Posted on 03/19/2017 2:05:29 PM PDT by COUNTrecount
But the bartender didn't offer any such excuse did he? Thus, the existing controversy and the hopefully successful lawsuit.................Sheesh, what's the matter with you?
Get the money !
The definition of “visibly intoxicated” is left largely to the discretion of the employee who serves the alcohol. ..’
nobody doubts that the bar will prevail due to such a flaccid standard as you’ve noted...the point is the double standards that exist, and the willing, shoulder shrugging acceptance of same by some...
and since you’re apparently a legal beagle, perhaps you can enlighten us regarding NY’s anti discrimination laws, and the exact variance from Oregon’s laws that you claim are applicable...
“But the bartender didn’t offer any such excuse did he? Thus, the existing controversy and the hopefully successful lawsuit.................Sheesh, what’s the matter with you?”
While that is the opinion of Mr. Piatek, It does not appear that the bartender has been deposed in this case.
When and if the bartender is deposed, I suspect they will say that Mr. Piatek appeared to be intoxicated.
Mr. Piatek is unlikely to prove, that in the professional opinion of the bartender, he did not appear to be visibly intoxicated.
If we dont have a legal leg to stand on we need to GET ONE. Every freak, pervert, mutant and loser is protected but good, normal Americans are not because we dare to use our first ammendment rights? F that!
Yes. Thank you....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.