Being an asshole or supporting an asshole is not a protected class under discrimination laws as far as I’m aware.
Religious Liberty!
I wonder if he agrees with bakeries and other businesses refusing to serve LGBTQ people…
I think that wearing a hat like that would be prima facie evidence that you’d already had too much to drink, so I’m sure the bartender was justified in refusing service.
Not a protected class, buttercup.
With Gorsuch on the bench, though, you can establish a Church of Trump and have 5 Justices backing you up.
How hard would it have been to find a sports bar?
What does that mean, exactly?
Don’t be surprised if today Fox News begins each half-hour segment with an in-depth analysis of this non-troversy.
No shirt, no shoes, Red hat, no service…
Had they simply asked him to remove the hat and he refused, they could’ve 86ed him claiming it was disruptive or bothering other guests, etc. Unfortunately, they didn’t, and made the reason quite clear. Moreover, they’d already served him. As such, I’m guessing he may well have a case.
Russian/Trump Trolls have come out in force to attack The Happiest Hour on Yelp.
What case? Business owners have the right to refuse service unless they’re doing so on the basis of a customer being a member of a protected class. As lafe19 wrote, being an asshole is not a protected class.
They’re also making a lot of noise here in Carnage Town with this little “Plea for Help” in Crain’s.
In addition, this is, thus far, only the complainant’s version of the story. In general, as soon as a legal complaint includes allegations that a server didn’t act nicely enough (“slamming” drinks down instead of placing them gently) that’s a red flag for me.
Once the bartender noticed it? How could he have missed it as soon as he looked at him. It’s more likely that the guy was acting like an ass hole, the bartender point it out and said it was probably not to be unexpected since he was a Trump fan.
Just tired of using the appropriated “snowflake,” but, if you want something more behind it, buttercups are invasive weeds that are toxic to animals.
The Post article only reports on the claims made by the plaintiff. We have not yet heard the Bar’s side of the story. Many Trump supporters are like Trump himself, they lie a lot so I wouldn’t draw any conclusion about what the bar actually did.
What does that mean, exactly?