Durst: Hooters Restaurants
Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Hooters' restaurants. Ate there twice. Both times I felt like I had felt someone up minus consent. And the wings were just okay. Didn't agree when Hooters waitresses sued, saying they knew the uniforms were provocative, but didn't expect the sexual harassment. The hell did they expect? True love? MacArthur grants? Carefully formulated queries about sub atomic particle research? It's called Hooters, for crum's sake. It might as well be "Tits R Us" with a nipple on the backwards "R". Oh yeah, the logo is OWL EYES. OWL EYES capable of lactation. Now the EEOC is suing on the behalf of four Chicago guys who applied for waiter positions. I'm thinking, if guys with tight buns filled out applications, they might get hired. You know, some battles are worth fighting for. This case rates a .01 on that list. Do we really want to set a precedent allowing Dr. Ruth Westheimer to file a discrimination suit because she was denied the opportunity to start as the Chicago Bulls point guard? Does anybody foresee a grass roots campaign petitioning Playgirl for an Ernest Borgnine photo spread? Next thing you know, Michael Bolton will demand Grammy Award accreditation as a male singer. Does crowbaring the lid off of Pandora's box have any meaning here?