Posted on 07/06/2019 7:54:15 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
A group of Seattle-area baristas who argued in court that they should not be restricted from serving drinks in bikinis and other revealing clothing may have to cover up — at least for now.
CNN reported Saturday that a federal appeals court ruled that women at an Everett, Wash., drive-thru coffee stand may have to cover up.
The ruling, made by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, vacated U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman's 2017 decision that placed an injunction on a city ordinance requiring "quick-service facility" workers to wear, at minimum, shorts and a tank top.
Another 2017 city ordinance broadened the city's definition of "lewd" conduct to include public displays of certain body parts. The owner of Hillbilly Hotties, one such drive-thru coffee stand, sued over the city ordinances, claiming they violated baristas' First and 14th Amendment rights.
The ordinances will now go into effect as the decision is sent back down to a lower court.
"The panel concluded that the vagueness doctrine did not warrant an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Dress Code Ordinance," Wednesday's ruling stated, according to CNN. "The panel concluded that the mode of dress at issue in this case was not sufficiently communicative to merit First Amendment protection."
City officials in Everett praised the court's ruling, claiming that authorities had provided "extensive evidence of adverse secondary effects associated with the stands, including prostitution and sexual violence."
"The city looks forward to enforcing its ordinances consistent with the Court's decision and in the best interest of the community," Everett city officials told CNN.
According to CNN, a city police investigation found that some baristas engaged in lewd conduct, while some were victimized by patrons. Police detailed that other crimes were associated with the stands, according to the ruling.
An attorney for the women told the news network that they will continue to battle the ordinance.
"The baristas are seeking to exercise their right to choose their work clothing," the attorney said. "The baristas sought to express positive messages of body confidence and female empowerment. This decision effectively tells women that the female body must be covered up and hidden, and that women must be protected from themselves."
BFD! Girl looks attractive and decent. This must be a bunch of unhappy fat girls prompting this nonsense.
On a dreary NW morning, before hitting the rainy I 5 it is great to see some.
An excuse to get coffee at a drive through even though I despise the vile liquid.
All they have to do is claim they are all lesbians and its ok
THREE female! judges in a UNANIMOUS decision.
A district judge (Marsha Pechman: Rapin Bill judge [confirmation vote 93-1]) blocked the laws on constitutional grounds, ruling that the ordinances were vague and violated free-speech rights.
In lifting the injunction Wednesday, the 9th Circuit said the dress-code and lewd-conduct laws were sufficiently clear and that any message of female empowerment the women intended to send would be lost on their customers.
Yeah, juck the fudges.
Florida Man found shocked.
“Forcing them to wear more clothes would be an abrogation of free speech and expression.”
This has nothing to do with free speech and there is a limited definition of expression stretched here. What does it express other than an opportunity to challenge the intent of an article written for the Constitution? They didn’t have bikini baristas in 1791.
The problem with the stands are they have become a zone of crimes related to assembly and prostitution. The original problem was health and sanitary issues. Now it’s prostitution and assembly issues in some cases by the baristas themselves according to the thread. Drug sales and a threat to assault, are now the issue.
rwood
Not exactly sure why is a federal court involved in this? I would think this is more of a state issue. 10th amendment refers to remaining laws made by the states.
cofeve
You are a gentleman and a scholar Sir.
the femiNAZIs must be tron over this, on one hand it's their right to show off their bodies and exploit them for money, and on the other hand it's wrong to exploit women for their body what's a femiNAZI to do???
Sweet FUP...
I love hot chicks.
Only reason I’m here.
I.e., is this or is this not a free speech issue. Lower court ruled yes, higher court ruled no.
All the Judges that vote for this need to be impeached!
Yes, judges can be impeached.
Does the ordinance require that the teeshirts be dry? Just askin ‘
Love, Joe Camel
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.