• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Constitutional "Patch" Protection?

Goose916

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Location
san francisco
Moto(s)
ATK 605 ES/DS; Husaberg fs650c; Ducati Scrambler; RD350
I thought this was interesting. I grew up around a lot of 1% types (God-father was the Sargeant at Arms in a fairly "notorious" club). Anyway, lots of establishments would not let you fly your colors when entering. Frankly, given the close proximity to other clubs in the area, it was probably a good idea.

However, since moving here, there are lots of clubs with "colors" that pose lil or no threat of "gang" type violence. At worst, they may show up in kilts and show ya if the rumor is true or do a burn out/wheelie/stoppie or other hooliganish activity in front of your place of business. Anyway, there's a bill proposed to outlaw discrimination due to "colors." Do you think this is warranted.

I don't think you SHOULD judge a book by it's cover. However, I also believe that a private business is allowed to have it's own rules so long as they don't infringe on your Constitutional liberties. For your consideration:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...miklosi-champions-bill-prevent-discrimination

"A Colorado lawmaker running for Congress is proposing legislation that adds "unconventional attire" to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination in public establishments, potentially angering law enforcement officials and private business owners.

State Rep. Joe Miklosi , a Denver Democrat, who is championing HB 1128, says that often motorcycle clubs are unfairly discriminated against for donning apparel such as jackets with patches — also known as colors — that show allegiance.

Miklosi is running against Mike Coffman, a two-term Republican congressman in Aurora, in the newly configured 6th Congressional District.

"It's a misuse of law that is not treating our citizens, who many of which are veterans of war, properly," Miklosi said. " As I've talked to motorcycle club members, I've learned about the passion and diversity of these groups. No matter what club you're in, you should be treated fairly and without discrimination."

Under current federal law, discrimination in public accommodation is prohibited on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

Yet establishments in Colorado can post signs that prohibit the "wearing of colors," and deny service to patrons who do not abide by this request.

Miklosi says the issue was brought to his attention by Denver resident Ray Hoskinson , a member of the Veterans of Vietnam America Motorcycle Club . Forty-two different motorcycle clubs are located in Colorado, and Hoskinson estimates that about 80 percent are run by veterans.

"There's vets who have given to the country, and there's actually some people that don't allow us to come into malls or restaurants just because they don't like what we're wearing," says Hoskinson, who also goes by the moniker Nite Train , crafted after the 2006 Harley Night Train he rides. "It's a First Amendment right to wear it."

Hoskinson says he's never been personally discriminated against, but says a handful of members from his club have.

Similar bills that prohibit discrimination based on "unconventional attire," — deemed as as dress that indicates participation in motorcycling or membership in a motorcycling organization — has passed legislatures in other states.

Miklosi says that his main opponent to the legislation is law enforcement, though he has had positive conversations with a handful of departments.

Hoskinson noted that there's some clubs that do cause trouble, but that the majority of motorcycle clubs are not like that.

"We like to use the saying that 'all bikers are not trouble makers, just like not all muslims are not terrorists,'" he said.

The bill will go before the House State, Veterans & Military Affairs committee Wednesday"
 
I'm having a hard time associating being a vet with the wearing of colors. Unless this is just a standard 'think of the children' maneuver.

That said, I would say denying entrance based on clothing is somewhat discriminatory. But then, depending on how the law is actually written.... wouldn't you, as a business owner prefer to deny entrance to someone wearing colors, and perhaps not much else? Unless it's Halloween and you're in the gay quarter of whatever city you're in?
 
I think businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. If they don't mind 1%ers its cool, if not they can refuse them. Some places have dress codes. It's the right of a business to serve the clientel that they're looking for.:nerd
 
A bar down the street has a sign that says "No wife beaters (white tank-top undershirts)".

I guess the other kind is okay. :laughing

I just find it hilarious that grown men are whining about not being able to wear their favorite outfit.
 
I think businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. If they don't mind 1%ers its cool, if not they can refuse them. Some places have dress codes. It's the right of a business to serve the clientel that they're looking for.:nerd

+1
 
I've got a Vagos member that comes into my business weekly and I could care less if he's wearing colors or not just as long as he spends money
 
I think businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. If they don't mind 1%ers its cool, if not they can refuse them. Some places have dress codes. It's the right of a business to serve the clientel that they're looking for.:nerd


+1

The Constitution applies to the government. Private businesses should be allowed to refuse service if they want.

EDIT: For clarification, the US Constitution defines what the federal government can and cannot do. It is also the "supreme law of the land." All other powers are enumerated to the states. Restrictions on private companies/people can then be derived from the powers granted to the Federal government within the Constitution.

For example, the federal government creates currency and is the sole entity that can do that. As such, they are able to create a federal law that ensures that private citizens cannot do that.

Laws regarding private citizens tend to come from states, although the trend has been to give more and more power to the federal government.
 
Last edited:
+1

The Constitution applies to the government. Private businesses should be allowed to refuse service if they want.
The Constitution applies to everyone. So you're in favor of Jim Crow type laws?
 
This country has an idiotic love-affair with banning or outlawing things because they are sometimes associated with a particular behavior. Instead of arresting people for acting like assholes when they are drunk in public, we outlaw drinking in public.. Instead of shopkeepers telling people who act like assholes in their store to leave, they ban anyone who wears a patch because some small minority of patch-wearers are problematic.
 
I believe a business owner has the right to decide who they want to frequent their establishment. If you do not want people with popped collar polo's, jeans, with sandals that is your prerogative, just the same if you do not want people with vest and patches. Two of my very good friends have recently joined an MC, they simply do not support places that don't allow colors, easy enough, there are plenty of other businesses that do not mind. Why must me try and legislate every conflict, dogs and cats don't get along, oil and water do not mix, nerds and jocks don't sit at the same lunch table.
 
Whenever a bill is proposed, there is a worst-case scenario on how it would be interpreted or used should it become law. That scenario is always met with "oh that will never happen". Yet time and time again, the universe seems to respond to the challenge.

A law championing "unconventional attire"? Nudists rejoice!
 
Jeezus Tapdancing Christ. It doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with "discriminating against motorcyclists".

Back in the old daze, a club would basically claim a bar by occupying it wearing their colors. Members of other clubs were not welcome. If a Meth-Dealers-on-Harleys MC member showed up in a Heroin-Dealers-on-Harleys MC bar, bad shit would happen. This would limit the clientele, by excluding both members of other clubs and sensible souls who didn't want to hang around with HDOH MC. So a bar owner would post "no colors" to try to keep his premises neutral.

With a proliferation of motorcycle clubs in the Bay Area, the whole idea seems anachronistic. Vegans-on-Dual-Sports MC are probably no threat to Gay-and-Lesbo-Stunnaz MC. But it isn't that way everywhere, and shit still sometimes happens--for example the gunfight in Sparks, NV, last year.

Now, can we get back to the legal issue of how the constitution prohibits dress codes? "No shirt, no shoes, no service" my ass! :rolleyes
 
A grammar school teacher would wear out her red pencil on that guy's ignorant statements.

Best example I saw (out of virtually one in every sentence):
just like not all muslims are not terrorists,'" he said.

Sorry, I know this had nothing to do with the merits of the law he's proposing. But it says a lot about his lack of interest in clear communication, which doesn't make for a very good politician.

Personally, I think the idea isn't worth considering. And unless they're very careful about how they write that law, "unconventional attire" could be used to mean all sorts of things that they didn't intend.
 
The Constitution applies to everyone. So you're in favor of Jim Crow type laws?

This isn't a Jim Crow law issue. Businesses do have the right to refuse service to someone who is harrassing, creating a disturbance, not wearing a shirt or shoes... any number of other valid reasons for asking someone to leave.

Wearing of 1% club colors in a bar frequented by 1%'ers is guaranteed to result in fights (remember Laughlin). A bar owner should have the right to prevent fights by expecting patrons to leave their "colors" home.
 
The Constitution applies to everyone. So you're in favor of Jim Crow type laws?

Uh.... no.

"Congress shall make no law..."
"The right of the people to be secure..."
Etc...

The Bill of Rights protects people from the gubment and agents of the gubment. Not people from other people. There are still private clubs and businesses in America that do not allow women, blacks, Hispanics, etc.... to join. It's their right as a private club to do so.

Where in the Bill of Rights is types of clothing protected?
 
This country has an idiotic love-affair with banning or outlawing things because they are sometimes associated with a particular behavior. Instead of arresting people for acting like assholes when they are drunk in public, we outlaw drinking in public.. Instead of shopkeepers telling people who act like assholes in their store to leave, they ban anyone who wears a patch because some small minority of patch-wearers are problematic.

Man, I almost stood up from behind my damn desk and started clapping.

Thankfully someone gets it...... :thumbup
 
My guess is that the biggest street club/gang has issues with others wearing different colors. Those clubs/gangs supported by city/county/state charters, aka cops.

So, it is legal for a private business to ban colors that can include police uniforms?
 
Back
Top