Judge Rules New York City Bar Can Refuse Service to Trump Supporter Wearing MAGA Hat

  A bar patron sued claiming he was refused service and kicked out for wearing a MAGA hat and supporting Trump. (Reuters)

 A Manhattan judge ruled Wednesday that kicking a Trump supporter out of a bar does not violate the law — 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 – 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.

SCHOOL DISTRICT APOLOGIZES AFTER TEACHER BANS MAGA SHIRTS

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

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.”

Read More: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/04/25/judge-rules-new-york-c...

 

Views: 21

Reply to This

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Goodbye 2020: Clinton Ordered By Federal Judge To Submit To Questioning

(TeaParty.org) – Just when Hillary Clinton began hinting that she’s ready to run again in 2020, she has been ordered by a federal judge to submit to questioning about the use of her private email server to convey classified documents during her time as Secretary of State.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan made the order as part of a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

“Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions — including key q’s about the setting up of her email system,” wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a tweet following the ruling.

Judicial Watch 🔎 @JudicialWatch

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that, following JW's court battle, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer – under oath – two additional questions on her controversial email system within 30 days.

Judicial Watch: Federal Court Ordered Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under...

 (Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Hillary Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her...

judicialwatch.org
Tom Fitton  @TomFitton

Breaking: Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions -- including key q's about the setting up of her email system. Court denied our request to unseal vid depositions of Clinton aides. Great work by Michael Bekesha!

As a statement from Judicial Watch explains, the ruling is the latest development in the group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which they began to discover why former deputy chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin, was allowed to work at the State Department while also engaged in “outside employment.”

Clinton now has 30 days to answer two key questions from a list of 25 questions composed by Judicial Watch.

The questions the judge selected are:

1) “Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.”

During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

This new development is huge because it means that the two critical scandals from Clinton’s time in the State Department, her private email server and the Benghazi attacks, are facing fresh scrutiny in both the legal system and the court of public opinion.

And while Clinton likely had little chance of any run in 2020, this makes it even less likely she will stand even a shred of a chance.

We’ve have got to hope and pray that at long last, this leads to the long overdue criminal charges we’ve all been waiting to see.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service