2 9 7 Ga . 5 13

F INAL COP Y

S 1 5 A 0 1 4 6 . OAS IS GOODTIME EMP ORIUM I, INC. e t a l. v . CITY OF

DORAVILLE e t a l.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

Oa sis Go o d tim e E m

p o riu m I, In c ., d /b /a Oa sis, wh ic h d e sc rib e s itse lf a s

a “ re sta u ra n t fe a tu rin g n u d e da n c e e n te rta in m e n t a nd a lc oh ol se rv ic e ,” a p p e a ls

to th is Co u rt to p re se rv e th o se two p illa rs of its b u sin e ss — n u d ity a n d a lc o h o l.

O a s i s a s s e rts th a t wh e n its e m p lo y e e s da n c e n ud e a n d se rv e a lc o h o l, th e y a r e

c lo th e d with c o n stitu tio n a l fre e sp e e c h p ro te c tio n , wh ic h th e City o f Do ra v ille ’s

Co d e o f Ord in a n c e s a tte m p ts to strip a w a y

. Oa sis c o n te n d s th a t it sh o uld n o t b e

su b je c t to th e Do ra v ille Co d e a t a ll b e c a u se th e le g isla tio n m a k in g its la nd a p a rt

o f Do ra v ille is v o id d u e t o a n a lle g e d sta tu to ry n o tic e d e fe c t, a n d th a t v a rio u s

p o rtio n s o f th e Co d e a

re u n c o n stitu tio n a l. We c o n c lu d e , h o we v e r, th a t Oa sis is

p ro p e rly su b

j e c t to Do ra v ille ’s Co d e a n d th a t th e City ’s re g u la tio n s d o n o t

v io la te th e c lu b ’s c on stitu tio n a l rig h ts, a n d we th e re fo re a ffirm th e tria l c o u rt’s

o rd e r g ra n tin g Do ra v ille ju d g m e n t o n th e p le a din g s.

1

. Oa sis ha s o p e ra te d in De Ka lb Co u n ty sin c e a b o ut 1 9 9 0

. B e g in n in gin 2 0 0 1

, Oa sis o pe ra te d u n d e r a se ttle m e nt a g re e m e n t th a t re so lv e d litig a tio n

b e twe e n De Ka lb Co u n ty a n d Oa s i s a n d se v e ra l o th e r a d u lt e nte rta in m e n t

b u sin e sse s. T h e a g re e m e n t g ra n te d O a sis an d th e o th e r b u sin e sse s “ a d u lt

n o n c o n fo rm in g sta tu s,” m e a n in g th a t th e y w e re “p e rm itt e d t o s e ll a lc o h o lic

b e ve ra g e s (su b

je c t to a ll o th e r la ws a n d re g u la tio n of a lc o ho l) a n d to p ro v i d e

a d u lt e n te rta in m e n t in th e fo rm o f n u d e d a nc in g o r liv e n u d e p e rfo rm a n c e s.” 1

Th e City o f Do ra v ille is in D e K a l b Co u nty

. On Ma rc h 29

, 2 01 2

, th e

Ge n e ra l Asse m

b ly p a s s e d S e n a te Bill (S B ) 5 3 2

, wh ic h a m e n de d th e City ’s

c h a rte r b y re d e fin in g Do ra v ille ’s b o u n d arie s, e ffe c tiv e De c e m b e r 31

, 2 0 1 2 ; th e

n e w c ity lim its e n c o m

p a ss Oa sis’s lo c a tio n

. On Oc to b e r 1

, 2 0 1 2

, Do ra v ille

e n a c te d Ord in a n c e No

. 2 0 1 2 -1 8

, wh ic h e sta b lish e d a se xu a lly o rie n te d b u sin e ss

(S OB) c o d e , lo c a te d a t § 6 -4 0 0 e t se q

. o f th e Do ra v ille Co d e o f Ord i n a n c e s. 2

Th e S OB c o d e d e fin e s a “ se x u a lly o rie n te d bu sin e ss” to in c lu d e a n “ a d u lt

1 The 2 0 01 ag reement was orig inally set to e x pire after eig h t y e ars, but then was amended

to ex tend f

or another 1 5 y ears, with the option to renew for an additional 10 y ears. U n d er the

ag reement, Oasis was r equired to p ay an annual fee to DeKalb County

, which beg an at $55,000 and increased to $100,000 in 2007.

2 Althoug h a ll of the city reg ulations at issue in this case are part of the Doraville Code of Ordinances, the parties frequently r e f e r t o the chapters dealing with sex ually oriented businesses, alcohol, and z oning as individual “ codes,” e .g ., the “SOB code.” W e g enerally follow that practice

in this opinion, using “code” to r efer to a specific chapter and “Code” to refer to the full Doraville

Code of Ordinances.

