[ April 18, 2024 ]
This is awful. Another devastating blow to our First Amendment rights. Only religious, not political beliefs are protected under state and city discrimination laws. The idea that this bar can throw this man out because he is a Trump supporter, and that a court would approve this, will pave the way for leftists to bar freedom-lovers from more and more establishments. In tandem with the social media giants choking off conservatives’ access to the means of communication, this is a steady closing-off of both virtual and physical platforms to those who dissent from the leftist agenda. It’s incipient and rapidly expanding totalitarianism.
If this had happened when Obama was president and Mr. Piatek had been an Obama supporter, the city would have burned.
“Judge: Bars are allowed to throw out Trump supporters,” by Julia Marsh, New York Post, April 25, 2018 (thanks to Pamela Hall):
Story continues below advertisement
A Manhattan judge ruled Wednesday that there’s nothing “outrageous” about throwing the president’s supporters out of bars — because the law doesn’t protect against political discrimination.
Philadelphia accountant Greg Piatek, 31, was bounced from a West Village watering hole in January 2017, just after Trump took the oath of office, for wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap, according to his lawsuit over the incident.
“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 on West 10th Street told him after he and his pals complained about the rude service they were getting from a bartender.
So he sued in Manhattan Supreme Court, claiming the incident “offended his sense of being American.”
But on Wednesday, when the bar’s lawyer, Elizabeth Conway, pointed out that only religious, and not political, beliefs are protected under state and city discrimination laws, saying, “supporting Trump is not a religion” — Piatek pivoted.
“The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial,” his attorney Paul Liggieri told Justice David Cohen in court Wednesday.
“He was paying spiritual tribute to the victims of 9/11. The Make American Great Again hat was part of his spiritual belief,” Liggieri claimed. Piatek and his pals had, in fact, visited the memorial before the bar.
“Rather than remove his hat, instead he held true to his spiritual belief and was forced from the bar,” Liggieri said.
When the judge asked how the bar employees were supposed to be aware of Piatek’s unusual religious beliefs, Liggieri answered, “They were aware he was wearing the hat.”
The judge pressed Liggieri on the idea of his client’s professed creed.
“How many members are in this spiritual program that your client is engaged in?” the judge asked.
“Your honor, we don’t allege the amount of individuals,” Liggieri said.
“So, it’s a creed of one?” the judge asked.
“Yes, your honor,” Liggieri replied.
After nearly an hour of argument the judge took a short break and then returned to the bench with his ruling.
“Plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates,” Cohen said in tossing the case.
Piatek had sued for unspecified emotional damages, but the judge said the incident amounted to nothing more than a “petty” slight….
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
48 Comments
5 years ago
I still own an interest in a bar. I haven’t visited it, during business hours, for years …. I drank up a bit too much of the profits. However, it might be fun to start visiting it, again. It’s located in a heavily paddy-mic area. Therefore, the vast majority are Democrat Party members. This could prove to be fun. Any mention of a Democrat Party candidate … and trust me …. a lot of ’em are poeleese …. they talk politics a great deal. I now have court precedent to 86 those bastids. Unless, of course, they have unpaid tabs. This should prove more than amusing.
5 years ago
This isn’t a blow to 1st amendment rights. It is the upholding of someone’s property rights.
5 years ago
Reply to
Richard
Oh, but that has not been held equally in all such cases. How many people have been put out of business because someone sues them because they felt discriminated against, and it had nothing to do with religion?
5 years ago
Reply to
kelt_pat
Judge says it’s not discrimination protected by law if it is about a political party.
5 years ago
Reply to
Dave
Very difficult to link “Make America Great Again” to a political party. William Jefferson Clownton’s campaign used that line. Moreover, he delivered it, numerous times.
5 years ago
That’s ILLEGAL!
If I had a bar, can I throw out liberals, homosexuals or DEMS?
Would that be okay too?
5 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
This is really about something the fathers overlooked – district federal judges making a mockery of the constitution – particularly the first amendment – and in this case freedom of the press that includes printed material (such as a hat) – essentially subverting the law for political resistance. This ruling allows one group to discriminate against another group. It would be interesting to see this case go further.
These judges are doing this with immigration as well –
https://www.newsmax.com/richlowry/trump-daca-immigration-judges/2018/04/26/id/856962/
5 years ago
Reply to
Rocinante44
Remember that wedding cake lawsuit?
If a cake store can be sued and fined for not wanting to serve a gay couple ~ (who, by the way, went all the way to that conservative-run cake store just in order to create a scene, as there are other cake stores in between the gay couple’s house and that store they sued) ~ why in the world the bar can’t be sued by refusing to serve a Trump supporter?
