Behavior vs. status, opinion vs. identity... how can anyone tell the difference?
And the relevant laws? Some laws exist, others don't... it's all such a bewildering puzzle.
The Post article demonstrates the seriousness of the case: “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.
3 comments:
"Now bake me a cake"
Behavior vs. status, opinion vs. identity... how can anyone tell the difference?
And the relevant laws? Some laws exist, others don't... it's all such a bewildering puzzle.
The Post article demonstrates the seriousness of the case:
“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.
It's almost like there's one set of standards for the 'politically correct' crowd and another one for everybody else!
The unfairness must be very upsetting to you. You should sue for unspecified emotional damages.
Post a Comment