Posted on 01/19/2007 8:07:53 AM PST by the_devils_advocate_666
Do they have a problem with dress codes also?
Isn't the Kokoamos Island Bar, Grill and Yacht Club's a private business (or in the case club) and can't the owners determine their own rules for admittance?
The Anti-American Commie Lovin Union can go to hell.
This is not about employees (where I assume a dress code could be enforced), this is about patrons. Can a business that is a "public accomodation" actually have legal standing in a case like this?
Seems to me on the face of it that the plaintiffs have a near certain slam dunk. What am I missing, if anything?
Freedom of association means that the business can serve whoever it wishes to associate with. If it chooses not to server to people who are drunk or smokers or wearing beads or dreadlocks, it has that right.
If someone wishes to patronize the place, they need to abide by the owners rules.
I've seen more white girls wearing dread locks than blacks....maybe it is my location.
Better restaurants in Houston have a coat-and-tie requirement. If you don't come in with coat and tie, and if you then refuse to wear one provided by the restaurant, you are not seated.
None have been sued, that I know of.
So clubs havve dress codes for their patrons. No tank tops, no flip flops some have even gone as far as no baseball caps. I dobt see a slam dunk.
I am curious to know the Bar owners rational for the dreadlock ban. (Not that it necessarily makes a difference)
Unfortunately, freedom of association has been dead for over 40 years. I find discrimination against blacks to be awful, and I would even consider boycotting a business that did discriminate, but I recognize that business' right to discriminate.
So this bar needs to provide a barber. HA HA HA !!!
Restaurant and bar owners can't determine rules about anything.
Witness the success of the Anti-smoking Nazis'.
I think that is the key to the whole case, and if it's legit (I still don't see how/why) then it can proceed, I guess. I'm no ACLUphile but I just can't figure a justification for this rule.
From another source--
"When she complained to the club the following day, she was advised to visit the owner's "urban" club in Newport News."
Heh. Sort of like the Episcopal church. You know, they put up a branch in the poor part of town to keep the riff-raff from going to the main place downtown.
That said, corn rows is a racial affectation, the barring of which predominately bars blacks. How you feel about the Jim Crow south doubtless dictates where you think these chips should fall.
It's the flea and lice infestation the owners are afraid of! It is a public service and health concern!
If the bar turns away white girls wearing cornrows and admits blacks who aren't, I don't see any validity to this.
Ever seen "No shoes, no shirt, no service" on a restuarant's door? I think they can do this.
Skokie?
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.