Oh right, I forgot, them libturds
5 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
That may apply to homosexuals, but not liberals or Democrats. Fair is fair, good for the goose, etc.
5 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
If you own a bar, it is your property. You can disinvite anybody you want.
5 years ago
Reply to
M. Marsares
That sign saying, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” is not worth the material it is printed on. All establishments that serve alcohol operate under the “apothecary law” which means they are legally liable for serving anyone obviously impaired. Politics doesn’t apply.
5 years ago
Reply to
Drew the Infidel
At one time I looked for Berdan primers and heard that RWS used to make
them. I found a retailer who used to carry them but at the time they
did not get any in stock in quite a while. I also heard that unlike the
Boxer primers there were more than 2 diameters.
5 years ago
Reply to
M. Marsares
“If you own a bar, it is your property.”
If you are a Liberal and you throw someone out of your bar because they are a Republican or a Trump supporter, then you are;
1) stupid
and
2) a bigot
Liberal/Lefties like to claim that they are tolerant and ‘inclusive’ but that only applies to those that share their world view. Everyone else is a ‘fascist’ and a ‘nazi’.
If you are a business owner and refuse custom from about half of your customers because they have different political views to yours then you are a poor businessman. And stupid.
A bigot is someone who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. If you refuse service to someone because they hold a different opinion to you then you are an intolerant bigot.
D
5 years ago
Reply to
M. Marsares
What do you mean, “Disinvite?”
The bar owners and staff didn’t invite these people in the traditional sense of “invite.”
You’re implying that a business invites customers to purchase their product, so you just opened the door to allowing all businesses to disinvite ANY customers with whom they don’t agree.
Bakers, photographers and property owners can simply disinvite gay couples from their services.
5 years ago
Reply to
Dano50
The owner of the property can do anything he likes. You are in his house and you are subject to his rules. If he wants you gone, you go.
Also the bar owner bares responsibility for the safety of his (possibly inebriated) patrons. Thus, he calls the shots.
This is a property rights question not lefty politics.
Do you really think a bunch of pie-eyed barflies are capable of discussing politics or any subject seriously?
D
5 years ago
Reply to
M. Marsares
The point I was making, is that if this bar owner can decline service because he doesn’t like the political beliefs of a customer, then why can’t Christian companies do the same to customers who violate their religious beliefs?
It’s always conservative who are harassed, mobbed or sued for their beliefs.
5 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
Agree. If its ok to throw someone out for being patriot then why was christian baker made to pay huge penalty for denying service to gays ?
Left/Liberal are also making ISIS / jihadis happy by making beheading fashionable https://tinyurl.com/y7k93bs9
Insane ?
5 years ago
I believe this is really about something the fathers overlooked – district federal judges making a mockery of the constitution – particularly the first amendment – and in this case freedom of the press that includes printed material (such as a hat) – essentially subverting the law for political resistance. This ruling allows one group to discriminate against another group.
These judges are doing this with immigration as well –
https://www.newsmax.com/richlowry/trump-daca-immigration-judges/2018/04/26/id/856962/
Also of concern is the subjective comment by the judge about this being a slight. That’s not the case with discrimination. Imagine a private hospital decides they can’t treat a patient for wearing a trump hat or any other political hat. It would be interesting to see this go further.
5 years ago
I believe this is really about something the fathers overlooked – district federal judges making a mockery of the constitution – particularly the first amendment – and in this case freedom of the press that includes printed material (such as a hat) – essentially subverting the law for political resistance. This ruling allows one group to discriminate against another group.
These judges are doing this with immigration as well –
https://www.newsmax.com/richlowry/trump-daca-immigration-judges/2018/04/26/id/856962/
Also of concern is the subjective comment by the judge about this being a slight. That’s not the case with discrimination. Imagine a private hospital decides they can’t treat a patient for wearing a trump hat or any other political hat. It would be interesting to see this go further.
5 years ago
I believe this is really about something the fathers overlooked – district federal judges making a mockery of the constitution – particularly the first amendment – and in this case freedom of the press that includes printed material (such as a hat) – essentially subverting the law for political resistance. This ruling allows one group to discriminate against another group.
These judges are doing this with immigration as well –
https://www.newsmax.com/richlowry/trump-daca-immigration-judges/2018/04/26/id/856962/
Also of concern is the subjective comment by the judge about this being a slight. That’s not the case with discrimination. Imagine a private hospital decides they can’t treat a patient for wearing a trump hat or any other political hat. It would be interesting to see this go further.
5 years ago
In this area, almost ALL of the poeleese are Democrat Party members. Most are either paddy-mics or negroes.
