearing a hat doesn't force your politics on anyone.

I live in a Resort with lots of bars and none of them allow hats. Hats and bars do not mix well unless you like to have lots of fights in the bar.

While I think that is a silly rule, the decision should ultimately rest with the business. Such a dress code rule would make me walk past such an establishment, though. I love me a ball cap. lol

In the day time, the hats are OK. At night, too many drunks, male and female, who want to try on another person's hat.

Do you party with a bunch of kids?

Sometimes I do. I live in a beach resort. Great live music at the bars. If you want to see them you have to mix with the young folks. Also, that is when the bars hire extra help like me sometimes. Free concert and good pay.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It is a private business so they should be able to refuse service. Now where are the Liberals spitting blood because someone was refused service ? Waiting, waiting .........

Of course they are able to refuse service. But they should have a real and logical reason.
Refusing service just because you don't agree with somebody else hat is ridiculous

Look at it this way, you have the right to tell someone they can not come into your home.Same thing with a privately owned business. I do believe it is stupid to deny service based on race, gender, and so on because a business loses money that way, but its still a issue of individual rights.

 

[Cellblock2429]

More from the tolerant, freedom-loving alt-left. Seems like a clear case of discrimination based on political beliefs. I hope this bar owner doesn't suffer as a cake baking business did when they were sued...

The bar owner should consider donating any tax benefit that he might receive when Trump decreases personal taxes, you wouldn't want to accept such a policy from someone you dislike so much.

Guy wearing Trump hat sues bar for refusing to serve him | New York Post

Bartenders at a West Village hot spot served up discrimination — with a liberal twist — refusing to serve a customer because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, according to a lawsuit.

Greg Piatek, 30, an accountant from Philadelphia, claims he was snubbed and eventually 86’d by workers at The Happiest Hour on West 10th Street over his conservative fashion statement, popularized by Donald Trump on the campaign trail, he told The Post.

“Anyone who supports Trump — or believes what you believe — is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” Piatek claims he was told as he was shown the door by a manager.

The shake-up started when Piatek and two pals, after a visit to the 9/11 Memorial, ordered drinks at the posh tavern around 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 28.

A female bartender served Piatek a $15 jalapeño margarita and his pals beers. But when he tried to order a second round, a male bartender noticed his hat — and skipped them, he said.

One of Piatek’s pals pointed out it was their turn to be served, but the bartender scoffed. “Is that hat a joke?” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit claims.

“Immediately it clicked,” Piatek said, adding that bartenders didn’t see the pro-Trump slogan until he turned his back to the bar.

“Ignoring me because I’m wearing the hat is ridiculous,” Piatek said. “It’s really sad.”

The “flustered” bartender got them a second round but allegedly “slammed the drinks down.”

A third bartender also asked Piatek if his lid was a joke and shouted, “I can’t believe you would support someone so terrible and you must be as terrible a person!” Piatek claimed.

“I wasn’t even trying to order a drink and she said, ‘Don’t even try to order from me. I won’t get you a drink,’ ” Piatek alleged.

A manager said he spoke to the bar owner, and was told, “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here. And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” according to the suit.

Bar owner Jon Neidich did not respond to calls. A manager at the bar refused to comment.

Piatek’s lawyer Paul Liggieri called the incident “humiliating,” saying it was his client’s “saddest hour.”

.
Look forward to him going to court and producing the evidence that he wasn't served (apparently he was) and that there are witnesses to people saying that it was because of his hat he "wasn't served".

Good point --- we have here only his side of the story. All that we muse on about the propriety of what might have gone down is based on one side only. That's not a legitimate point of departure.

/---- Suddenly LIbtards are demanding fair and balanced reporting.

 

[bodecea]

Hey, choices have consequences. It's a private business, not the government. You never read a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

That's just it. They can't do that any more. Imagine a bar that refused to serve dark skinned people.

The subjects of this thread were not refused service. They admit to having been served several drinks. There is no evidence whether they had been drinking before they entered the bar. That is a problem often encountered by bar owners and bartenders. A person comes in that is already under the influence to one degree or another. This case will be about a troublemaker suspected of being intoxicated and causing a problem being bounced out of the bar to prevent a possible violent confrontation.

That is supposition.

The supposition of the bartender is the one that will count in court. It is his or her legal responsibility to not oversell alcohol to an intoxicated patron. The patron could have handed his hat to the bartender to hold until he was ready to leave the bar. Not doing so may have been an indication his thinking may have been influenced by intoxication. A patrons insistence on wearing a hat that offends other patrons is a sign of arrogance or worse, belligerence and there is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk. Belligerent drunks are time bombs fused to explode into violence. The patron with the hat gave the bartender and management just cause for assuming he was intoxicated and providing further alcohol to him would be legally irresponsible and cause a public safety issue. Prevent fights and violence before it gets started.

