Posted on 09/11/2017 3:03:50 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A group of bikini baristas filed a lawsuit Monday against the city of Everett, alleging that two recently passed ordinances banning bikinis and bare skin — including bare shoulders, bare midriffs and bare buttocks — on restaurant employees, violate their constitutional rights to free expression and the right to privacy.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, claims that the ordinances, which were passed unanimously by the City Council last month, deny bikini-stand employees the ability to communicate and express themselves through their choice of swimwear, infringe on their right to privacy and deny them due process.
“This is not about the bikini,” said attorney Schuyler Lifschultz, “It’s about women’s rights and the U.S. Constitution. The City of Everett violated these women’s rights across the board.”
The suit asks the federal court to declare unconstitutional the ordinances which went into effect on Sept. 5.
Barista Natalie Bjerk says, “This is about women’s rights. The city council should not tell me what I can and cannot wear when I go to work, it’s a violation of my First Amendment rights.”
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
She’s wildly overdressed compared to most of them ;’}
The judge will rule in her favor.
I support her rights.
WOW!!!!!!!!!
Send her to my house, please ? Pretty please ? I’m so ronery. :-(
As much as I believe that freedom is the only way to go, I can clearly see that freedom, without God, will not work. The founding fathers knew this - one nation, UNDER GOD. They never dreamed of what was coming.
This lawsuit is going to require a lot of evidence.
Legally, do they have a case?
How is it that strip joints can operate legally but these coffee girls can’t?
Isn’t because the strippers have restricted access, is not visible from the street, or other distnctions?
But then what about Hooters? The way Hooters girls dress, the clothing grips and displays parts of the body, moreso than some of the bikini girls. So where exactly are the lines drawn?
“My body, MY choice”
We heard it 10,000 times, right..?
You disgusting slut!!! How dare you destroy public morals with all of that exposed skin!!!
We have a “sexy barista” place right down the street... and BY FAR, they get more females than males coming for their morning caffeine fix. (No Starbucks nearby... and the employees are not that sexy)
Grab and go?
My favorite is the one and only 24 hour titty barista next to O’Finnigans. They saw a need for a 24/7 operation, and they jumped in and filled it. I’ve often remarked that this is the type of entrepreneurial spirit that makes America great!
I would think the city doesn’t have a chance in court. But then again Washington state is just plain weird. So your guess is as good as mine.
Bull Crap. The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress means the legislative body in Washington DC....not the city of Everett, which is not at all mentioned in the First Amendment.
Whether it’s a great idea or not, it strikes me as idiotic to deny working women the right to wear garments you could see on any beach at any time. I’m not addressing a nude beach either.
In family settings on beaches, these clothes are acceptable.
Climb down of your high horse and leave these women alone.
Obvious photo shopped head on a girls body.
It’s unconstitutional. They could go topless if they wanted to, legal. Rochester, NY case.
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.