5 years ago
let’s all imagine what this same so-called “judge” would have ruled if this happened to a black guy who was an obola supporter
5 years ago
I honestly don’t understand this. Really I don’t. It was not a multiple choice question which the TV watching cretins watch on quiz shows it was either Donald or the criminal Hillary.
What’s wrong with you America? You preferred the criminal then – have I got that right?
5 years ago
Then throw the Fk liberals out also. That might be a bad idea since most people in bars are liberal.
5 years ago
Better add New York to the list of cities run by fruit loops, London Berlin Paris Toronto San Francisco LA Brussels.
Look on the bright side, the more this is seen to happen, the more likely it is Trumpy will be reelected, I expect his supporters to grind their teeth over this and vote.
5 years ago
This guy didn’t betray our nation, did he?
If a certain Nerogro sodomite came into my bar (let’s assume I own one) I would have personally kicked the Nerogro out, not because he was a Negro or a sodomite or married a trans-gender, or was a communist, or a Moslem, or an impostor “President” who betrayed this nation and deserved a firing squad.
No, I’d kick him out because I don’t like the name “obama”. It reminded me of somebody I disliked. 😉
5 years ago
” Elizabeth Conway, pointed out that only religious, and not political, “, so now being gays, etc, is a region????
5 years ago
Reply to
chris VN
Looks kind of like that doesn’t it ? At least to some folks in New York City !
5 years ago
The guy does not have to justify why he is wearing a cap that is in line with his constitutional liberties of freedom of expression. On the other hand, what if someone wore a Hillary shirt to a redneck or biker bar in, say, West Virginia?
5 years ago
Left leaning judges are sore losers too, Suck it up Judge, Trump won!
5 years ago
Bar owners are thus obviously allowed to refuse service and eject
ANY
politician ( including judges ) who they dislike
as well as their water carriers.
Does stupid ass David Cohen realize
what this leads to ?
Bar owners then resteranteurs then groceries, dry goods etc.
Why not call out non-objective leftist compliant David Cohen as an
Un American STUPID ASS.
5 years ago
the law protects your political opinions from only govt censorship ,not private enterprises . if it had to do with race,gender,sex,ethnicity then the 1a protects you even in the bar.as with lots of legal issues there are grey areas. nothing to get excited about here .
5 years ago
Seems to me that most of the population of NYC is progressive lyeberal demoncrap commies. I do not know why any Conservative or Trump supporter would even want to frequent such a place except to pick up a liberal Ho or Beat up a lyeberal.
5 years ago
From – https://www.lectlaw.com/files/con01.htm
Freedom of Expression
ACLU Briefing Paper Number 10
What forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment?
“Other examples of protected expression include images in works of art, slogans or statements on T-shirts, “fashion statements” that incorporate symbols and/or written slogans or declarations, music lyrics and theatrical performances.”
Naturally the ACLU only represents those Americans they prefer even when its only a “slight” as that district federal a-ho called this.
5 years ago
Christian bakers ought to start selling liquor.
5 years ago
I say go in without your hat place a large order and then walk out.If they will not respect you then do not respect them. Nothing wrong with changing your mind.
5 years ago
The judge is a biased, DOB. This should not stand, nor should it ever be allowed. Steps do need to be taken directly against this judge by ensuring she knows this is not allowable in future cases, not matter which side. We need to make sure that an awakening occurs – discrimination is applied to more than just race or religions. This demeans the entire constitution.
5 years ago
If bars were allowed to throw out Obama supporters, then the entire media would be in uproar about it.
5 years ago
Time to throw out democrats too, except they never go anywhere they have to spend money, they just loiter, which apparently is ok if you are a democrat.
5 years ago
Reply to
Mahou Shoujo
Not exactly true. I still own an interest in a bar. It’s frequented, for the most part, by paddy-mic poeleese. They drink like a fish, then get behind the wheel of their car …. I kid you not …. It’s “dangerous out there”. No cop discounts, they pay full bore. And, they drink a LOT.
5 years ago
Reply to
Mahou Shoujo
In the old “ireesh” neighborhoods, many now inhabited by Puerto Ricans, the old ireesh cop bars still run. After 10 pm, many times even earlier, It ain’t safe to be on the streets. Those guys are “poured” out the door, unable to walk … just floating.
5 years ago
Reply to
Mahou Shoujo
I think this is really about something the fathers overlooked – district federal judges making a mockery of the constitution – particularly the first amendment – and in this case freedom of the press that includes printed material (such as a hat) – essentially subverting the law for political resistance. This ruling allows one group to discriminate against another group. It would be interesting to see this case go further.
These judges are doing this with immigration as well –
https://www.newsmax.com/richlowry/trump-daca-immigration-judges/2018/04/26/id/856962/