Or he could have just been having a good time with his friends and the bar's management had a snowflake meltdown when they saw his hat. Since there was no controversy until he turned around, apparently no one else was offended. "Belligerent drunk" has not been established.

And a lawsuit may help settle that, right?

 

[Kirwood Derby]

Let him drink cake.

 

[bodecea]

Hey, choices have consequences. It's a private business, not the government. You never read a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

That's just it. They can't do that any more. Imagine a bar that refused to serve dark skinned people.

The subjects of this thread were not refused service. They admit to having been served several drinks. There is no evidence whether they had been drinking before they entered the bar. That is a problem often encountered by bar owners and bartenders. A person comes in that is already under the influence to one degree or another. This case will be about a troublemaker suspected of being intoxicated and causing a problem being bounced out of the bar to prevent a possible violent confrontation.

That is supposition.

The supposition of the bartender is the one that will count in court. It is his or her legal responsibility to not oversell alcohol to an intoxicated patron. The patron could have handed his hat to the bartender to hold until he was ready to leave the bar. Not doing so may have been an indication his thinking may have been influenced by intoxication. A patrons insistence on wearing a hat that offends other patrons is a sign of arrogance or worse, belligerence and there is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk. Belligerent drunks are time bombs fused to explode into violence. The patron with the hat gave the bartender and management just cause for assuming he was intoxicated and providing further alcohol to him would be legally irresponsible and cause a public safety issue. Prevent fights and violence before it gets started.

So if two queers walk into a bar and it offends the bartender. He can tell them to leave?

If he asks them to leave and they sue....on who does it rest to prove they were kicked out unfairly?

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

That's just it. They can't do that any more. Imagine a bar that refused to serve dark skinned people.

The subjects of this thread were not refused service. They admit to having been served several drinks. There is no evidence whether they had been drinking before they entered the bar. That is a problem often encountered by bar owners and bartenders. A person comes in that is already under the influence to one degree or another. This case will be about a troublemaker suspected of being intoxicated and causing a problem being bounced out of the bar to prevent a possible violent confrontation.

That is supposition.

The supposition of the bartender is the one that will count in court. It is his or her legal responsibility to not oversell alcohol to an intoxicated patron. The patron could have handed his hat to the bartender to hold until he was ready to leave the bar. Not doing so may have been an indication his thinking may have been influenced by intoxication. A patrons insistence on wearing a hat that offends other patrons is a sign of arrogance or worse, belligerence and there is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk. Belligerent drunks are time bombs fused to explode into violence. The patron with the hat gave the bartender and management just cause for assuming he was intoxicated and providing further alcohol to him would be legally irresponsible and cause a public safety issue. Prevent fights and violence before it gets started.

So if two queers walk into a bar and it offends the bartender. He can tell them to leave?

If he asks them to leave and they sue....on who does it rest to prove they were kicked out unfairly?

The plaintiff.

 

[jknowgood]

Oh, come on. Wearing a hat doesn't force your politics on anyone.

I live in a Resort with lots of bars and none of them allow hats. Hats and bars do not mix well unless you like to have lots of fights in the bar.

While I think that is a silly rule, the decision should ultimately rest with the business. Such a dress code rule would make me walk past such an establishment, though. I love me a ball cap. lol

In the day time, the hats are OK. At night, too many drunks, male and female, who want to try on another person's hat.

Do you party with a bunch of kids?

Sometimes I do. I live in a beach resort. Great live music at the bars. If you want to see them you have to mix with the young folks. Also, that is when the bars hire extra help like me sometimes. Free concert and good pay.

I'm a happy hour guy. Home early.

 

[Pogo]

More from the tolerant, freedom-loving alt-left. Seems like a clear case of discrimination based on political beliefs. I hope this bar owner doesn't suffer as a cake baking business did when they were sued...

The bar owner should consider donating any tax benefit that he might receive when Trump decreases personal taxes, you wouldn't want to accept such a policy from someone you dislike so much.

Guy wearing Trump hat sues bar for refusing to serve him | New York Post

Bartenders at a West Village hot spot served up discrimination — with a liberal twist — refusing to serve a customer because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, according to a lawsuit.

Greg Piatek, 30, an accountant from Philadelphia, claims he was snubbed and eventually 86’d by workers at The Happiest Hour on West 10th Street over his conservative fashion statement, popularized by Donald Trump on the campaign trail, he told The Post.

