Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ACLU files suit against Virginia Beach bar for prohibiting dreadlocks and cornrows
The Daily Athenaeum ^ | 01-19-2007 | AP

Posted on 01/19/2007 8:07:53 AM PST by the_devils_advocate_666

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) --The Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is suing a bar owner in federal court and challenging his policy of barring people who wear their hair in cornrows, dreadlocks or twists.

The ACLU says the Kokoamos Island Bar, Grill and Yacht Club's policy amounts to racial discrimination because it singles out hairstyles usually worn by black customers.

The group filed the suit Thursday in U.S. District Court, Norfolk, against Kokoamos owner Barry Davis on behalf of Myron Evans and Kimberley Hines.

Evans was denied entry to the Kokoamos in June and Hines was turned way from the bar in August, an ACLU statement said.

Hines was with three white friends and was told she would not be allowed into the bar because of her dreadlocks, the statement said. Evans was with a group of 10 friends and was also turned away because he was wearing his hair in the same style, the ACLU said.

The ACLU sent a letter to Davis in October, telling him that his policy violates the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- which prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race. A Richmond nightclub recently dropped a similar policy, the ACLU said.

The letter from ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca Glenberg also asked Davis to ''provide immediate written assurances that individuals will no longer be barred from any of your clubs by reason of a hairstyle associated with a particular race, religion, or ethnicity.''

Davis declined to take action, ACLU's statement said.

Davis could not immediately be reached Thursday.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: aclu; discrimination; splittinghairs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
When's the last time the ACLU actully took up a good cause?
1 posted on 01/19/2007 8:07:56 AM PST by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

Do they have a problem with dress codes also?


2 posted on 01/19/2007 8:10:08 AM PST by Long Island Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

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.


3 posted on 01/19/2007 8:11:26 AM PST by VA_Gentleman (R.I.P. Captain James Edge - friend, father, and soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Island Pete

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?


4 posted on 01/19/2007 8:19:02 AM PST by AbeKrieger (Tagline: (optional, printed after my name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

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.


5 posted on 01/19/2007 8:19:03 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

I've seen more white girls wearing dread locks than blacks....maybe it is my location.


6 posted on 01/19/2007 8:21:17 AM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger

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.


7 posted on 01/19/2007 8:23:02 AM PST by Xenalyte (Anything is possible when you don't understand how anything happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger

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.


8 posted on 01/19/2007 8:25:24 AM PST by Long Island Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

I am curious to know the Bar owners rational for the dreadlock ban. (Not that it necessarily makes a difference)


9 posted on 01/19/2007 8:25:27 AM PST by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

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.


10 posted on 01/19/2007 8:25:57 AM PST by LtdGovt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
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.

So this bar needs to provide a barber. HA HA HA !!!

11 posted on 01/19/2007 8:26:06 AM PST by AbeKrieger (Tagline: (optional, printed after my name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VA_Gentleman
....can't the owners determine their own rules ...

Restaurant and bar owners can't determine rules about anything.

Witness the success of the Anti-smoking Nazis'.

12 posted on 01/19/2007 8:26:13 AM PST by GoldCountryRedneck ("Idiocy - Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers" - despair.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger
Can a business that is a "public accommodation" actually have legal standing in a case like this?


I used to require patrons to wear shirts when I owned a restaurant.
Now most states do not allow cigarettes in restaurants, that is discriminating against smokers. I know, but other patrons want a smoke free environment, maybe these patrons want a dreadlock and cornrow free environment.
13 posted on 01/19/2007 8:28:37 AM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: joebuck
I am curious to know the Bar owners rational for the dreadlock ban.

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.

14 posted on 01/19/2007 8:32:33 AM PST by AbeKrieger (Tagline: (optional, printed after my name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger
"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?"

I see bars all the time with "No Colors Allowed" signs on the front. None that I know of have ever been sued.
15 posted on 01/19/2007 8:36:28 AM PST by Beagle8U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

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.


16 posted on 01/19/2007 8:43:12 AM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joebuck

It's the flea and lice infestation the owners are afraid of! It is a public service and health concern!


17 posted on 01/19/2007 8:44:13 AM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

If the bar turns away white girls wearing cornrows and admits blacks who aren't, I don't see any validity to this.


18 posted on 01/19/2007 8:45:34 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger

Ever seen "No shoes, no shirt, no service" on a restuarant's door? I think they can do this.


19 posted on 01/19/2007 8:46:30 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

Skokie?


20 posted on 01/19/2007 8:51:47 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VA_Gentleman

People have been wearing dredlocks for centuries and if you take care of them then they can look very nice. I don't particularly care for cornrolls on men (I tried it once, didn't like it) but I don't see any problem with them on women.


21 posted on 01/19/2007 8:53:51 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

They have no problem letting white girls with dreadlocks enter.


22 posted on 01/19/2007 8:56:45 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666
Axl Rose.


23 posted on 01/19/2007 8:57:24 AM PST by SeafoodGumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
The business's past response and policies toward women wearing dreadlocks could be the real acid test in this case. If they denied women access to the club because they wore dread locks I think they could defeat the ACLU very easily.

Also, if the business could show that they also had a policy of denying access to men who wore ponytails, excessively long hair, Mohawk haircuts etc. then they would also probably prevail. They just have reasonable standards of attire. But if they have only denied access to males who wore dread locks they are probably in trouble. The dreaded ACLU could probably show discrimination because a disproportionately large number of male blacks wear dread locks and the intent was to keep black males out of the club.
24 posted on 01/19/2007 8:57:27 AM PST by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232
It's the flea and lice infestation the owners are afraid of! It is a public service and health concern!

Actually according to one of the school nurses, who is black, at my daughter's elementary school it is very rare that black children wind up with head lice.

25 posted on 01/19/2007 9:00:00 AM PST by Gabz (If we weren't crazy, we'd just all go insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

26 posted on 01/19/2007 9:02:56 AM PST by Alouette (Learned Mother of Zion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger
For starters, look up WHY these dreadlocks are banned. Next, you might want to look at the fact that not only blacks do that to their hair. I have seen many other races wear them, and have known a few, in fact. One young girl, in fact, had hers cit off and when she did, the hairdresser unraveled them and showed her what was in them, after a period of 4 months. The girl vowed never again. They are a health risk.
27 posted on 01/19/2007 9:03:19 AM PST by gidget7 (2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

My sense is that this suit will fail, cf. Washington v. Davis. Facially neutral policies are OK even if they affect one racial group more than others. They're not banning black people, they're only banning a hair style that is followed ?predominantly? by blacks. Now if they let a white person or Asian person in with that hair style, and deny to the black, THEN the bar will have a problem.


28 posted on 01/19/2007 9:07:52 AM PST by rudy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

It's quite popular for white women vacationing in the islands to get this done while down there, but speaking from experience, most white women shouldn't attempt it. The woman in the pic above looks ok, but most of us look like mangy dogs with 'rows - anglo scalps are not the prettiest. Me? I think they should outlaw white girls with cornrows but let everybody else who can pull it off in!;-)

29 posted on 01/19/2007 9:08:50 AM PST by leilani (Dimmi, dimmi se mai fu fatta cosa alcuna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger
Can a business that is a "public accomodation" actually have legal standing in a case like this?

Restasurants have had dress codes and coat and tie requiremnets for years. Stores and restaurants post 'No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service' signs all the time. I don't see a problem with it. It's a privately owned establishment, they can cater to whomever they choose.

30 posted on 01/19/2007 9:12:17 AM PST by pgkdan (Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions - G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: leilani

31 posted on 01/19/2007 9:31:54 AM PST by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
It's a privately owned establishment, they can cater to whomever they choose.

Not since 1964, when a little something called the Civil Rights Act was passed regarding places of public accommodation. That's the federal law that did away with "whites only" establishments, despite the opposition of such notables as Albert Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd.
32 posted on 01/19/2007 9:31:58 AM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper; All
The dreaded ACLU could probably show discrimination because a disproportionately large number of male blacks wear dread locks and the intent was to keep black males out of the club.

And all it would take is a couple of pictures of "hot women in dreadlocks" (In my opinion, no such thing) photgraphed inside the establishment, and the case comes tumbling down. I am not a fan of dreadlocks myself, I just see this as a no-win situation since hair probably is viewed in a different light than no shoes, no shirt, no jacket, etc. Just my opinion... and I'd love to see the ACLU lose just on general principle.

33 posted on 01/19/2007 9:42:41 AM PST by AbeKrieger (Tagline: (optional, printed after my name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
OK People! Lets get busy! This thread needs to fill up with pictures of Trust-afarians, WASP-afarians, gangsta-wanna-bes, whiggers and others of the type!

found this one google searching "Trustafarian".

I don't mean to be over judgemental but these poeple look like they smoke a lot of dope, don't they!

LOL!!!

Enjoy!

