A judge bounced a lawsuit filed by man who alleged he was thrown out of a Manhattan bar for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, rejecting the argument that the bar patron was discriminated against on the basis of creed.

Gregory Piatek, a Philadelphia accountant, said he went to The Happiest Hour in the West Village to tie one on with friends after visiting the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. He was wearing the iconic red hat that President Donald Trump made famous.

Piatek claims he was wearing the hat as a symbol of freedom and free speech.

“He wore it because it was his belief that, by wearing that hat and paying tribute, he was in fact expressing a spiritual belief,” said Paul Liggieri of the Derek Smith Law Group.

But Piatek alleges that the way he was treated by the staff at the Happiest Hour during his Jan. 28 visit “offended his sense of being American.” 

He says that bartenders passed him by, that another fixed on him with a “death stare” and other called him a “terrible” human being.

Eventually a manager called over a team of bouncers, who “surrounded” him and his friends and showed them the door.

Piatek sued the bar and its owner in Manhattan Supreme Court alleging violations of New York state and New York City human rights-laws against discriminatory practices in hiring and accommodations—specifically that the bar discriminated against him because of his creed—as well as negligent training and hiring and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In a motion to dismiss, lawyers for the bar refuted a key premise of Piatek's lawsuit—which they denounced as a “publicity stunt”—that the staff refused to serve him.

In fact, they said, he and his friends were at the bar for two hours and ran up a tab of more than $180 worth of beers and cocktails. Additionally, Piatek signed the check himself and added a 20 percent gratuity.  

Liggieri said that the bartenders served his friends but continued to pass him by, but that his client picked up the tab.

But turning to Piatek's legal claims, the bar's attorneys said that, while Piatek did not claim to be making a political statement by wearing the hat, if his complaint is read “liberally,” the staff at the Happiest Hour allegedly discriminated against him for his perceived political views, which are not protected under state and local human rights statutes.

Courts have held that “creed” refers to religious beliefs, the defendants' attorneys argued, not a person's political leanings.  

At a hearing on Wednesday, Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David Cohen found for the defendants, issuing a bench ruling in which he said that Piatek did not state a “faith-based principle to which the hat relates,” according to the New York Daily News.

Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe attorneys C. Preston Ricardo and Elizabeth Conway represented the bar and its owner, Jon Neidich. They did not respond to requests for comment.

Liggieri said he is still reviewing Cohen's ruling and that his client has not decided whether to appeal, but said the case should be a call to lawmakers to take a look at city and state human rights laws.

“If this decision stands, at some point there should be some protections added to the discrimination laws for people with unpopular political beliefs,” he said.