Sunday, December 19, 2010

CRASH: Frivolous Lawsuit (or Complaint) Defined, version 2

NOW (the National Organization of very few really twisted Women) has very publicly filed a series of complaints in Kulhifornia (where else?) against Hooters.  They allege that Hooters is selling sex to children.

Like the infamous Happy Meal case, this is the very stamp of a frivolous abuse of the judicial system...this time criminal or quasi-criminal.  NOW is willing to divert public safety resources to a stupid publicity stunt.  Patty Bellasalma is the "person" behind this stunt.  (I would have said "lady", but she would hate that.)

That is, I hope that is all it ever is...a stupid stunt.  Kuhlhifornia has some really screwy laws (what else?), and I have a sneaking hunch that by very creative twisting of some of them, there might actually be an argument in support of the NOW position.

Let us be clear; I have yet to spend a dollar at a Hooters.  I have five daughters I raised to be fine, strong women.  They would kill me.  Also, I like to concentrate on my food...

But Hooters is not a "sexually-oriented business" as that term is used in most jurisdictions, any more than would be a private swimming area that charged admission.  Clothing is not determinative of that; conduct is.

The use of the term "adult" seems to be the shoe-horn that NOW is trying to apply in the Hooters case.  Here is why that is frivolous--

  1. children are not customers of Hooters; they are brought with their parents
  2. parents have a right to take their kiddies to a restaurant...or into a tavern or grill in many places...if they wish (in many places in the Mid-West, those are the best family dining venues around)
  3. children are not exposed to overtly sexual conduct at Hooters (unless a customer commits assault...a crime...which could happen anywhere)
  4. young ladies in tank-tops and shorts are wearing more clothing than the kiddies would see on a Kuhlifornia several orders of magnitude
  5. NOW calls child-sized Hooters shirts "prurient material" really 
  6. if this was a civil action, NOW has WHAT for standing? And WHAT for a justiciable question?  Meaning, what do they get if they win?  Being that it is NOT a civil action, I still wonder about STANDING.  Who is really behind this?
Here is why this is curiously hypocritical...even for the Collectivists that make up NOW--

  1. I can't recall a peep of protest from NOW at street sex openly practiced in San Francisco
  2. if the issue is COMMERCIAL activity, what about the street vendors in San Francisco openly selling sex toys, fetish devices, and demonstrating their wares?

Kids may certainly eat a meal with their PARENTS at a Hooters without being exposed to overtly sexual...anything.  But there are streets and days of the year where you cannot say that in San Francisco, the venue of one of these complaints.  So, what, REALLY is NOW's problem?  NO HOOTER COOTERS.  This is about forcing Hooters to employ MEN.

No comments:

Post a Comment