TRuMP WORSHIP
MAGA man calls his hat holy in ‘spiritual’ suit vs. bar
HE SAYS HE WAS moved by the spirit of MAGA, not the politics of President Trump.
A Philadelphia accountant who is suing a West Village bar for refusing to serve him because because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat claims the cap was a “spiritual tribute” to 9/11 victims.
The red MAGA hat was a fixture on Trump’s head while he was on the campaign trail — and his supporters bought the $25 cap in droves.
But plaintiff Greg Piatek “was adhering to his closely held spiritual beliefs by adorning the hat in question,” his attorney Paul Liggieri claimed in court papers filed last week.
“At the time (Piatek) wore his hat, the election of President Trump was over and therefore (he) had no reason to wear the hat for any political purpose,” Liggieri argued. “Rather, (he) wore his hat to pay tribute to the fallen heroes and victims of Sept. 11, 2011.”
His “practice of wearing his hat to pay spiritual tribute was a part of his creed,” Liggieri continued.
Piatek, 31, wore the MAGA hat at the Happiest Hour on Jan. 28 after visiting the Sept. 11 Memorial with two pals. He filed suit in March, charging that bartenders at the W. 10th St. watering hole discriminated against him by refusing to serve him drinks. “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” the bar manager allegedly said. The business is trying to get the suit tossed, arguing in court papers that Piatek wasn’t refused service and signed a receipt for a $186 tab — including a 20% tip.
Piatek’s argument that his MAGA hat was a spiritual expression came amid legal arguments regarding whether he is part of a protected class of people.
Happiest Hour attorney Preston Ricardo contends that political beliefs are not protected by discrimination laws.
“The plaintiff’s arguments are entirely fanciful,” Ricardo told the Daily News. “There is zero case law to support them. This latest filing shows once again that this action is a publicity stunt in the guise of lawsuit."
Liggieri declined to comment on Ricardo’s allegations. But in Manhattan Supreme Court papers, he countered that courts have found that “an expansive conception of creed is necessary in evaluating claims of religiosity.”