Yeah I got kids, I don't need that crap in the neighborhood. Bikinis? Fine. Twerking and prostitution at the drive-up coffee shop? Nope.Finally something we can all agree on... well except one...
Yeah I got kids, I don't need that crap in the neighborhood. Bikinis? Fine. Twerking and prostitution at the drive-up coffee shop? Nope.Finally something we can all agree on... well except one...
These days I doubt the court can define what a woman isI believe the issue is that not only did the law go beyond bikinis...
"It is difficult to imagine, the court wrote, how the ordinance would be equally applied to men and women in practice because it prohibits clothing “typically worn by women rather than men,” including midriff and scoop-back shirts, as well as bikinis."
But that it was determined to be discriminatory to a specific demographic as it targeted a profession. (After all, bikinis were still legal to wear at the beach.)
'Bikini baristas were “clearly” a target of the ordinance, the court also ruled, adding that the profession is comprised of a workforce that is almost entirely women."
Well, I mean, they're not biologists, after all.These days I doubt the court can define what a woman is
I read the article and watched the video, and neither mentioned twerking or prostitution. Where'd you come up with that?Yeah I got kids, I don't need that crap in the neighborhood. Bikinis? Fine. Twerking and prostitution at the drive-up coffee shop? Nope.
It was in the original filed complaint.I read the article and watched the video, and neither mentioned twerking or prostitution. Where'd you come up with that?
Nick ain't here!Waiting for Nick to post. Could go either way. or
Enter your email address to join: