News

Court rules Hillbilly Hotties bikini baristas must cover their creamers

July 7, 2019 | | Print Article

Thanks to three judges on the mostly left-wing, San-Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nearly naked “hotties” who work at the Hillbilly Hotties bikini barista chain in the Seattle metropolitan area may have to start covering up their goods.

Two years ago, the Washington city of Everett instituted a strict dress code mandating that employees at “quick-serve” establishments such as Hillbilly Hotties “cover their torso, upper legs, buttocks and pubic areas,” according to Newsweek.

Both this law and another one covering lewd conduct were reportedly passed after local authorities received 40+ complaints about everything from “public masturbation by customers” to some “quick-service” baristas working “entirely nude.”

(video screenshot)

It’s not clear whether these complaints were linked specifically to Hillbilly Hotties. Nevertheless, both the barista chain’s owner and five of its baristas filed suit soon after.

“A bikini is not a sexual message, [it’s] more a message of empowerment,” they reportedly argued in a court affidavit. “We are empowered to be comfortable in our bodies.”

They also argued that the laws passed by Everett’s officials were vague. Stipulations pertaining to the “bottom one-half of the anal cleft” were “not well-defined or reasonably understandable,” they wrote.

Clinton appointee U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman agreed.

“[I]n a 13-page order issued Monday afternoon, [she] said an ordinance that attempted to impose a dress code was likely vague and violated 14th Amendment equal-protection guarantees because it particularly targeted women,” The Seattle Times reported in December of 2017.

“More significantly, perhaps, is that the Pechman found the ordinances likely violate First Amendment protections of freedom of expression.”

This veritable victory for boobs and butts was celebrated on social media by some at the time:

That ruling went by the wayside last Wednesday when, led by Obama appointee Ninth Circuit Judge Morgan Christen, a three-judge panel of the appeals court overturned Pechman’s injunction.

Joined by Obama appointee Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves and W. Bush appointee Sandra S. Ikuta, the panel of three women asserted that Everett’s laws were clear enough, and that the message of female empowerment would not “be understood by those who view them.”

“Because plaintiffs have not demonstrated a ‘great likelihood’ that their intended messages related to empowerment and confidence will be understood by those who view them, we conclude that the mode of dress at issue in this case is not sufficiently communicative to merit First Amendment protection,” the ruling reads.

“We stress that plaintiffs deny that they engage in nude dancing and erotic performances, thereby disavowing the First Amendment protections available for that conduct.”

“The baristas working at these stands wear what they call ‘bikinis,’ but the City describes them as ‘nearly nude employees,’ and the district court made clear that their attire is significantly more revealing than a typical bikini. The district court’s finding that at least some of the baristas wear little more than pasties and g-strings is well-supported by the record.”

That’s admittedly true.

In short, three women ruled that the women at Hillbilly Hotties may not voluntarily don “hot” outfits while working because, for some reason the First Amendment isn’t applicable here, and because, well, apparently there’s something wrong with wearing pasties and g-strings.

In a statement to CNN, the baristas’ attorney said they may ask that the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — versus just a small panel — review the matter.

“The baristas are seeking to exercise their right to choose their work clothing,” attorney Melinda Ebelhar 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.”

And that’s a stunning order given the source — one of the most liberal courts in America. But isn’t liberalism supposed to be, in part, about women’s freedom? Or does the right to do as they want only apply when women seek to murder their unborn children?

Or in cases where women want to wear an oppressive niqab, burka or hijab?

Just to be clear @ the latter tweeter above, Everett’s mayor, Cassie Franklin, is a Democrat — one opposed to President Donald Trump:

And it just so happens that anti-Trump Democrats usually aren’t pro-Christian …

To learn more about Hillbilly Hotties, watch the video below:

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

$10
$15
$25
$50
Other
$
Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena
Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

BPR INSIDER COMMENTS

Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles