[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Officer in nurse arrest was reprimanded for sex harassment

Is anybody wathching Trump on TV?

Hillary Clinton: Women Only Voted For Trump Because Their Husbands Told Them To

Entire Volume of CIA Files On Lee Harvey Oswald, Set to Be Released in October, Has ‘Gone Missing’

Cops Execute Student for Holding a “Tiny” Multi-tool

7 Best Video Sites, YouTube Alternatives

Hobby Lobby’s ‘offensive’ decoration

America's Broken System: Left & Right Authoritarianism

Workmen Allegedly Find Bone Fragments of Saint Peter Inside Medieval Altar in Rome

"Shut down ICE!": Amnesty activists shout down Pelosi over DREAM deal with Trump

Hillary Clinton still wants to challenge election results

An Unworthy Pope

Hollywood is finished - TV ... in the sense they influence - steer the public --- for the exception of the uninformed zombie radical left communists Antifa types.

Video shows purse snatching from elderly woman in scooter at Burbank Ralphs

Profs: Boys are better at physics because they play ‘pee games’

NO AMNESTY IS A GOOD AMNESTY(Ann Coulter)

Trump Let a Kid Mow the White House Lawn. Idiot Asks: What About Child Labor Laws?

Kim Jong Un - Rocketman

Catholic Internet poster -God raised a lizard and a mouse from the dead because I said please. Claims God healed his broken neck and spine. Also says Christ does not treat Christians' diabetes or cancer. He let's them bear that cross, die

Biblical prophecy claims the world will end on Sept. 23, Christian numerologists claim

Should You Tell the Cops You Have a Gun?

WHY "FAITH ALONE" SALVATION IS WRONG! (From a Protestant)

83-Year-Old Grandpa Saves the Day By Pushing Suspect Off Roof

Liberals sick of the alt-left are taking 'the red pill'

My Father Died This Morning

Another Reason for the Electric Car Push?

The 28 States Where a Little Pot Can Still Send You to Jail

When cops commit armed robbery

How Bullwinkle Taught Kids Sophisticated Political Satire

Seeing Is Not Believing: Steel and Concrete Became Mid-Air Dust on 9/11

Rosie O’Donnell’s ex Michelle Rounds dead in apparent suicide

Praying repetitive words using Rosary beads is forbidden

Trump Extends Post-9/11 State of Emergency

The commie push leaves standing what it will

15 September 2017 Charles Spurgeon Devotion

Shapiro to Antifa: America is laughing at your inferior intellect, you know

Sweden Releases Sex Guide for Migrants Explaining Why Rape Is Wrong

Mayor: Investigation found arrest of nurse broke policies

Police culture questioned after phone recordings come to light

Tucker Carlson on DACA and Shamnesty

Trump Backpedals on Amnesty Deal After Massive Blowback from Base

Rand Worries Trump Has Caught ‘Potomac Fever’ in Pursuit of DACA Deal

A "Read-My-Lips" Moment for Trump?

"WHO AM I TO JUDGE A GAY PERSON?" says Pope Francis

Old Think

Janet Reno, American Saint

Curse of the Woke Conservatives

isn't time we put a stop to this?

NFL TV Ratings Slump Again

Report: Trump Caves on DACA, Wants ‘Quick’ Amnesty for 800K Illegal Aliens


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Bikini Baristas Sue City in the Name of Free Speech and Women's Rights
Source: Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/11/ ... istas-file-suit-against-everet
Published: Sep 11, 2017
Author: Elizabeth Nolan Brown
Post Date: 2017-09-13 08:51:43 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 133
Comments: 22

City worries bikini hot dog stands could be next.

Candy Girls Espresso/Instagram
Candy Girls Espresso/Instagram

Bikini baristas in Washington state are suing a city over its ban on serving "quick service" food and drinks with bare shoulders, midriffs, or upper thighs. On Monday, a group of seven baristas and one coffee stand owner filed a federal lawsuit alleging a violation of their rights to free expression, privacy, due process, and equal protection.

"This is about women's rights," barista Natalie Bjerk told the Seattle Times.

She's right. The City of Everett isn't claiming that the regulations serve any food safety or public health purposes. According to Assistant City Attorney Ramsey Ramerman, the point of the dress code is to prevent unethical coffee stand owners from pressuring employees into showing too much skin, and to keep baristas from giving customers a peep show for extra cash.

Under a pair of August ordinances, employees at food trucks, drive-up coffee stands, and similar establishments are banned from being in bikinis, shorts, sheer clothing, or any other outfit that shows bare stomachs, shoulders, breasts, lower backs, or pubic areas, or the three inches of leg below the butt.

Employee violations can lead to fines for business owners, along with a requirement to register for a special license (which the city can deny) and a five-year probationary period. Subsequent employee violations during the probationary period can get the establishment's food-service license revoked. And if the owners are judged to have "facilitated" the "lewd conduct," they can be slapped with a $5,000 fine and a year in jail.