34 posted on 01/19/2007 9:42:48 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
I don't mean to be over judgemental but these poeple look like they smoke a lot of dope, don't they!

Yeah...they do and if I owned a restaurant or club I wouldn't what's living on their heads anywhere near my establishment either.

35 posted on 01/19/2007 9:46:59 AM PST by pgkdan (Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions - G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

So, this bar ought to provide wigs for customers with dread rows and corn locks. Those really ugly wigs that come from half boarded up shops in depressed urban areas.


36 posted on 01/19/2007 9:50:18 AM PST by zook (America going insane - "Do you read Sutter Caine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

The AMbulance Chasing Lawyers Union makes it up as they go. They are clearly the most destructive force in the US today, followed closely by the democrat party.


37 posted on 01/19/2007 9:50:45 AM PST by twonie (Just because there are fewer of us don't mean we are wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

Some yachts are corporate owned.

The incident(s) took place over 6 months ago.

Are Evans and Hines aquainted? How long does it take to file a lawsuit? Do they really want justice or money?


38 posted on 01/19/2007 10:13:46 AM PST by Goldie Lurks (professional moonbat catcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

Where does the business get a "right" to discriminate when it is licensed to serve the public?


39 posted on 01/19/2007 10:16:19 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

The nurse is correct.


40 posted on 01/19/2007 10:18:17 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666
When's the last time the ACLU actully took up a good cause?

Must be a slow 'civil liberties violation' week for the ACLU. Carrying the banner for dreadlocks! Whew! This one could make it all the way up to the Supreme Court! LOLOLOL!

41 posted on 01/19/2007 10:19:51 AM PST by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twonie

Come on, the ACLU pales in comparsion to the Treason Media in danger to the Republic. It isn't even close.


42 posted on 01/19/2007 10:20:03 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Do you mean based on personal appearance or ANY reason a business wants to use to bar a customer?
Do they have a right not to serve Jews or Christians?Green Party or Populist Party members?Gays or adulterers?
Please clarify.


43 posted on 01/19/2007 10:22:16 AM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

Its complete economic ignorance to discriminate.As if blacks,or Jews or Catholics' money isn't as spendable as other folks!


44 posted on 01/19/2007 10:24:07 AM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

Sounds like an ACLU setup to me. Perhaps they needed to MLK more funds from us taxpayers.

We have a bar here near Orlando that had a sign in the window that said NO COLORS.

Of course, they meant GANG COLORS but that didn't stop some empty heads from taking up the cause of why this bar was keeping the Black man down!


45 posted on 01/19/2007 10:29:15 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (Celebrate Monocacy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

I said that there IS no right to discriminate, if you look at the law as it is. However, I do think that people should have a right to discriminate, as it is their right to choose with whom they want to associate their business. And businesses should not serve the public but their shareholders.


46 posted on 01/19/2007 11:04:51 AM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610

Yes it is. I don't agree with discrimination, against any group. But making poor business decisions should be legal, that's not the government's business.


47 posted on 01/19/2007 11:06:25 AM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Come on, the ACLU pales in comparsion to the Treason Media in danger to the Republic. It isn't even close.

I disagree completely. The Treason Media can only spout propaganda. It has its effect, but cannot directly change anything. The ACLU, on the other hand, uses its immense legal resources, in collusion with liberal judges, to make de facto changes to existing law. A law may say one thing clearly, but if the ACLU can get federal judges to rule that it says something else, then it has effectively been changed by fiat.

In addition, the ACLU uses its power and resources to intimidate people and businesses to accept social change that they would otherwise resist. For example, the Boy Scouts are still fighting tooth and nail not to have to allow gay scout leaders, but many organizations have and would cave in to those demands, not because they would necessarily lose the case in court, but because the drain in time and financial resources even to win would be equivalent to losing. Therefore they cave. If enough do this towhere all organizations are afraid to stand against such lawsuits, then you, again, have a de facto change in societal rules.
48 posted on 01/19/2007 11:07:44 AM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

Yes,the government shouldn't be the one determining such things in a private business.
Yet to have a business that has signs up saying,"no blacks,no women,etc"is blatantly anti-American and only serves as a propaganda tool for radical Islamists and others who would use businesses with these policies to defame America as a whole.


49 posted on 01/19/2007 11:29:33 AM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Sounds like what I've always wondered about.

Namely, how does one wash their hair when it's all in braids/dreadlocks?


50 posted on 01/19/2007 11:45:04 AM PST by OldArmy52 (China & India: Doing jobs Americans don't want to do (manuf., engineering, accounting, etc))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson