Federal appeals court rules 'bikini baristas' may have to wear more clothes

The Hill ^ | 07/06/19 | John Bowden

[Vendome]

[sanjuanbob]

BFD! Girl looks attractive and decent. This must be a bunch of unhappy fat girls prompting this nonsense.

[Oldexpat]

On a dreary NW morning, before hitting the rainy I 5 it is great to see some.

[wally_bert]

An excuse to get coffee at a drive through even though I despise the vile liquid.

[ronnie raygun]

All they have to do is claim they are all lesbians and its ok

[kiryandil]

The panel was composed of US Circuit Judges Sandra Ikuta and Morgan Christen, and US Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves.

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.

• Sandra Ikuta: Dubya judge & Federalist Society member [confirmation vote 81-0]
• Morgan Christen: ClownBammy judge (but first appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court by Governor Sarah Palin) [confirmation vote 95-3]
• Jennifer Choe-Groves: ClownBammy judge (Judge of the United States Court of International Trade) [voice vote confirmation]

[newfreep]

The girls must enjoy the exhibitionist side...not that there's anything wrong with it.

[kiryandil]

So, "pride" events with lewd perversions on display are something to be celebrated. But attractive (usually) young ladies serving coffee is beyond the pale?

Yeah, juck the fudges.

[kiryandil]

but, considering I’m in south florida it would take a lot to shock me.

Florida Man found shocked.

[Redwood71]

“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

[MinorityRepublican]

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.

[Pollard]

cofeve

[EEGator]

You are a gentleman and a scholar Sir.

[Chode]

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???

[EEGator]

Sweet FUP...

[EEGator]

I love hot chicks.

[Pocketdoor]

Only reason I’m here.

[slowhandluke]

The Feds don't care about the dress or undress bit, but whether the law was reasonable per the Constitution & previous court rulings.

I.e., is this or is this not a free speech issue. Lower court ruled yes, higher court ruled no.

[CarmichaelPatriot]

All the Judges that vote for this need to be impeached!

Yes, judges can be impeached.

[NonValueAdded]

Does the ordinance require that the teeshirts be dry? Just askin ‘

Love, Joe Camel