Essentially, Everett has created a crime similar to promoting prostitution—but for facilitating skimpy clothing.

"This is not about being offended by people wearing bikinis," said Ramerman. "Some of these stands had the characteristics of a poorly run strip club, and trying to enforce standards under [Everett's lewd-conduct] law was simply ineffective." He told KOMO News that "this business model is just fertile ground for...exploitation."

Liberty Ziska, an Everett bikini barista and one the plaintiffs in the new suit, disagrees. "I choose my own clothing at work, and for me, the message I send is freedom," she said in a statement.

Again, the rule is based on public morals, not public health: The City Council cited concerns about "barista stands with employees dressing in a manner that is closely and customarily associated with adult entertainment or adult situations." (Guess they've never heard of beaches?) "The minimalistic nature of the clothing...lends itself to criminal conduct," the council suggested; it could "have adverse impacts upon minors."

Police in the past have simply busted baristas found to be engaging in criminal conduct. But city officials note that bikinis "can be quickly and simply partially or fully removed or adjusted...in a manner that is not easy to detect unless someone is placed in the same proximity of the patron," making it difficult to find individual violations. Under the new rules, no lewd conduct is required, just a skirt that's a little too short.

Everett officials also warned that left unchecked, the bikini coffee stand aesthetic could soon spread to fast food restaurants, delis, and food trucks. As evidence, they noted that "in Florida in the 90s, the popularity of bikini hot dog stands lead to similar bikni type businesses when local authorities enacted dress requirements for hot dog stands." This generated "the same negative secondary effects," say city officials, giving as an example the fact that "a bikini hot dog vendor in New York was arrested for prostitution."

At a hearing on the proposed ordinance, and in the local paper, citizens of Everett have expressed anger at the bikini law.

"It's our bodies and it's our choice," said Emilija Powell, who works at Everett bikini barista chain Hillbilly Hotties.

The city wastes time on things like this while showing little concern for "the real problems that we face everyday," wrote Mike Hickey. "In honor of this fine piece of legislation that impacts only those who buy a cup of coffee to see a couple, I pronounce all members of the city council...boobs."

Susan Martin suggested that people who don't want to see someone serving coffee in a bikini should simply avoid bikini coffee stands. "Who the hell does it hurt if a young good-looking girl serves a cup of coffee while wearing a bikini?...What century are we living in now? There is nothing illegal about wearing a bikini. What's next? A dress code at the beach or on the river?" (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Bikini baristas in Washington state are suing a city over its ban on serving "quick service" food and drinks with bare shoulders, midriffs, or upper thighs. On Monday, a group of seven baristas and one coffee stand owner filed a federal lawsuit alleging a violation of their rights to free expression, privacy, due process, and equal protection.

"This is about women's rights," barista Natalie Bjerk told the Seattle Times.

They're right. The State of Washington has no compelling interest in restricting people's right of free expression in this matter. It's a violation of the First Amendment. This state law should be crushed to a bloody stain under the supreme law of the land.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-13   9:17:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

While I agree you that it is wrong. Truthfully it isn't a first amendment violation. It isn't speech.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   9:26:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

“The city knows only women work as bikini baristas, and intentionally targeted women through the ordinances,” said Derek Newman, one of the attorneys for the baristas.

RUH,ROH! This is Seattle. Within days homosexual males will be showing up at those joints,wearing Bikini's.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-09-13   9:26:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)

It isn't speech.

It's expression. The First Amendment protects free expression.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-13   11:06:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

If you lie to yourself about the meaning if words it does. This will ifend you but it is true. Catholic s have to change the meanings if words to make gods bible conform to their belief system. It is an indisputable fact.

You do it all the time.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   13:04:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4) (Edited)

Congress shall make no laws regarding free expression and and shall not limit free expression. That isn't what it says. If you pervert the meaning of words and go with what you imagine then it is illegal to stop streakrrs. But you will play word games and make excuses for why the words don't mean what they say. Kind if like you do when you call the pope the holy father instead of god. Oh I know that stings but it is irrefutable truth.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   13:10:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: A K A Stone (#5) (Edited)

If you lie to yourself about the meaning if words it does.

If you follow our constitutional form of government the way it actually is, with the Supreme Court interpreting law, then you know that "speech" in 2017 American law means "expression" more broadly.

But if you're a Sola Scripturalist Protestant, who extends his crabbed approach to reading the Bible to also cover the Constitution and the whole legal system, you will think that just by reading the Constitution you understand the law.

Thing is, you can do that with the Bible and nobody really cares. But when it comes to law, there are armed military and paramilitary forces who will make it clear to you that the law is not a matter of your opinion and your reading of a document, but the Supreme Court's. They will enforce the law as it IS, and your crabbed reading of it will be irrelevant.

