This came about because someone asked under General HD chat
" What Do You Consider "Colors" "
There was some discussion around bars disallowing "Colors" which got me thinking,
and while this rant is Canadian oriented, I'm sure there are American laws that are similar, and
you can substitute Your Constitution for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms



[blockquote]NO “COLORS” ALLOWED[/blockquote]
Many places and/or public events have decided on a no colors rule policy (pressured into it by “the man”?). The reason for this, in their opinion, is that it will cut down on violence and the intimidating of the general public. When someone wears an item that shows membership or support of one group and someone else wearing an item from another group that is similar but has a different point of view meet in the same location then who knows what will happen. The perception of a person, by the general public, will also change once he/she is identified as belonging to or associating with a group. This can, sometimes, cause people to feel intimidated especially if there is more than one person from the same group.

[align=left] [/align]It is because of this I agree no “colors” should be worn in public.

This of course includes any and all patches, shirts, rings or pins and other badges to signify a membership of or a supporter of a club or group. No groups should be exempt (name one group that hasn’t had at least one member charged with a criminal offence). This includes service clubs (Lions, Rotary, Kinsmen, etc.), youth groups (boy/girl guides, etc.), sport teams (hockey, baseball, soccer, etc.). Police, firefighters, military personal etc. should only wear their uniforms and insignia when on duty. The same with uniformed company employees.

Have you ever sat in a bar, at playoff time, and seen people wearing jerseys from their favourite team hooting, cheering and, yes, arguing over the outcome of the game? Scary. Do you know how intimidating it is when a member from the Lions Club, wearing his vest (colors), approaches asking for a donation, it’s almost like extortion, or how about a Girl Scout, in full uniform, asking you to buy a box of cookies. Scares the hell out of me.

Some provinces have enacted the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act (SCAN). Under SCAN, “colors” is defined as “any sign, symbol, logo or other representation identifying, associated with or promoting a gang or a criminal organization.” Now this law is a good start. First off, any group (3 or more people by Canadian law) can be considered a gang. Next, if one of these people has ever, even once, been charged with a criminal offence (no need to even be found guilty) we now have a criminal organization. One of the sections of that act makes it against the law for members of a criminal organization to wear their colours or support “gear” in locations like bars.

I find this comforting. It’s good to know that I may no longer have fear the guys from the bowling league, wearing their team shirts, dropping in the bar for an after game drink. I’ve heard that guys with ***** can be intimidating and cause problems. Bowlers have big *****, especially when compared to golfers. If these same guys came into the bar without their team shirts then I wouldn’t know that they were bowlers, think that they were golfers, and therefore I wouldn’t fell intimidated by them.

You may ask “what about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our guaranteed freedom of association and other rights?” Well you obviously haven’t been able to read the fine print that must be in the official version. Provisos similar to “Charter use may vary with province”, “Rights may not be exactly as printed and are subject to change”, “the Government and its agencies are

 

I have never agreed with the basic principle of a "No Colors" policy, but have to respect a business owner's right to refuse service to anyone. That said, a "No Colors" sign is merely redundant and generally focuses on just the motorcycle audience. Since the old days of greaser clubs are long gone, establishments near High Schools no longer display "No Colors" signs due to irrelevance. Now teen clubs which focus on things less than legal have different means of identification, so the "Right to Refuse" makes much more sense. If I decided to discriminate against someone in golf course attire (we all know that so-called "sports" junkies are more prone to troublemaking than bikers)that would have to be my perogative.

 

I'm all for the business owner deciding on their own way of doing business.
Who they choose to do business with, the rules that they have on their premise etc.

What I'm against is the Government forcing their discriminatory rules (such as SCAN) on
the businesses.
I run my own small business and I'll be dammed if anyone tells me who and who I can't serve
and every other business owner should be allowed to do the same.

Squirrely

 

As written in prior post, totally agree.

 

Wouldn't this be covered under the First Amendment; Right of the people to peaceably assemble and freedom of association and all that..?

I agree that a business can decide who they wish to serve or deny service, but at a public event, in a public place, don't the wearers of colors have 1st Am. protection?

 

As gang violence spreads throught the US, a lot of cities have decided to pass "No Gang" laws. This extended to tattoos, clothing, tagging, and anything else as Gang related. This will either spread like wild fire across this nation/ and others to eliminate a problem but creating hostile environments against everyone who may be associated as a "gang member".
[align=left] [/align]

 

the idea about a "no colors" allowed rule, is that ALL are welcome and this is not one group's territory. It's your choice to enter, or not.... no one will notice either way. It's not the government, it's someperson that would like to run a peaceful business

 

In this scenario, a "No Attitudes" policy works very well at many biker events. Why not at private businesses? A HOG, BRAG, RATpatch designates some form of affiliation, Cop clubs wear "colors", are they all troublemakers? Again, the term "colors" refers to any type of markings and could easily state "No Black T-shirts" or "No Neckties" at the other end of the spectrum. The last thing anyone wants is some form of legal description translated by some judge who has never worked an honest day's work for an honest day's pay

 

agreed Next it will be children in school uniformsnot being allowedto purchase at local shops or the lawn bowler,local womans club bla blaect...
It all comes done to Attitude, In all walks of life whether you are a member of a club or social group there is always the odd nutter, yet everyone gets tared with the same brush if you wearing some uniform r colors as you say, colors have nothing to do with it. It all comes down to attitude and tolerance of the people involved. But an owner of a bussiness should have the right to refuse entry but not for something as petty as the way you dress or what club you belong too. So long as your fully attired and not in the all together or its a formal event and is stipulated on a notice board stating so.
As for a police state as someone has stated in previous post.You need to get a life there are enought beauracratic bull.... now.
Police have there job and hopefully they do it well! I have a lot of respect for them.
But having Laws passed as to your dress or association, is criminal in itself what your after is a dictatorship told what,when,where and how many times
Most clubs I am involve with have committies and if you do something out of line they try to rectify it and speak to the member involved even as far as disassociating the member this also includes patch clubs
cheers

 

Good to see agreement here in basic principle. The Orwellian vision of everyone with shaved heads and orange jumpsuits drinking official, state-approved light beer seems to never be taken seriously enough.