I did not say I was a New York attorney.
However, in New York State, ‘it is illegal for businesses to serve alcohol to persons who are visibly intoxicated. The definition of “visibly intoxicated” is left largely to the discretion of the employee who serves the alcohol. ..’
All the bartender has to say is, “I did not care about his hat, but under my
discretion, the person in question appeared to be visibly intoxicated.”
That’s it.
Nothing else matters, except for the discretion of the bar employee.
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?
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...