MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Bikini Baristas Sue City in the Name of Free Speech and Women's Rights

City worries bikini hot dog stands could be next.

Candy Girls Espresso/InstagramCandy Girls Espresso/InstagramBikini baristas in Washington state are suing a city over its ban on serving "quick service" food and drinks with bare shoulders, midriffs, or upper thighs. On Monday, a group of seven baristas and one coffee stand owner filed a federal lawsuit alleging a violation of their rights to free expression, privacy, due process, and equal protection.

"This is about women's rights," barista Natalie Bjerk told the Seattle Times.

She's right. The City of Everett isn't claiming that the regulations serve any food safety or public health purposes. According to Assistant City Attorney Ramsey Ramerman, the point of the dress code is to prevent unethical coffee stand owners from pressuring employees into showing too much skin, and to keep baristas from giving customers a peep show for extra cash.

Under a pair of August ordinances, employees at food trucks, drive-up coffee stands, and similar establishments are banned from being in bikinis, shorts, sheer clothing, or any other outfit that shows bare stomachs, shoulders, breasts, lower backs, or pubic areas, or the three inches of leg below the butt.

Employee violations can lead to fines for business owners, along with a requirement to register for a special license (which the city can deny) and a five-year probationary period. Subsequent employee violations during the probationary period can get the establishment's food-service license revoked. And if the owners are judged to have "facilitated" the "lewd conduct," they can be slapped with a $5,000 fine and a year in jail.

Essentially, Everett has created a crime similar to promoting prostitution—but for facilitating skimpy clothing.

"This is not about being offended by people wearing bikinis," said Ramerman. "Some of these stands had the characteristics of a poorly run strip club, and trying to enforce standards under [Everett's lewd-conduct] law was simply ineffective." He told KOMO News that "this business model is just fertile ground for...exploitation."

Liberty Ziska, an Everett bikini barista and one the plaintiffs in the new suit, disagrees. "I choose my own clothing at work, and for me, the message I send is freedom," she said in a statement.

Again, the rule is based on public morals, not public health: The City Council cited concerns about "barista stands with employees dressing in a manner that is closely and customarily associated with adult entertainment or adult situations." (Guess they've never heard of beaches?) "The minimalistic nature of the clothing...lends itself to criminal conduct," the council suggested; it could "have adverse impacts upon minors."

Police in the past have simply busted baristas found to be engaging in criminal conduct. But city officials note that bikinis "can be quickly and simply partially or fully removed or adjusted...in a manner that is not easy to detect unless someone is placed in the same proximity of the patron," making it difficult to find individual violations. Under the new rules, no lewd conduct is required, just a skirt that's a little too short.

Everett officials also warned that left unchecked, the bikini coffee stand aesthetic could soon spread to fast food restaurants, delis, and food trucks. As evidence, they noted that "in Florida in the 90s, the popularity of bikini hot dog stands lead to similar bikni type businesses when local authorities enacted dress requirements for hot dog stands." This generated "the same negative secondary effects," say city officials, giving as an example the fact that "a bikini hot dog vendor in New York was arrested for prostitution."

At a hearing on the proposed ordinance, and in the local paper, citizens of Everett have expressed anger at the bikini law.

"It's our bodies and it's our choice," said Emilija Powell, who works at Everett bikini barista chain Hillbilly Hotties.

The city wastes time on things like this while showing little concern for "the real problems that we face everyday," wrote Mike Hickey. "In honor of this fine piece of legislation that impacts only those who buy a cup of coffee to see a couple, I pronounce all members of the city council...boobs."

Susan Martin suggested that people who don't want to see someone serving coffee in a bikini should simply avoid bikini coffee stands. "Who the hell does it hurt if a young good-looking girl serves a cup of coffee while wearing a bikini?...What century are we living in now? There is nothing illegal about wearing a bikini. What's next? A dress code at the beach or on the river?"

Photo Credit: Blendz Girls/Facebook (www.facebook.com/pg/Blendzgirls/)

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.

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    But is the coffee any good?

  • chemjeff||

    They serve coffee?

  • Quixote||

    Possibly, but they also shockingly serve skin, and everyone knows that the state has the right, and indeed the responsibility, to control prurient, bestial manifestations which, after all, threaten the fabric of our society. Surely no one here would dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Trainer||

    I only go there for the articles.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Can't be worse than Starbucks.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    YOU'RE WORSE THAN STARBUCKS!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If it includes a full release massage, then yes.

  • SQRLSY One||

    And also a happy ending?

  • ||

    Would you like cream with your coffee?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Real talk, don't put semen in your coffee it's not a good flavor with it.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    In the heat of the moment, a guy can't always control where it goes.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    IT CAN ALWAYS BE AIMED DON'T REDUCE US TO ANIMALS GOD DAMMIT.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    May be you should switch to iced coffee.

  • Malvolio||

    A gentleman's latte.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Who cares [what the coffee tastes like]; they don't even charge a cover [or wear one...]!

  • John C. Randolph||

    Of course not. It's coffee.

    -jcr

  • JWDAVIS||

    "The minimalistic nature of the clothing...lends itself to criminal conduct," the council suggested; it could "have adverse impacts upon minors."

    How many minors visit Hooters every day, month or year? What about beaches and public swimming pools?

  • Don't look at me.||

    Prudes are sick.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    It's hilarious how the left has become the Prude Faction.

  • ||

    Came here for this. What happened to free love etc?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    There's girls in bikinis and you came here for this?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    They have a lot in common with Puritans. Conformist, moralistic, and totally intolerant of anything not according to their orthodoxy. And everyone else is going to hell.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That's because American progressivism is descended directly from Puritanism by way of the Third Great Awakening.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Indeed, as it was contrasted with the "creole degeneracy" of the Virginia settlement that existed for money and profligacy.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    It's hilarious how the left has become the Prude Faction.

    It's mostly due to the outsized influence of the Gay Mafia.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yes, because if there's one thing LGBT organizations are known for, it's buttoned-down prudishness.

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    That really depends on the issue, doesn't it?

  • Paper Wasp||

    It's not about "public morals," it's about jealousy. The people who push for this absurd kind of legislation are fugly, aging soccer moms who get their Lands End sweatpants in a bunch at the thought of their meal ticket/walking ATM goggling at something with a firm ass and tits.

  • Netizen_James||

    Nonense - there's nothing about 'leftists' here. These are classic straight up American right-wing evangelical prudes. This is Glen Beck's home town. These are the sort of people who brought you the blasphemy laws, and who want public school teachers to lead children in recitations of Christian prayers.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Oh my! Where do the feminists stand? Will they continue denying that they are pretending women have no agency and are helpless -- helpless! -- in the face of male pressure?

  • CatoTheChipper||

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Failure to comply with the law is punishable by up to seven days of imprisonment and a fine of 137,50 euro.

    Jesus. Calm down Belgium. Maybe you aren't the socialist paradise we all knew you to be.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Beer and Burqas don't mix.

  • ||

    Personally, I think burqa bans do cross the line. I mean, in certain feminist quarters not wearing a bra is still a sign of resisting the Patriarchy, but could you imagine the reaction to a law banning bras under penalty of jail time?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's horrendous, but you need to destroy a women's agency to save a women's agency. That's life.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Ban the bra! Down with panties!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    When they feel the male pressure from behind, they should just bend over a little further and relax their muscles.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Look, the only thing i mind is if some attractive girl's pubes get in my coffee, and the more i think about it, no i don't.

  • GiveMeLibertyOrHandouts||

    They charge extra for that.

  • NoVaNick||

    Unfortunately (IMO anyway) most attractive women these days don't have any down there.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    I know - it's sad.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Glad we're all in agreement. Hairless women are for weak, fearful men.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    We will never see eye to eye on this, Crusty.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    With Crusty, the phrase is "eye to brown-eye."

  • AlmightyJB||

    Heard the cnn weather guy refer to Irma's eye as "that dirty eye". I wouldn't have ever thought twice about it if I didn't regularly visit here.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Why is SugarFree doing weather on CNN? I thought he was a librarian.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    And you believed him? He might as well have told you he was a lamplighter.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Hence the pilot he is pitching to the networks: Pink Eye From The Brown Eye

  • gaoxiaen||

    Dammit! You're another Kreskin.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Click on the pic; I'm pretty certain these girls don't have any.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I am so happy to say there is a hyper relevant Achewood comic related to this issue.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    If Garfield gets his coffee dildoed, he'll never Garfield in this town again.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    But enough about your favorite President.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Also, happy to see Everett getting in the news instead of just Seattle all the time.

  • Cy||

    It was better when the downtown was just a long chain of dive bars!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "It's our bodies and it's our choice," said Emilija Powell, who works at Everett bikini barista chain Hillbilly Hotties.

    It would be if you had agency. Ask your husbands or fathers to work out a gentleman's agreement with Ramerman.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Some of them are orphaned widowers who are handled by their eldest sons, thank you very much.

  • Chupacabra||

    Sorry, hon. That only works for abortion. For everything else, it's "your body, the state's choice".

  • ||

    Modesty standards are set by the ugly. I'm convinced the Yarmulke was mandated by balding guys and the burqa by women with bad hair.

  • NoVaNick||

    All they need to do is hire a couple of guys to serve coffee in speedos and everything will be fine. Or get a couple of the girls to claim they are transgender.

  • Chupacabra||

    "Everett officials also warned that left unchecked, the bikini coffee stand aesthetic could soon spread to fast food restaurants, delis, and food trucks."

    No....no....NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

    /faints

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They already did. It's called Hooters/Twin Peaks/Tilted Kilt/Whatever. They all kind of suck too.

    I am impressed these places do so well in an age where I literally see several hundred pornographic images every single day.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Porn does not really interact with you. Some guys just want to talk to a pretty girl for a few minutes.

    But don't fall in love.

  • BillEverman||

    She's a beauty...

  • CE||

    I would eat at Hooters more often if the food were better.

    The local Tilted Kilt has very good food, but they would have to add 4 or 5 inches to the skirts to meet the "3 inches below the butt" rule. If they would put some proper clothes on those girls, I could even take my wife there.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "It's our bodies and it's our choice," said Emilija Powell, who works at Everett bikini barista chain Hillbilly Hotties.

    Ooh, ouch. Someone suffers from structural misogyny.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Seriously, these women should just lie back and learn to enjoy regulation.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Was Regulation your nickname in college?

  • albo||

    Your bodies, your choice. But how about me not wanting one of your short and curlies in my latte?

    A dress code for food handlers is reasonable. Frankly, if you knew what goes on even in a clean restaurant kitchen you'd never eat out again.
    /former chef

  • Brandybuck||

    As long as she wears a hairnet, I'm fine. People already used to hippy chick baristas who don't bother bathing, that a groomed female barista in a bathing suit would seem far more hygenic.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm not sure why one of her short and curlies would end up in your latte, unless they're preparing those things below the waist and these bikini-clad women don't do any grooming.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not sure what you think is involved in making a latte.

    I don't know that more clothes is really going to correspond to more sanitary conditions. I would assume that these ladies bathe daily and I'm more worried about what might drop off of someone's clothing than off of their skin.

  • Ron||

    A bikinied Barista is probably more careful around hot liquids than one in a Burqa

  • Huzzah||

    "Your bodies, your choice. But how about me not wanting one of your short and curlies in my latte?"

    Don't go then

    And fuck off slaver.

  • Huzzah||

    Also, I worked in several kitchens in college, and I still eat out.

    Maybe it's your behavior that made the kitchen so unsavory.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Would froth her latte.

  • Brandybuck||

    First they came for the plastic straws, but I said nothing because I don't drink my coffee with a straw. Then they cam for my scantily clad barista...