2c a

b a re t,” wh ic h in tu rn is d e fin e d a s “a n ig h tc lu b

, b a r, ju ic e b a r, re sta u ra n t,

b o ttle c lu b

, o r sim ila r c o m m e rc ia l e sta b lish m e nt th a t re g ula rly fe a tu re s liv e

c o n d u c t c h a ra c te riz e d b y se m i- n u d i t y

. No e sta b lish m e n t sh a ll a v o id

c la ssific a tio n a s a n a d u lt c a b a re t b y o ffe rin g or fe a tu rin g n u d ity .” Co d e § 6 -4 0 1

.

Un d e r th is d e fin itio n , Oa sis is a se x ua lly o rie n te d b u sin e ss. 3 Em p lo y e e s o f

se x u a lly o rie n te d bu sin e sse s a re p ro h ib ite d fro m a

p p e a rin g fu lly n u d e , b u t se m in u d ity is p e rm itte d. S e e Co d e § 6 -4 1 6 (a ). 4 S e x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s a re

a lso p ro h ib ite d fro m se llin g a lc o h o l. S e e Co d e § 6 -4 1 6 (d ) (“ No p e rso n sh a ll

p o sse ss, u se , o r c o n su m e a lc o h o lic b e ve ra ge s o n th e p re m ise s o f a se x u a lly

o rie nte d b u sin e ss.” ).

3 Althoug h Oasis asserted at oral arg ument that it does not want to be classified as a sex ually

oriented business under the Code, Doraville is treating Oasis as such a b usiness, and Oasis has made

no arg u ment that it does not meet the definition of a sex ually oriented business.

4 Code § 6

- 4 16 (a) say s: “ N o patron, employ ee, o r any other p erson shall knowing ly or intentionally

, in a sex ually ori e n t ed b u s i n e ss, appear in a state of nudity or eng ag e in a specified

sex ual activity

. ” Code § 6-401 defines the f orbidden “ nudity ” as “the showingof the human male

or female g enitals, pubic area, vulva, or anus with less than a fully opaque covering

, or the showing

of the female breast w ith less than a f u lly opaque covering of any part of the nipple and areola.” The permissible “semi-nudity ” is defined as

the showing of the f

emale breast below a h oriz ontal line across the top of the areola

and ex tending across the width of the breast at that point, o r the showing of the male

or female buttocks. This definition sh a ll include the lower portion of the human

female breast, but shall not include any portion of the cleavag e of the human f emale

breast ex h ibited by

a bikini, dress, blouse, shirt, leotard, or similar wearing apparel provided the areola is not exposed in whole or in part.

3In De c e m b e r 2 0 1 2

, O a sis a

p p lie d to Do ra v ille fo r a 2 0 1 4 a lc o h o l lic e n se ,

a n d Oa sis a nd its o wn e rs (c o lle c tiv e ly

, “ Oa sis” ) a lso file d a c o m pla in t a g a in st

Do ra v ille

, its Ma y o r, th e m e m b e rs o f th e City C o u n c il, a n d th e City Cle rk

(c o lle c tiv e ly

, “ Do ra v ille ” ), c ha lle n g in g p ro v isio n s o f th e City ’s S OB, a lc o h o l,

a n d z on in g c o d e s. 5 On Ja n u a ry 1 4

, 2 0 1 3

, Do ra v ille d e nie d Oa sis’s a p p lic a tio n

fo r a n a lc o h o l lic e n se

. O a sis la te r a m e n d e d its c om p la in t in th is c a se twic e , a n d

Do ra v ille file d a nswe rs to b o th a m e n d e d c o m p la in ts. Do ra v ille a lso m o v e d fo r

ju d g m e n t on th e p le a d in gs, a n d th e tria l c o u rt g ra n te d th a t m otio n o n Ap ril 1 8

,

2 0 1 4. 6 Oa sis n o w a

p p e a ls to th is Co u rt, in v o k in g o u r j u risd ic tio n o v e r

c o n stitu tio n a l q u e stio n s. S e e Ga . Co n st. o f 1 98 3 , Art. VI, S e c . VI, P a r. II (1 ).

5 I n addition, Oasis challeng ed Code § 11-125, found in the food service and entertainment chapter. At the time Oasis filed its complaint, § 11-125 (a) said: “I t shall b e unlawful f or any person to display or permit the display

of the human torso incidental to the dispensing of food, beverag es

or entertainment or otherwise unless t h e b r east[ s]

, g enitals and buttocks are fully covered with
nontransparent materials.” That section was r epealed on A pril 1 5, 2013, and Oasis does not challeng e the now-repealed section on appeal or alleg e that § 11-125 was ever applied to it. Oasis also alleg e d that Doraville is bound by the ag reement between O asis and DeKalb County g ranting Oasis “adult nonconforming use,” but Oasis appears to have abandoned that claim on appeal. See Trop, I n c

. v. City of B rookhaven, 296 Ga. 85, 88-89 (764 SE2d 3 98) (2014) (rejecting a nother adult

entertainment club’s attempt to enforce the same ag reement with DeKalb County ag a inst the City

of B rookhaven).

6 All of Doraville’s ordinances challeng ed b y Oasis o n appeal were attached as e x hibits to

one or more of Oasis’s complaints or Doraville’s a nswers, so the trial court could properly consider

them in ruling on the motion f or judg ment on the pleading s. See OCGA §§ 9-11-10 (c), 9-11-12 (c); Trop, 296 Ga. at 89.

42

. S e e k in g to a v o id th e Do ra v ille Co d e e n tire ly

, Oa sis a rg u e s th a t S B

5 3 2

, wh ic h a m e n d e d th e City o f Do ra v ille ’s c h a rte r b y re d e fin in g th e City ’s

b o u nd a rie s to e n c om

p a ss th e la n d o n wh ic h Oa sis o pe ra te s, is in v a lid b e c a use

th e n o tic e re q u ire m e n t o f OCGA § 28 -1 -1 4 (b ) wa s n o t sa tisfie d

. We c o n c lu d e

th a t Oa sis la c k s le g a l sta n d in g to p u rsu e th is c la im

.

OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4 i mp le m e n ts th e p ro v isio n o f th e 1 9 8 3 Ge o rg ia

Co n stitu tio n sta tin g th a t “[t] he Ge n e ra l Asse m b ly sh a ll p ro vid e b y la w fo r th e

a d v e rtise m e nt o f n o tic e o f in te n tio n to in tro d u c e lo c a l b i l l s

. ” A rt. III, S e c

. V,

P a r. IX. With re g a rd to a lo c a l b il l a me n d in g a m u n ic ip a l c h a rte r, th e sta tu te

re q u ire s th a t no tic e m

u st b e g iv e n in two d iffe re n t wa y s b e fo re th e b ill b e c o m e s

la w. S u b se c tio n (a ) o f § 2 8 -1 -1 4 , wh ic h a p p lie s to a ll lo c a l b ills, re q u ire s th a t

n o tic e o f th e in te n tio n to in tro d u c e su c h a b ill b e a d v e r t i s e d in th e lo c a l

n e wsp a p e r f o r l e g al n o tic e s on e tim e n o la te r th a n th e we e k be fo re th e b ill is

in tro d u c e d

. S u b se c tio n (b ) im p ose s a n a d d itio na l re qu ire m e n t wh e n th e lo c a l

b ill wo uld a m e n d “th e c h a rte r o f a mu n i c i p a lity or th e e n a b lin g Ac t o f th e

g o v e rn in g a

u th o rity o f a c o u n ty o r a c o nso lid a te d g o v e rn m e n t.” F o r th e se b ills,

a c o p y o f th e n o tic e o f th e in te n tio n to in tro d uc e lo c a l le g isla ti o n

re q u ire d b y su bse c tio n (a ) o f th is Co d e s e c tio n [m ust b e ] m a ile d

, tra n sm itte d by fa c sim ile

, o r o th e rwise p ro v id e d to th e g o v e rn in g

5a

u th o rity o f a n y c o u n ty

, m u n ic ip a lity

, o r c o n so lid a te d go ve rn m e n t

re fe rre d to in th e b ill d u rin g th e c a le n d a r we e k in wh ic h su c h n o tic e is pu b lish e d a s p ro v id e d in su b se c tio n (a ) of th is Co d e se c tio n o r d u rin g th e se v e n da y s im m e d ia te ly fo llo win g th e d a te o f p u b lic a tio n

o f su c h n o tic e

.

OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4 (b ). 7

S B 5 3 2 a m e n d e d Do ra v ille ’s in c o rp ora tin g a c t t o re v ise th e c o rp o ra te

7 OCGA § 28-1-14 say s in full: (a) No local bill shall become law unless notice o f the intention to introduce

such bill shall h ave bee n ad v e r t i sed in the newspaper in which the sheriff' s advertisements for the locality affe c t e d are published one time before the b ill is

introduced. Such advertisement must b e not more than 60 day s p rior to the convening

date o f the session at which the bill is introduced. After the advertisement h a s been published the bill may be introduced a t any t i m e d u r i n g that session unless the

advertisement is published d uring the session, in which event the bill may not be

introduced b efore Monday of the calendar week f o llowing the w eek in whi c h the advertisement is published. (b) No local bill amending the charter of a municipality or the enabling A ct
of the g o verning authority o f a county or a consolidated g overnment shall become

law unless a copy of the notice of the intention to introduce local leg islation r equired by subsection (a) of this Code section is mailed, transmitted by facsimile, or otherwise p r o v i d ed to the g overning authority of a ny c ounty

, municipality

, or consolidated g o vernment referred to i n t h e bill during the calendar week in which

such notice is published as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section or during

the seven day s immediately following the date of publication of such notice. A sing le

notice sent by United States m a i l

, p ostag e p repaid, a ddressed to the g overning authority of the c o u nty

, m u n i c i pality

, or c onsolidated g overnment at the official

address of such g overning authority shall satisfy the requirement o f this subsection.

