First Amendment

City of Everett Can Force Bikini Baristas To Cover Their Butts, 9th Circuit Rules

The law is an ass, cleft and all.

|

Last week a federal appeals court ruled bikini-clad baristas in Everett, Washington, will have to cover up while they make coffee and serve customers.

As I detailed in a 2017 column, the bikini-barista business model, which is popular in my home of Washington State, features baristas in small coffee stands who wear skimpy attire while serving coffee to customers through a drive-up window. Everett officials, who claim the bikini barista stands are responsible for "prostitution and sexual violence," adopted a pair of moralistic ordinances to combat them two years ago.

That spurred the lawsuit, filed by several baristas and their employer.

In a 24-page opinion, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that the U.S. District Court in Seattle erred in granting a temporary injunction that had barred Everett officials from enforcing the ban while the suit proceeded. The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that the law violates the baristas' First Amendment right to free expression and lifted the injunction, meaning the ban is back on while the lawsuit proceeds in district court.

The Everett crackdown traces its origin to a series of complaints that began in the city nearly a decade ago. Accusers included an apparently eagle-eyed mother who told Everett police that while driving by a coffee stand she saw a customer grope a bikini-clad barista's "intimate areas" while the next customer in line "was clearly touching his genitals through his clothes as he was waiting his turn." 

In keeping with the prurient theme, this month's ruling turned in part on the Everett law's ban on the public display of some portions of a worker's "anal cleft." While the District Court had determined the Everett law is impermissibly vague "because "[t]he term 'bottom one-half of the anal cleft' is not well-defined or reasonably understandable," the Ninth Circuit ruled that the law is clear because both the term and its midpoint can be easily understood. In this way, the Ninth Circuit's apparent familiarity with the particulars of the anal cleft recalls Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famously detail-free explanation of pornography: "I know it when I see it."

That same Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment protects "expressive conduct," generally conduct or actions intended to convey a message or idea. The baristas, the Ninth Circuit noted, say they wear bikinis to convey a message "relating to empowerment and confidence." But the Ninth Circuit, which appears to understand the baristas' expressive conduct just fine, nevertheless ruled that even if the baristas are engaging in expressive conduct through their actions, that conduct is not protected by the First Amendment because the baristas "fail[ed] to show a great likelihood that their intended message will be understood by those who receive it."

In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit appears to have decided arbitrarily (and incorrectly, in my opinion) that people are far more likely to understand the meaning of the term "anal cleft" (and the bottom half of said cleft) than they are to understand why wearing a bikini can constitute expressive conduct that demonstrates "empowerment and confidence."

The Ninth Circuit appears to understand why a barista might choose to show a little skin while working. Ultimately, though, the court seems not to respect the fact that the baristas get paid for that expressive conduct.

"The baristas' act of wearing pasties and g-strings in close proximity to paying customers creates a high likelihood that the message sent by the baristas' nearly nonexistent outfits vastly diverges from those described in plaintiffs' declarations," the court ruled. "The commercial setting and close proximity to the baristas' customers makes the difference." As support for its position, the Ninth Circuit judges refer to the fact "the baristas undisputedly solicit tips."

But exotic dancers, who the Supreme Court has ruled are engaging in protected expressive conduct, also "undisputedly solicit tips." The Ninth Circuit, though, ruled that the baristas' sincere denial that they are nude dancers or erotic performers requires the court to "disavow[] the First Amendment protections available for that conduct."

I spoke this week with lead plaintiff Jovanna Edge, owner of Hillbilly Hotties, a bikini barista stand in Everett. Edge, who I also spoke with for my 2017 column, called the latest ruling "a shock." Edge says she and her baristas are upset and angry. "My staff have ranged from crying asking, 'How they will put food on the table for their kids,' all the way to 'Let's run for city council,'" she says. Edge tells me she'll appeal the ruling.

Everett's bikini-barista crackdown appears to be unpopular. An informal poll run by Everett's HeraldNet website is running three to one in favor of "let[ting] the market decide based on what employers allow."

In the wake of the ruling, that option is off the table—for now at least. While Edge will appeal, the next move likely will be Everett's.

"What will be… of interest will be just how they actually intend to enforce these new laws," Edge tells me. "Is a judge going to throw us in jail for wearing what any American can see on the beach?"

That's exactly the path the Everett law suggests.

"The law is an ass," the saying goes. I can confirm this to be true. Cleft and all.

NEXT: Marianne Williamson Wants To Win the Presidency With the Power of Love and Miracles

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

108 responses to “City of Everett Can Force Bikini Baristas To Cover Their Butts, 9th Circuit Rules

  1. “The baristas’ act of wearing pasties and g-strings in close proximity to paying customers creates a high likelihood that the message sent by the baristas’ nearly nonexistent outfits vastly diverges from those described in plaintiffs’ declarations,” the court ruled.

    How can we protect women and allow them to keep their agency? Something has to give.

    1. Pretty easy… stop trying to protect people who don’t want the so-called protection.

      1. Part of the calling is protecting women from their own judgment.

        1. “Part of the calling is protecting women from their own judgment.”
          Where were they for my ex-girlfriends?

          1. Amen to that. I was a terrible boyfriend and will be again. Who’s next in line, ladies? I’ll be the best worst decision you ever made!

        2. methinks part of the officials’ calling is protecting their buddies’ coffee-shop businesses from upstart competition.

      2. Better yet, and more consistent, stop trying to protect adult people whether they want protection or not. Nanny state functions do not apply to adults.

    2. And please note, Everett is pretty much run by progtards. Just like everything else in western WA.

      1. Would they be okay with bikini drag queens and gender benders doin’ the brewin’?

        1. If the baristas were part of some media darling group things would be very different.

      2. Everett is Seattle North. In other words, batshit crazy Progressive north. Perhaps not as infected as Seattle, but it’s there.

        And as we all know progressives are just puritans without the funny hats. Oh wait…

    3. Thank goodness that we can focus on things like this! I mean who is it hurting, no one except a couple of guys and girls that like the sexual appeal. Glad to know that the others want everyone else to repress. But being from places where the moral authority said one thing yet still banged 14 yr olds, hypocritical is a loose term and disgusting. These woman are fully in control of themselves and shouldn’t be censored for trying to survive.

    4. Face the music.

      Half clefs are a problem.

  2. As with the unconstitutional Substances Act, there is nothing in the United States or any US State Constitutions that give the government power to ban any product or service.

    So prostitution cannot be banned. It can be regulated interstate by the federal gov and intrastate by states.

    Then we come to coffee businesses that feature women in bikinis. Being nude in public is not a right protected by the US or state Constitutions but once we are talking how much clothes are appropriate for those in local government, regulation should defer to the business.

    There is just no reasonable state constitutional power to tell employees what their specific dress code should be.

    1. It’d be best if courts just started throwing shit like this out on “not the government’s business” grounds. Are we seriously going to let governments tell people what they can and cannot wear? The judge should’ve took one look at this and said, this is none of the government business and it’s a clear example of how far government overreach has gone.

      1. “not the government’s business”

        Blasphemy!

    2. The 10th amendment grants the states the power to do just about anything they want. Unlike the federal government, state governments are not limited to explicitly enumerated powers

      1. But since the 14th amendment explicitly makes it clear that states cannot violate your rights, all the rights and freedoms reiterated in the 9th amendment are protected even from state level laws.

        States are not limited to the enumerated powers of the constitution but they cannot violate your constitutional rights, which are myriad and unnamed for a reason.

        1. …all the rights and freedoms reiterated in the 9th amendment are protected even from state level laws.

          It would be great if that were the case. The BoR has had to be incorporated against the states piecemeal. No case that I’m aware of has done so for 9A. SCOTUS seems to barely even care about 9A.

          Then there is this little gem of statism from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

          The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it “is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.”

        2. AFAIK the unenumerated rights in the 9th amendment have not been incorporated against the states. Although in this case, the 1st amendment absolutely has been incorporated

      2. Not by the Federal Constitution, but many have State Constitutions that do explicitly limit the legal authority ion the State.

        Many a previously happy progtard stooge has had his (or her) year just RUINED when a State Supreme Court pointed out that some legislation the progtard desperately wanted to impose was a violation of the STATE Constitution.

    3. “Being nude in public is not a right protected by the US or state Constitutions…”

      Never made it to the Ninth Amendment?

  3. That “eagle eyed mother” was probably miffed because no one wants to see her cellulite infested anal cleft.

    1. But where does she stand on cakes for transvestites when baked with a skimpy bottom?

    2. That “eagle eyed mother”

      Who just happened to want coffee from a bikini barista place.

  4. Communism

  5. I’m disappointed that this article doesn’t include a visual guide to understanding the nuances of the anal cleft.

    1. i assume they mean the “outer butthole wrinkles” often visible if a person wears a thong or g-string, but somehow “anal cleft” sounds more professional than “outer butthole wrinkles”..pretentious wangs!

    2. Where exactly does one measure from? The taint or do we start further north? The mid point of the curve following the cleft? Or the midpoint of a line perpendicular to the ground?

      We need some videos detailing these nuances.

  6. Now, about the coffee…is it any good? And don’t talk to me about anal clefts while they’re getting the coffee.

  7. Can Turkey menace America by Russian S-400 Missile System. America is afraid about Turkey to deal for buying Russian S-400 defence missile system. Because if Turkey admits the S-400 missile system into own air defence they will be more strong. So America faces difficulties to control the establishment of Turkey government. America is afraid of someone who grabbed power. That’s why the U.S put sanctions on those countries that they work hard to respond against America

    Can Turkey menace America by Russian S-400 Missile System

    1. Who cares? We’re talking about anal clefts here! Important stuff!

      Haha

      1. Exposure of the anal cleft gets a woman executed via S400 in Turkey

  8. “Everett officials, who claim the bikini barista stands are responsible for “prostitution and sexual violence,” adopted a pair of moralistic ordinances to combat them”…hmmm… Once again blaming the victims of sexual violence for the clothing that they wear while also claiming that if you restrict clothing levels, by city ordinances, that will do one damn thing to reduce sexual violence. NOT!
    The barista’s attorney should have used the entertainment theory of law to defend their claim instead, because the courts are chock full of judges who still like tipping their local exotic dancers.

    1. wouldn’t they need to show some, you know, actual evidence of prostitution and violence to take the drastic action of shutting down a business though?

      1. No, you misunderstand. The “violence” is what the women are doing to themselves! Through their own false consciousness they make themselves victims of their own crimes. This law is the state’s gracious and benevolent attempt to help them by putting them out of work.

    2. Apparently, she was just asking for it, dressing like that…

  9. conduct is not protected by the First Amendment because the baristas “fail[ed] to show a great likelihood that their intended message will be understood by those who receive it.”

    So if I were to wear a shirt with a political message written in, say, Sanskrit, that would not protected because it would not be understood by those who read it?

    And it literally just now occurred to me how this could be applied to encrypted communications….

    1. Not only that, if “great likelihood that their intended message will be understood” is the criterion, then we should clearly ban Pollack and Picasso and every other post-modern painter, photographer, and sculptor. And they should also be flogged for INTENTIONALLY making their art misunderstood.

      1. I can’t ever recall seeing any anal clefts in a Pollock painting…

  10. This is a really bad ruling, but it’s also the Ninth Circuit, so what do you expect?

    1. The 9th circuit rarely finds an expression of government power it doesn’t support.

  11. As a musician, I can tell you that the anal clef is the secret to the legendary brown note, but I’ve said too much already.

    1. Yeah the legendary 3rd clef.

    2. Nice.

    3. The brown note is anathema to the skin flute.

      1. My understanding is that there’s a significant and robust community of Reason commenters who are quite into playing the brown note with the skin flute.

  12. I would think the plumber’s union would have filed an amicus brief – – –

    (Anybody else notice how much the stock of thin t-shirt companies went up?)

  13. Thank you, Big Brother, for protecting me from the menace of bare hiney!

  14. Yes, because people aren’t capable of making their own damn decisions.

  15. “”The law is an ass,” the saying goes. ”

    ‘The law is a ass.’ That’s how the saying has gone since Charles Dickens invented it.