  • Cy||

    No wonder they think illegals are the only ones who want to do the work, they've pissed off and priced out joe sixpack so much that there isn't anyone left to do the 'little people' stuff.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Liberty Ziska, an Everett bikini barista and one the plaintiffs in the new suit, disagrees. "I choose my own clothing at work, and for me, the message I send is freedom," she said in a statement.

    I'm in love.

  • SIV||

    More of that "socially liberal" shit in action

    I miss the old socially conservative days. When a restaurant owner could require jailbait carhops to rollerskate around in shorts and halter tops or skintight sweaters and toreador pants.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    They probably lit your cigarette, too.

    The greatest generation indeed.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Huh, I'm so inundated to the new ways that I never perceived anything sexual about those outfits.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    If there is no bush sticking out the sides of their daisy dukes, BUCS doesn't spare a second glance.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Sides AND top. BUCS ain't go nowhere 'less the happy trail is a four-lane road.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Every time I go down on her, I want to relive the childhood panic I had from when I got lost in the woods for 3 days.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Holy scheiss I just clicked on the picture! Know what the problem is? Socially conscious women [particularly the kind who are opposed to this] are ugly, horny, and can't do anything about it without a dildo. That's what the problem is. Pure damn jealousy.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    ENB does know her audience.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I strongly suspect there's something else afoot here, and it has to do with already-claimed government power: Zoning and permitting.

    Most cities have already claimed the power to zone and permit burlesque (strip clubs) businesses. I seriously believe that the City of Everett is playing the long game here. If they allow the Bikini Baristas, they it essentially calls into question the need or purpose of zoning strip clubs. All too often, the government won't budge on a regulation because if you repeal this regulation, there's a real fear it'll untangle and entire segment of power they've already claimed for itself.

  • Ron||

    what do poolside bartenders wear?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Snow pants and heavy sweaters.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    A sweater with nothing underneath is my kind of outfit.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That explains why you always smell like sweated-in wool. You should also consider wearing pants, Donald Duck.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    BTW, when am I getting that sweater back?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The city had to burn it. Sorry bro.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Cargo shorts and white polos.

  • Eeyore||

    city officials note that bikinis "can be quickly and simply partially or fully removed...

    Sounds like something from the imagination of a 12 year old boy.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    "City officials noted, 'All those ladies are naked under there clothes if you think about it.'"

  • Liberty Lover||

    Well dresses can be lifted quickly, jeans can be dropped quickly. Maybe the answer is a chastity belt, with a male relative holding the key. Oh wait that has already been tried and didn't work that well.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    This is why I'm a libertarian.

    And why there are no libertarian women.

  • Libertymike||

    File under the continuing decline of journalistic standards.

    ENB writes, "[a]ccording to Assistant City Attorney Ramsey Ramerman, the point of the dress code is to prevent UNETHICAL (emphasis added) coffee stand owners from pressuring employees to show too much skin...." ENB links to a Seattle Times piece penned by Vernal Coleman. One would think that in turning to the Seattle Times story, one would find a quote by Ramerman in which he employed the word "unethical".

    Not so. In Coleman's story, one cannot find any such attribution. Instead, one discovers that Coleman used the word unscrupulous to describe such coffee stand owners.

    A decent, ethical journalist would quote exactly what Ramerman, the progressive public sector parasite, actually said, not paraphrase what the Seattle Times writer penned.

    A decent, ethical journalist would not inject cultural Marxist drivel into her reportage. The employment of the descriptor, "unethical" to describe a hypothetical coffee stand owner who might insist upon her employees baring lots of skin while on duty, is, itself, unethical.

    Instead, a decent, ethical journalist might, at most, add that, "according to cultural Marxist extremists, who, by definition, abhor the free market and do not understand how it operates, it is unethical for a business owner, in a free market, to require his employees to expose their midriffs and booties."

  • ||

    Except ENB wasn't quoting Ramerman.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Forget it, MP, he's rolling.

  • Huzzah||

    I don't think I will. Specifically because it isn't the first time he's done this kind of stupid shit.

  • Libertymike||

    What kind of "stupid shit"?