You can rage at me for being a Catholic all you like, but if you rage at the judge for applying the law as it is, and not as you want it to be, he'll toss you in jail for contempt, and you will in fact go to jail and in fact suffer there.

In the world of religion, you're entitled to whatever crackpot thing you choose to believe. Nobody is going to enforce religion on you in this life.

If you apply your crackpot religious beliefs to the law of the land, you'll get shot. Sola Scriptura is not how law is done in America. In America, it is done through the Curia, just like Catholic Rome. (Curia means "Court".)

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-13   13:22:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

You refer to color of law as law. The truth is the truth and words mean what they say. Our current color of law is built on lies such as the commerce clause.

You can pretend gods word is like our law. In that what it says can be made to mean something else.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   14:48:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Deckard (#0)

"...(Guess they've never heard of beaches?)..."

or Hooters.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-09-13   15:08:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)

You refer to color of law as law. The truth is the truth and words mean what they say. Our current color of law is built on lies such as the commerce clause.

You can pretend gods word is like our law. In that what it says can be made to mean something else.

You can pretend that the things you think in your own head when you read something are, respectively, the Word of God and the Law - if you did that, you probably wouldn't be too terribly far off.

But that's not what you really do. Instead, you listen to men, generally men with a vested personal financial self-interest in spooling you up to look at things a certain way. They tell you that the Scripture says thus and so and means thus and so, and that the Constitution says thus and so and means thus and so.

You pretend to be a Sola Scripturalist, but you don't show evidence of having actually deeply READ the Bible, all of it, and considered it. Your criticisms sound like the canned arguments of hacks, gleaned from pamphlets and websites. Your commentaries about the Constitution and the law don't sound like the arguments of somebody who has read the Constitution very carefully, or read much else in the law at all. It sounds like it came right out of the head of a radio talk show host.

I have read deeply and repeatedly, the very texts on which I comment, and thought about them. The blind spots and ignorant things said by the Pastor Bob's and the radio hosts are blindingly obvious to anybody who has actually read these documents a few times and thought about them.

Your criticisms are not the words of a man who has read the Bible cover to cover more than once, if even that. They sound like they come from a Jack Chick cartoon pamphlet. Your comments about the Constitution and law sound like the noise on the Internet.

So when you come and attack me personally as a liar, etc., taking on the language of somebody who is a Sola Scripturalist Protestant, the PROBLEM is that you seem really quite ignorant of the Scripture. You don't sound like somebody who has read the Bible several times, as I would expect any Sola Scripturalist Protestant to do. After all, your entire religion is supposedly based on this book. I'm a Catholic, and I've read it cover to cover eight times, and read certain parts of it in greater detail, with significant word studies. That's what I'd expect you to be doing, and I'd expect your arguments to sound like you actually knew the material. But really you sound like a guy who was taught as a young man to hate Catholics, so he does, taught that it's all in The Word, so you believe it, but then just trust pastors and religious leaders to tell you what's in there. You do not sound like a man who has actually read it yourself repeatedly and in detail.

So I read your insults, but they don't seem to be rooted in a knowledge base. They seem to be the repetitions of bigotry heard from a pastor. You don't quote Scripture or make arguments from it. You present a line of Scripture here, taken out of context, and build up a bigoted screed based on it. Nobody who has handled Scripture for long time and learned what it says does that.

So I actually consider you a fraud as a Protestant Christian. You hate - you have learned that from your teachers - but you don't show evidence of actually having READ the book you profess in any detail. If you HAVE actually read it many times, then I will retract my comment and apologize - I don't want to pick on somebody with a learning disability. I say this because if you REALLY HAVE treated the Scripture with the awe and reverence you claim for it, and delved into them the way this Catholic boy has, and what you right is the best you can do, then I'm picking on a retard, and that's mean.

But when you are just being yourself and stating your own opinions, you have a lot of common sense, which just screams that you're ignorant of the Bible, have never really read it through over and over again as you ought to have if you're going to argue from it, and you take your argument from bigots who themselves are not very well educated.

You would do better to shake off the fools, stop with the bigotry, and read the whole thing again and again yourself. Your common sense would lead to to a different place than you currently are, if you actually had all of the Scriptures directly loaded into your brain. You don't, and it shows.

Real Bible scholars simply are not assholes like you are. Aggressive ignorant bigotry is not sustainable by anybody who spends a long time in the presence of YHWH and Jesus in Scripture. The fact that you are such an aggressive, bigoted, ignorant asshole so consistently shows me that you haven't spent the time with God that your religion demands of you. YOU'RE the Protestant, after all, you OUGHT to know the Bible front, back and center. You OUGHT to have read through the whole thing dozens of times, much more than I have. But you obviously have not. If you had, you could not speak as you do.