“Anyone who supports Trump — or believes what you believe — is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” Piatek claims he was told as he was shown the door by a manager.

The shake-up started when Piatek and two pals, after a visit to the 9/11 Memorial, ordered drinks at the posh tavern around 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 28.

A female bartender served Piatek a $15 jalapeño margarita and his pals beers. But when he tried to order a second round, a male bartender noticed his hat — and skipped them, he said.

One of Piatek’s pals pointed out it was their turn to be served, but the bartender scoffed. “Is that hat a joke?” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit claims.

“Immediately it clicked,” Piatek said, adding that bartenders didn’t see the pro-Trump slogan until he turned his back to the bar.

“Ignoring me because I’m wearing the hat is ridiculous,” Piatek said. “It’s really sad.”

The “flustered” bartender got them a second round but allegedly “slammed the drinks down.”

A third bartender also asked Piatek if his lid was a joke and shouted, “I can’t believe you would support someone so terrible and you must be as terrible a person!” Piatek claimed.

“I wasn’t even trying to order a drink and she said, ‘Don’t even try to order from me. I won’t get you a drink,’ ” Piatek alleged.

A manager said he spoke to the bar owner, and was told, “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here. And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” according to the suit.

Bar owner Jon Neidich did not respond to calls. A manager at the bar refused to comment.

Piatek’s lawyer Paul Liggieri called the incident “humiliating,” saying it was his client’s “saddest hour.”

.
Look forward to him going to court and producing the evidence that he wasn't served (apparently he was) and that there are witnesses to people saying that it was because of his hat he "wasn't served".

Good point --- we have here only his side of the story. All that we muse on about the propriety of what might have gone down is based on one side only. That's not a legitimate point of departure.

/---- Suddenly LIbtards are demanding fair and balanced reporting.

Not "demanding" squat. The bar had no comment, and that's their right too. I'm simply noting that WE, not THEY, have only one side of the story here -- that of the complaining customer. THEREFORE we don't have enough to make judgments on who's right or wrong here. What if the customer is leaving something out?

Understand?

 

[bodecea]

The subjects of this thread were not refused service. They admit to having been served several drinks. There is no evidence whether they had been drinking before they entered the bar. That is a problem often encountered by bar owners and bartenders. A person comes in that is already under the influence to one degree or another. This case will be about a troublemaker suspected of being intoxicated and causing a problem being bounced out of the bar to prevent a possible violent confrontation.

That is supposition.

The supposition of the bartender is the one that will count in court. It is his or her legal responsibility to not oversell alcohol to an intoxicated patron. The patron could have handed his hat to the bartender to hold until he was ready to leave the bar. Not doing so may have been an indication his thinking may have been influenced by intoxication. A patrons insistence on wearing a hat that offends other patrons is a sign of arrogance or worse, belligerence and there is nothing worse than a belligerent drunk. Belligerent drunks are time bombs fused to explode into violence. The patron with the hat gave the bartender and management just cause for assuming he was intoxicated and providing further alcohol to him would be legally irresponsible and cause a public safety issue. Prevent fights and violence before it gets started.

So if two queers walk into a bar and it offends the bartender. He can tell them to leave?

If he asks them to leave and they sue....on who does it rest to prove they were kicked out unfairly?

The plaintiff.

Exactly.

 

[JoeMoma]

Politics is not included in the reasons you cannot discriminate. So I doubt he will win. To me it is a private business, the owner can do what he wants, and I won't frequent a business that discriminates because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics or tries to force a political opinion.

That right there. ^

I believe there are civil rights laws protecting discrimination on the bases of race, religion, gender etc. But not on the basis of behavior. That's what a choice of hat falls under whether we agree with the owner's stance or not. Just as they could toss somebody who's verbally abusive, starting arguments, etc.

I've also seen places that prohibit, e.g "biker colors".

So same sex fucking isn't a behavior?

 

[Camp]

Politics is not included in the reasons you cannot discriminate. So I doubt he will win. To me it is a private business, the owner can do what he wants, and I won't frequent a business that discriminates because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics or tries to force a political opinion.

That right there. ^

I believe there are civil rights laws protecting discrimination on the bases of race, religion, gender etc. But not on the basis of behavior. That's what a choice of hat falls under whether we agree with the owner's stance or not. Just as they could toss somebody who's verbally abusive, starting arguments, etc.

I've also seen places that prohibit, e.g "biker colors".

So same sex fucking isn't a behavior?

A bar can probably remove you from the bar for fucking in the bar, even if you are wearing a trump hat.