    Why give a free pass to sloppy journalism? Especially the type of sloppy journalism that injects cultural Marxist drivel?

  • Huzzah||

    Arguing that two words you freely admit are synonymous aren't synonymous enough.

    It's a dumb thing to even bring up.

  • Libertymike||

    The primary point of my original post is that ENB failed to adduce a statement from Ramerman to the effect that it would be unethical for a coffee stand owner to require an employee to wear skimpy attire.

  • Huzzah||

    No, that wasn't the primary point. The primary point was that you don't read very well, whether you intended it to be or not

    Have a lovely day.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, she was.

    What part of, "according to Assistant City Attorney Ramsey Ramerman" do you not comprehend?

  • ||

    The part where she didn't use quotes. You know, these things:

    "

    You kinda sorta need those to actually quote someone.

    Pretty sure they teach that in journalo school. Or to 5th graders. Maybe both!

  • Libertymike||

    No, she wrote "according to....." If you write according to, you must provide some evidence so support the attribution.

    Well, where is his statement to that effect?

    Why condone such sloppiness?

  • Huzzah||

    She did.

    You just argue that it has a different definition from yours.

    That's not sloppiness.

  • Libertymike||

    Where is Ramerman's statement to the effect that it would be unethical for a coffee stand owner to require the skimpy attire?

    Why elide?

  • Huzzah||

    Fine, ENB is a trash writer, and you're right about everything you said.

    Happy now?

  • Libertymike||

    No, to describe her writing as "trash" would be unethical on my part :)

  • Huzzah||

    But apparently not unscrupulous.

  • Libertymike||

    What would John think?

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    What would John think?

    "I wish the baristas were much heavier."

  • Libertymike||

    Nailed it.

    Also, you know damn well what he would think of ENB infecting the reportage with creepy cult-Marx editorializing.

  • ||

    Instead, one discovers that Coleman used the word unscrupulous to describe such coffee stand owners.

    I'm unclear on the distinction between "unscrupulous" and "unethical."

    Can you elaborate?

  • Huzzah||

    Thanks, I was wondering the same.

    Scruples are different from ethics how?

  • Libertymike||

    Well, just in case my sarcometer is off and you are not busting chops (which is OK as this here pot has often met kettle), I know that the two are roughly synonymous, but, nonetheless, in my view, there is a distinction.

    Ethics have, to a certain extent, become the province of professional dos and don'ts and the same are not necessarily coterminous with morals. Lots of behavior by allopaths or lawyers might be within ethical bounds but not be morally upright.

    On the other hand, scruples are more closely tied to morals.

  • Huzzah||

    "Ethics have, to a certain extent, become the province of professional dos and don'ts and the same are not necessarily coterminous with morals. "

    Ok I understand now. You don't understand what ethics are.

    If this is an ACTUAL duscussion and not you bloviating, then take a moment to appreciate how many people diagree with your definition, and consider you may have it wrong.

  • Huzzah||

    "I know that the two are roughly synonymous, "

    / thread

    Or, do you seriously expect us to get outraged because 2 words that you admit are synonymous are not synonymous ENOUGH. FOR YOU.

  • Libertymike||

    Why dodge the primary point of my post?

    Where is Ramerman's statement to the effect that it would be unethical for coffee stand owners to require their employees to bare midriffs?

    How about the fact that it is manifestly amateur hour for a journalist to write that it would be unethical or unscrupulous for a coffee stand owner to have such a requirement?

  • Huzzah||

    "Why dodge the primary point of my post?"

    Because I own myself and will discuss whatever I like.

  • Libertymike||

    Do you own what you like?

    Do you own what you dislike?

    Do you own the things about which you are ambivalent?

  • Huzzah||

    Ok, you've descended into gibberish.

    Apologies to the commentariat, I should have known better.

  • Libertymike||

    Are you accusing me of engaging in verbigeration?

  • Juice||

    ban on serving "quick service" food and drinks with bare shoulders, midriffs, or upper thighs.

    The 1920s called...

