A New York judge ruled on Wednesday that refusing service and kicking a Trump supporter out of a bar does not violate the law – because the law does not protect against political discrimination.

The ruling came after a bar patron sued claiming he was refused service and kicked out for wearing a MAGA hat and supporting Trump, the New York Post reports.

Greg Piatek of Philadelphia claims he was refused service and then eventually removed from a New York City bar in January 2017 for wearing a “Make American Great Again” hat, in a lawsuit against the establishment.

“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 told him.

Piatek claimed the incident offended his “spiritual belief,” the New York Post reported.

But on Wednesday, the lawyer representing The Happiest Hour, Elizabeth Conway, argued that he was not discriminated against because only religious – not political – beliefs are protected under state and city discrimination law.

“Supporting Trump is not a religion,” Conway argued.

Piatek’s attorney Paul Liggieri responded in court, “The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial.”

“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. “Rather than remove his hat, instead he held true to his spiritual belief and was forced from the bar,” Liggieri told Justice David Cohen, the New York Post reported.

The judge pressed Liggieri on the spiritual nature of his client’s belief, saying the bar staff would not be aware of Piatek’s specific religious philosophies.

“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, the New York Post reported.

The judge eventually made a ruling on the matter, saying the incident amount to nothing more than a “petty slight,” the New York Post reported.

“Plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates,” Judge Cohen said. “Here the claim that plaintiff was not served and eventually escorted out of the bar because of his perceived support for President Trump is not outrageous conduct.” ShareTweet