Seattle (CN) – a group of bikini barista asked the federal judge to stop the city on Tuesday with two regulations prohibiting the enforcement of Bikinis nightclub restaurant workers and limiting how many women’s breasts could touch, claiming that the new regulations violated their rights.
The Everett City Council in Washington approved the August regulations, requiring employees at fast service restaurants to wear shorts and vests at least. The second law banning female breast exposure has been amended to say anyone who “allows, encourages or leads to crime”, who wears a bikini, violates the law and is now a criminal under Everett’s law.
Seven bikini barista and station owners sued the city in September alleging that they violated their rights to express the process, because of privacy.
Seattle, in the northern part of the city, agreed not to implement the regulations until the district judge Marsha Pechman rules requested the injunction.
The company’s Newman and Derek Newman Du CI represent the barista, telling Bachman Tuesday’s case is “how far, Everett can control what women wear in the work.”.”
He said that the teacher had the right to express and feel the first amendment to the fearless coffee.”
Newman talked about his meaningful tattoos and scars in trying to engage in dialogue with several coffee clients, saying that asking them to cover up would stifle speech.
He said, “cities should control crime, not clothing womens bikinis sale .”
The reason why Newman attacked Everett, the new law to stop prostitution, minors and indecent activities related to the bikini barista allegedly related to development stations.
He said there were already laws, dealing with illegal secondary cities, claiming to be targeting, and banning Bikinis nightclubs from going through rigorous scrutiny.
Strict censorship is the standard of judicial review to determine whether the government has a strong interest in limiting constitutional rights.
Newman cited the case of Texas v. Johnson, and the Supreme Court overturned a national decision to ban the burning of the American flag.
Newman says that Texas has enacted laws that violate peace, citing the reasons for the ban in the state, and the high court believes that these laws are less restrictive than the prohibition of expression.
“It doesn’t make any difference,” he said.
Page man asked her why she needed to reach a constitution to determine when she might overturn the vagueness of legislation.
“There’s no definition of anal fissure,” Pechman said, referring to half of the bottom fissure in the language of the ordinance.” She pointed out that if a person made a “anal fissure”, only to find a “anal” or “split” defined Google search.”
“We want you to conclude that this law violates the first amendment, but there’s no need to do that,” Newman replied.
Everett’s lawyer, Sarah Johnson, and the Pacific Group law, say the bikini ban is a “multifaceted” crime method. This immediately asked Tony mann.
“Is the city trying to stop what barista is trying or trying to stop, and who responds to the barista’s action? Asked the judge.
Johnson said, “some barista, standing in the owners and customers involved in the crime, and add as the representative of the business model is” problem”.
Page guy asked, “who is wearing it, or is it business model?” She put forward some hypothetical solutions, including banning the tipping at the booth, installing cameras and recording the number of customer license plates.
Johnson countered: “the job of the court is to stop speculating about what the city has done.”
Bachman continues to barbecue Johnson’s reasoning behind the city’s ban.
“If you’re pursuing business models or responding to clothing womens bikinis sale , why do you need to dress norms?”” Asked the judge.
Johnson said that the business model with “very clear” evidence has harmful side effects, and that the city has the regulation of the real interests of the barista.
“This is not the first amendment,” she said.
Pechman said she’d put the rules under the ban next weekend.