  16. Over the years, all of the “bikini” barista “coffee shops” that have been shut down due to blatant prostitution haven’t swayed the authors opinion that maybe these aren’t just “women expressing their right”??? Maybe the author should visit (or you do frequently/that’s your “thing” ????????)… Having said that. These places are gross. Serving food, coffee and with a big enough tip, gets you a little extra drip. I just don’t see how a woman in a tiny hut being encouraged monetarily to show, rub and many, many other things is promoting any right. It’s sad. It is exactly why people like Jeffrey Epstein is in jail. R Kelly. Yeah, in the heat of the moment and seeing your rent or food on the table for the child you have brings temporary “happiness”…. The end result is fucking disgusting and no man should be encouraging this by a woman, child…or anyone on this Earth. Money can cure many problems but you still have to look at yourself in the mirror…look at your children. Empowering women? There. Are many, many more ways to show anyone there’s easier money to be made. Or “we” can continue to support the oldest trade in the world

    1. Fuck off slaver

    2. ” I just don’t see”

      Who cares? It’s not up to you.

    3. While I personally find all of it gross, it is none of your fucking business. Don’t like it? Don’t go there! Don’t like prostitutes? Don’t use one! Funny, that whole we spend so much on trying to get rid of prostitutes, but only people like you trying to control everyone are the ones bothering me.

      Shove your virtue signaling up your ass.

    4. Oh look, someone else thinking they can be our master.

      Fuck off, slaver. If you don’t like bikini barista stands, DON’T GO TO ONE.

    5. Hot damn, that’s even better than OBL!

  17. …all the rights and freedoms reiterated in the 9th amendment are protected even from state level laws.

    It would be great if that were the case. The BoR has had to be incorporated against the states piecemeal. No case that I’m aware of has done so for 9A. SCOTUS seems to barely even care about 9A.

    Then there is this little gem of statism from the Wikipedia article on the subject.
    The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it “is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.”

    1. Threading fail. That was meant as a reply to I,Woodchipper above

  18. Pro tip: Avoid OBLs bikini barista stand.
    The sequined top looked good but the leopard print bottom looked like it was holding in some sort of Lovecraftian octo-horror.

    1. You should see Crusty’s. On second thought, no you shouldn’t.

  19. I am jealous that they even have those in Washington.

  20. Let em’ wear burkas for the month.

  21. The city should publish a catalog of photos with examples of what is not permissible.

  22. Yeah, this whole Seattle area is just a bunch of uptight, conservative, religious prudes who…….

    Wait…

    1. It turns out it wasn’t actually religion that drives moralizing after all. Moralists just hijack any movement that can grant them power and influence.

  23. The fuckhead Ninth Circus strikes again. It should have been busted up years ago.

  24. The City of Everett has a much bigger problem of dealing with the homeless than with deciding how much anal cleft and cleavage should be shown at an espresso drive-through. This ruling should be appealed upward.

  25. I’m really surprised the plumbers union hasn’t backed the barista’s lawsuit. They will all have to start wearing overalls soon.

  26. Fat, sexless wives win again.

  27. “To be fair,” a quick google image search suggests that this isn’t targeted at any of the bikinis that Reason has ever dared to post.

    When Reason posts a picture of the slingshot thongs that are driving this backlash, they will have a stronger case. And stronger web traffic.

    1. And you posted that response sans links?

  28. You’d think liberals would be open to prostitution.

    1. Restricting rights is the prime directive.
      They will be open to prostitution only when it becomes a state run, unionized business. No individuals being in business for them selves will be allowed.

    2. Nah.
      Proggies hate fun even MORE than Fundies.

  29. Burkinis for Baristas Bill time?

  30. Everett officials, who claim the bikini barista stands are responsible for “prostitution and sexual violence,” adopted a pair of moralistic ordinances to combat them two years ago.

    Progressive puritanism is alive and well.

  31. but people can still wear bikins to the beach I suppose, and it’s somehow different?

    1. Well, as different as a cold beer .vs hot coffee – – – – –

      What they statists really object to is that these are individual, independent businesses, and not as easy to control as larger corporations.

  32. I’d just like to weigh in. I’m a former bikini barista in Everett. This was about 6 years ago. I also live in Everett now currently. We bought a house and I have two children. I worked as a bikini barista because it’s true, it’s a quick way to make enough to pay the bills. I worked as one for a week. I made over $1000 that week and as soon as I had enough to pay rent at the time and a couple bills I quit. Being a bikini barista is absolutely degrading. I’m not a feminist, but I grew up knowing what’s right and wrong. I was a single mother at the time and was so worried my daughter would ever find out I did this. But I did it to make a quick dollar. Then I got a real job not selling my body. I feel bad for all the women who have twisted this into an “empowerment” thing. That’s sick. They all know deep down how gutting and heart wrenching it is to stand and be oogled by people all day and treated like a piece of meat. The so called eagle eyed mother who spotted that incident is in the right. Im glad Everett is cracking down. I wish they had when I worked there. My first day at the stand I was told by one of the girls who had been there for five years, that if I wanted to make the big bucks I’d do “shows” and go on dates with the men that asked and that I should allow touching and men to touch themselves. “I’d make big tips”. She explained that this is how she paid off her really nice car sitting parked out in the lot. I did not do any of that and still made enough to pay my bills that week I worked. So I can’t imagine what kind of pay check she’s going home with each week, but I do know she is not going home feeling empowered or with any self esteem. What a crock of shit they tried saying it makes them feel empowered. No. It makes them quick cash. Otherwise they would keep bikinis on and the men would stay in their cars.

    1. Sounds like the five-year barista weighed the pluses and minuses of continuing her occupation and decided the pluses outweighed the minuses. You did the same and came to the opposite conclusion. So the question is: who are you to decide for her ?

      You didn’t like being a bikini barista, so you got out. Good for you. The woman prefers having a nice car to having your personal opinion of empowerment. Good for her. You and the Everett officials are wrong for wanting to take that choice away from her.

      1. Her post makes the point that these really are drive up strip shows.

        While there is a place for that, let’s not pretend that this backlash came out of nowhere and is target at the bikinis that Reason likes to use to illustrate these stories.

        1. Seems like the state has created either the option of not being erotic at all, or else being full on adult entertainment. Maybe these should be classified as adult entertainment, but I have no idea what damage that would do with regulations.

          But the rest of her narrative doesn’t support her conclusion at all. She had this option, she tried it, they encouraged her to but didn’t force her to do more lewd acts, she felt icky, she stuck it out anyways for the money until she didn’t need the money that badly. She wants to remove that option from someone who now needs the money like she did, or else doesn’t feel as icky performing the same acts. That’s just gonna drive this women into underground establishments or unavashed prostitution, since most adults consider that preferable to homelessness.

          1. The phrase “’bottom one-half of the anal cleft’” combined with a quick image search plus this anonymous testimony suggests that the law targets sphincter flashes by baristas for drive through customers. Or at the very least, thongs that disappear into the fragrant nether regions.

            This isn’t really the grey area that Reason’s selected photos would have you believe.

            I predict that SCOTUS simply declines to take the case. Bad cases set bad precedent.

            1. Can’t wait to hear about “The ButtCrack Case” being taught in Law School.

    2. ” I wish they had when I worked there.”
      Liar.
      If they had, you would not have been able to work there, you would not have been able to pay the rent, and become homeless. Then you would have to really go into prostitution, and would not have been able to get out.
      What you have just said is that you do not want any other woman (or man who thinks they are a woman) to have the same lifeline you used.
      Pretty damn narrow minded.
      Missing was one fact; do you vote democrat?

      1. Not lying per se. Just thinking with her emotions like most people, and thus concluding that banning a not so great option magically creates better options for people.

    3. Then I got a real job not selling my body.

      You don’t have to use your body? How the hell does that work?

      1. Well, I’m not sure she was using her brain while writing the post, so maybe she has found something she can do without using her body.

        The logic of “I wish someone had stopped me, an adult, from voluntarily taking a job so I could pay my rent” is, unfortunately, lost on me.

    4. Your comment has 3 parts:

      1. Because I lack the moral capacity and intelligence to make grown up decisions about my own life, the State should treat me like the moral imbecile I am and make those decisions for me, because deciding stuff is hard!

      2. I had a few bad options and wish the State had removed the best of those bad options available. This is the “I wish that firefighter had boarded up the window of the burning building I jumped out to save my life because then I would not have broken my arm when I hit the ground!” argument.

      3. Because I lack the maturity to make decisions about my own life and need the Daddy State to make those decisions for me the daddy state needs to decide this for all women who are as incompetent as I am to make a decision as I am. I consider this particular argument the most retrograde kind of Victorian anti feminism imaginable. If they lack the capacity to make decisions about their own life and need to rely on the men in the State to make this decision for them, why did we even bother to give them the vote?

      I just gotta ask. When did “mind your own fucking business” go out of style? When did grown ups decide they had a duty to force their prudish views of sex onto those who hold a different view?
      Even 20 years ago a public statement like the one this lady made here would have been met with laughter and scorn by polite society. When did the Taliban approach to control sexuality between other people come into style?

  33. Also to say “fat sexless wives win again”-I’m very happy in my marriage and not over weight at all. My husband doesn’t go to those stands and I don’t want my daughter seeing those stands as possible future employment. There’s tons of prostitution going on in those stands and I know some of those girls had pimps or a madam. Some of the chain stands were owned by a madam. Look it up, it’s public record. That’s sad. I hope the city of Everett wins. I hope they have to wear a little more and I hope they can feel better about themselves. If they have to at least wear as much as you have to wear to a public beach that would be ideal.

    1. Sure, Dw.

      “I hope they have to wear a little more and I hope they can feel better about themselves butt if not, then too f’n bad for them because Dw’s empowerment over them is more important than their empowerment over themselves.” FTFY

      “…and I don’t want my daughter seeing those stands as possible future employment.”

      Well, if your daughter does then that is YOUR failure and not the butt hut’s. What else does society have to be forced to hide from your daughter to unreliably keep her from making bad choices because of your poor parenting?

    2. Fine, if prostitution isn’t allowed (why it wouldn’t be, I don’t know, but if it is…), crack down on prostitution when it actually occurs rather than assuming that because prostitution occurs at some instances of a type of venue, it occurs at all instances and therefore all instances must be shut down.

      If the business model is dependent on prostitution, a few sting operations will put all these places out of business anyway.

      What’s next, is Everett going to outlaw people standing on the sidewalk? I’m told that that’s where, in at least some communities, prostitutes ply their trade.

  34. Just as an aside – anyone know a way to get rid of the new feature called ‘anyclip’? It slides right past adbocker.

    1. This isn’t the only site that has it. Hate it.

    2. HMTL5 Autoplay blocker stops it from playing but not from showing up.

  35. Camo bikini and a big back tattoo? Classy!

    1. I’m not sure why this photo was used at all. Not only is the lower half of the barista’s “anal cleft” not visible, even the top half is covered.

      The journalistic integrity of Reason is questionable given their selection of this misleading picture.

      1. It is true that far more ample evidence is required for me to make a proper judgement in this case.

  36. this month’s ruling turned in part on the Everett law’s ban on the public display of some portions of a worker’s “anal cleft.”

    I fear for the future of the construction industry in Everett, indeed anywhere within the 9th Circuit’s imperial domains.

  37. Rights? Whose Rights?

    The so-called Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of several factors spiralling these United States of America towards national suicide. One man’s rights are another man’s wrongs. For good reason, the term “civil rights” appears in neither the Declaration of Independence nor the original Constitution.

    In the name of “civil rights”, the disestablishmentarians, including those who rule our educational system, promote the destruction of traditional American ideals and values originally reflecting the Anglo-Protestantism upon which this nation was founded and built. As noted in the novel, Retribution Fever, there are consequences.

    Excerpt from Retribution Fever:
    There is a consequence attached to promoting a variety self-proclaimed, arbitrary standards of human conduct, standards that shift capriciously to reflect momentary whims. The consequence is anarchy, which carries a heavy social cost. Although initially derived from studying flow of traffic, Braess’s Paradox [named after its author, mathematician Dietrich Braess (b. 1938)] describes the heavy cost to a system of related events uncoördinated by a common standard such as a code of absolute moral standards applied to a social system — costs even to inanimate systems like electrical networks.

  38. “the bikini barista stands are responsible for “prostitution and sexual violence,” ”

    Then why haven’t they been arrested for prostitution and/or acts of violence? Maybe, because it’s BS?

  39. The girl in that photo is like the road between Ft. Worth and Houston.

  40. while the next customer in line “was clearly touching his genitals through his clothes as he was waiting his turn.”

    *looks around*

    I do this in Starbucks for chrissakes!

  41. ‘How they will put food on the table for their kids,’ all the way to ‘Let’s run for city council,'”

    By doing it the American way: Fully clothed. Amirite fellas?

Comments are closed.