[daviscupper]

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.

[AbeKrieger]

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.