So instead of doubling down and lying - which is a sin - admit, at least to yourself, that you actually DON'T really know the Scriptures, and that perhaps these bigots who have told you ABOUT the Scriptures, and given you tendentious snippets of them, DO have an economic self-interest in keeping you riled, and perhaps have NOT actually honestly conveyed what is in them. And then go read them again for yourself. And again. And again. And yet again. You can't talk to another Christian the way you do after you have read Jesus a few times. It's not possible. THAT you talk the way you do DEMONSTRATES that you've spent too much time with bigots and too little time with Christ.

So knock it off and go read him for yourself. You have a lot of common sense. The scales will fall off your eyes and you'll change your course.

As far as the law goes, you're not a lawyer and I don't expect you to be. The law is what it is, and it will be enforced on you as on me and everybody else. So arguing with you about what the law is or says is an utterly useless exercise. I get paid a lot of money to know what the law is, and have been successful at it for years and years and years. I earn my living this way. You don't, so you're never going to know the law as well as me, and you're never going to understand it as well as I do.

Because the law is made by men, and our legal system really is corrupt and awful, people have every right to be frustrated and angry about it. You are. So am I. Obviously I don't take your accusations regarding the law seriously, any more than you would take seriously any accusation from me regarding whatever it is that you do professionally.

ON that note, I'm going to get back to what I have been doing.

I have no particular desire to fight with you, but the whole "You're an idiot" "Catholics are evil" business is beneath you. You seem to have enough common sense to avoid that sort of stupidity in other things. So live up to the example of Christ on that one and go read the Scriptures for yourself - all of them - cover to cover - over and over again. Do that and you will certainly improve from where you currently are.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-13   16:01:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

Keep praying to dead sinner Mary. She is dead and will never ever answer your orayers.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   16:49:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#6)

Congress shall make no laws regarding free expression and and shall not limit free expression.

If the right applied only to spoken utterances, the government would be empowered to censor this website, books, and generally anything but oral communication.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-13   19:54:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

They're right. The State of Washington has no compelling interest in restricting people's right of free expression in this matter. It's a violation of the First Amendment. This state law should be crushed to a bloody stain under the supreme law of the land.

Really, Vic? "first Amendment" is where you wanna go here?

Then you should make no fuss over some erectile young stud serving your daughters their cappuccino, burgers or *cough* franks at some "quick serve" joint, right? After all, Studley is merely offering HIS "free expression" according to your rationale.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-13   20:40:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: A K A Stone (#2)

Truthfully it isn't a first amendment violation. It isn't speech.

You have to remember that liberal thinkers -- or libertarianism at its extreme -- is anarchy at heart.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-13   20:42:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#12)

If the right applied only to spoken utterances, the government would be empowered to censor this website, books, and generally anything but oral communication.

Obviously a slippery slope. But then that's exactly where the anarchists and occultists who've been running DC and the Courts have brought society.

Given this sick perversion of "free speech" and supposed "1A expression," one wonders how any gubmint up to now has been able to restrict public nudity and sex acts, embellished by vulgar speech on Main Street or High School Class.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-13   20:48:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: nolu chan (#12)

Freedom of speech and the press.

My point isn't that I'm against people expressing themselves freely. I can't put it in good words right now. Just be assured that I am A good guy who doesn't want to take any moral rights away.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   21:49:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)

You're instinct is righteous and proper, Stone. Stick to your guns.

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-13   21:56:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

Ok I went back and read your entire comment. I may respond sometime.

I don't hate Catholics. However I do find some of the things they believe to be let's just say off the mark.

So when I talk with you on here I really don't understand how someone who believe Vest on God can ignore the texts he gave us in the Bible. That is what you do.

Also you said god doesn't save you fro enemies or this or that or however you worded it. You know the comment where you said God doesn't answer prayers on this world. Well if that is the case why do you keep proclaiming some miracle? You must be more special then me because you said he will not answer prayers like that.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   21:58:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: All (#18)

Please ignore typos that auto correct changed my words.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   22:00:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu chan (#12)

They do have power to shut websites down. Remember the Nuremburg files or some such site name?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-13   22:05:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#16)

My point isn't that I'm against people expressing themselves freely.

I know that and meant no such implication. I only meant to point out an unintended result of a restrictive definition of the 1st Amdt - whici I was sure you would neither support nor intend.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-14   18:19:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#13)

Then you should make no fuss over some erectile young stud serving your daughters their cappuccino, burgers or *cough* franks at some "quick serve" joint, right? After all, Studley is merely offering HIS "free expression" according to your rationale.

They claim to be baristas. If they are involved in food preparation, the municipality might like to try imposing a certain dress code for anyone involved in food prep. Strictly for health and safety, of course.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-14   19:04:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com