The joke governor-elect of California, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, called his gubernatorial opponent Meg Whitman a whore in their recent election. The National Organization of UGLY Whores Women sided with “Moonbeam”. Well, NOW, Feminazis who couldn’t get jobs at Hooters, is suing Hooters in California. They aren’t suing for the usual reason, that Hooters exploits women by forcing them to wear scanty outfits. No. Get this; it’s “for the children”.
In certain California counties (San Francisco, San Bruno, Sacramento and Orange County), Hooters is classified as “adult entertainment” establishments, for whatever reason. Never mind that they aren’t strip clubs, the women don’t take their clothes off, and they don’t provide what is called “blue” entertainment; it’s because the waitresses are considered by some to be scantily clad (compared to what, the public beaches in California?). Since Hooters is classified in this manner, the NOW Feminazis claims that Hooters shouldn’t cater to children.
Remember, this is a group that supports aborting children, even at taxpayer expense, without restriction. So forgive me if I’m skeptical of their motives. Besides, primetime television has more of what would be considered “adult entertainment” than anything done at Hooters. But since the people who put out these TV shows are mostly liberals, like the members of NOW, we won’t hear boo out them.
For any conservatives who are members of NOW, why?
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Just one question with a multiple choice answer.
Steph C (Diary) Friday, December 17th at 11:29AM EST (link)Which children?
a. Those who survived and thrived in spite of NOW
b. Those expunged from their own bodies
c. Those they promoted to be expunged from others’ bodies
“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics
Unless they can produce...
fmaidment (Diary) Friday, December 17th at 7:25PM EST (link)…a child who was actually “harmed” by one of these seemingly scantiliy-clad young ladies, then I don’t see where NOW has any legal basis to bring suit.
I’m not a lawyer or anything, but don’t you actually have to be harmed, or at least face the imminent threat of harm, before you can bring suit?
One wonders if public pools, with bikini-clad lifeguards, would face similar pressure from NOW?
Follow Me on Twitter
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
– - Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791