Paul Liggieri, Piatek’s lawyer, in some way managed to get by way of this little bit of oral argument with a straight face:

“He was paying religious tribute to the victims of 9/11. The Make American Nice Once more hat was a part of his religious perception. Moderately than take away his hat, as a substitute he held true to his religious perception and was compelled from the bar.”

Perhaps non-New Yorkers assume the mere point out of 9/11 will get them out of a jam, nevertheless it doesn’t fairly work that means.

Later, this unbelievable alternate occurred within the courtroom:

Choose Cohen: “What number of members are on this religious program that your shopper is engaged in?”

Liggieri: “Your honor, we don’t allege the quantity of people.”

Choose Cohen: “So, it’s a creed of 1?”

Liggieri: “Sure, your honor.”

Choose Cohen wasted no time calling bullshit on Piatek’s absurd argument, ruling that, “Plaintiff doesn’t state any faith-based precept to which the hat relates,” and unceremoniously dismissing Piatek’s case.

For the document, New York, like many cities, has public lodging legal guidelines that prohibit discrimination on the premise of age, alienage, race, incapacity, gender, gender id, marital standing, nationwide origin, being pregnant, faith, sexual orientation, or army standing. These classifications are usually afforded heightened authorized safety as a result of they relate to “immutable traits” of a person. In contrast, heightened safety for people with explicit political opinions has no foundation in both legislation or logic.

Talking of unlawful discrimination, I feel this man gained Twitter in the present day:

(Picture by Mark Makela/Getty Pictures)

That is an opinion piece. The views expressed on this article are these of simply the writer.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here