Skip to comments.ACLU files suit against Virginia Beach bar for prohibiting dreadlocks and cornrows
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.
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.
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.
They have no problem letting white girls with dreadlocks enter.
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.
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.
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!;-)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Where does the business get a "right" to discriminate when it is licensed to serve the public?
The nurse is correct.
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!
Come on, the ACLU pales in comparsion to the Treason Media in danger to the Republic. It isn't even close.
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?
Its complete economic ignorance to discriminate.As if blacks,or Jews or Catholics' money isn't as spendable as other folks!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like what I've always wondered about.
Namely, how does one wash their hair when it's all in braids/dreadlocks?
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.