  • Don't look at me.||

    Those are the most disgusting parts I guess.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Bikini baristas..."This is about women's rights," barista Natalie Bjerk told the Seattle Times.

    I, for one, fully support the right of women to work while scantily clad.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Showing people getting physical or emotionally assaulted day in and day out on TV is no problem. Seeing beautiful female flesh on the other hand is a crime against nature. Fucking mortals.

  • Devastator||

    Yep seeing someone with their brains splattered on prime tv is groove, but show some boobs and they go fucking insane.

  • Devastator||

    groovy* :)

  • AlmightyJB||

    "lends itself to criminal conduct"

    So do public schools. Let's shut them down.

  • CE||

    If it saves just one child....

  • Citizen X - #6||

    City worries bikini hot dog stands could be next

    It's about the implication.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Every woman I've seen who runs a roadside hot dog stand in a bikini top does good business.

  • ||

    And sometimes they even sell some hot dogs.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Well, would smoked sausages or bratwurst be okay, or do they have the same implications?

  • IceTrey||

    Thank God Everett has eliminated all rapes, murders, thefts, etc. so the cops have time to go after bikini baristas.

  • CE||

    It's all about the city council not wanting their town to be "that kind of town" and attract the deplorables. Even though the revealed preferences of the citizens indicate that is is "that kind of town", or at least wants to be.

  • Jayburd||

    Last I remember Everett had strip clubs. And the USS Ronald Reagan.

  • Robert||

    USS Ronald Reagan had strip clubs? Hey, today's navy....

  • Longtobefree||

    Why do you think they have to let women enlist, and serve on combat ships?

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    Liberals become the control freak, prude types and start making and enforcing stupid and draconian laws like this one. Just admit it, liberals are the new puritans. They don't like fun and nobody should have fun or anything else that makes them happy.

  • Devastator||

    Liberals and Conservatives do the same thing for different reasons, stop blaming it all on conservatives, neither of them want women to be able to dress as they would like, but because of different philosophical reason. The end result is condemnation of an individual's right to wear what the fuck they want to wear.

  • ||

    1. Rights are forfeit where govt. (rulers) exsit. 2. The majority believe in the initiation of force by an elected elite (rulers) as a primary basis for social interaction, and are willing to accept the death of others, if necessary, to have their way. 3. Rights require reason as the primary basis for social interaction. 4. Without reason, no social stability or stainability can exist. See our history of war, domestic tyranny, social/economic collapse in every society where govt. exists.

    All progress is due to a counter balance of reason in the private sector. Until the public sector is guided by reason and voluntaryism, our species is in danger of self destructing.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    "Liberty Ziska, an Everett bikini barista and one the plaintiffs in the new suit"

    I see what you did there...

  • Longtobefree||

    Couldn't find out for sure, but the reporting seems to indicate that somehow this ordnance only applies to females. Which is unconstitutional on its face, let alone triggering to all those science deniers who think there are more than two ways X & Y chromosomes can combine.
    Hit the entire council with a suit of conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, and watch the lawyers get rich.

  • Devastator||

    Who cares if it's male or female, it's unconstitutional all the way around.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    The Left are the New Puritans......who lay awake at night terrified that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

  • Devastator||

    If they can do this, what is there to prevent them from imposing sharia. If you don't like their fucking dress code and/or coffee then don't fucking shop there you old dried up prunes.

  • JWDAVIS||

    "The minimalistic nature of the clothing...lends itself to criminal conduct," the council suggested; it could "have adverse impacts upon minors."

    How many minors visit Hooters, beaches and public swimming pools every day?

  • XM||

    I'm thinking the coty could (maybe) tell half naked women to cover up at a stand, which is visible to the public.

    If this happened at a brick and mortar business the city have less of a case.

  • Fuzzyedia||

    That's the crazy thing about Washington State.

    From King County to Snohomish County, the police can see a guy walking down the street with a bloody head in each hand and passing Sherriff will joke with his partner "huh, must have been a full moon last night Dave."

    If a guy mistakenly brushes against a women while passing her on the street, however, they call in a SWAT team to handle it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online