I f such notice is mailed, the notice requirement of this subsection shall be presumed

to have been met by depositing the copy of the required notice in the U nited States

mail. F or purposes of this subsection, the copy of the notice provided t o s u ch

g overning authority may consist of an actual o r p h o t o s t atic copy of the published notice or a ty

p ed restatement of the contents of such notice. (c) A copy of the notice as it was advertised and a n a ffidavit stating that the

n o t ice has b een published as provided by this Code section and that the noti c e requirements of this Code section have been met shall b e attached to the bill and shall become a part of the bill. Such affidavit shall be made by the author of the bill.

6lim its, so th e b ill wa s su b je c t to b o th n otic e re q u ire m e n ts. It is u n d isp u te d th a t

th e re q u ire m e n t in OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4 (a ) wa s sa tisfie d

. On Th u rsd a y , M a rc h 8

,

2 0 1 2, Th e Ch a m

p io n , De Ka lb Co u n ty ’s n e wsp a p e r fo r le g a l n otic e s, p u b lish e d

th e fo llo win g :

N O T I C E O F I N T E N T I O N T O I N T R O D U C E L O C A L

LEGIS LATION: No tic e is g iv e n th a t th e re will b e in tro d uc e d a t th e

re g u la r 2 0 1 2 se ssio n o f th e Ge n e ra l Asse m b ly o f G e o rg ia a bill to

c h an g e t h e c o rp ora te lim its o f th e c ity o f Do ra v ille a n d fo r o th e r

p u rp o se s.

S B 5 3 2 wa s in tro d u c e d two c a le n d a r we e k s a fte r t h a t, o n Tu e sd a y , M a rc h 2 0 ;

th e b ill p a sse d o n Ma rc h 2 9

.

Oa sis c o n te nd s th a t t h e n o t ic e re q u ire m e n t in OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4 (b ) wa s

n o t sa tisfie d

. We ne e d n o t d e c id e th is q ue stio n, h owe v e r, b e c a use Oa sis la c k s

sta n d in g to c h a lle n g e th e v a lid ity o f th e n o tic e o f S B 5 3 2 th a t wa s re q u ire d to

b e g i v e n to th e City o f Do ra v ille

. 8 Oa sis m a in ta in s th a t b e c a u se it ha s b e e n

8 Resolving the merits of this notice question mig ht not be easy . Doraville arg ues that the

local g o vernment notice requirement was met because the City Clerk a verred that the City received

a copy of The Champion every week in 2012 a nd because State Representative E l e n a Parent sent
Doraville’s May or and City Council members a n e-mail on F e bruary 29 discussing her plan to run the newspaper notice and a nother e-mail o n M a rc h 1 1 s ay ing that the notice had run and that she planned to have the bill finaliz ed t h e n e x t d a y

. However, subsection (b) of O CGA § 28-1-14 imposes a separate requirement that the notice required by subsection (a) be transmitted to the local

g overnment. I t is clearly meant to g ive a loc a l g overnment w hose charter or enabling act may be

amended direct notice, rather than only the notice by publication that is g iven to the g eneral public
pursuant to subsection ( a )

. I f i t s u f f iced simply to show that the g overning authority

, like the

7in

ju re d b y S B 5 32 , wh ic h b ro u g h t it with in th e d o m a in o f Do ra v ille ’s Co d e , it

h a s a n in te re st in e n su rin g c o m p lia n c e w ith a ll o f th e pro c e d u re s re q u ir e d b y

members of the local public, received the newspaper in which the notice w as published, subsection (b) would b e rendered larg e ly superfluous. See B erry hill v. Ga. Community Support & Solutions,

I nc., 281 G a. 439, 441 (638 SE2d 2 78) ( 2006) ( “ Courts should g ive a sensible and intellig ent effect

to every part of a statute and not render any lang uag e superfluous.”). Nor did either e-mail from Rep.

Parent satisfy the statutory requirement, because the F ebruary 29 e-mail was not s ent during the

calendar week in which the n otice w a s p u b l i shed in the newspaper or during the seven day s after publication, and while the March 11 e-mail was sent with i n t h e s t a tutorily r equired time and

referenced the newspaper notice, it did not include a “c o p y o f the notice” or a “restatement of the contents of such notice.” OCGA § 28-1-14 (b).

Then ag a in, the e-mails do show that Doraville’s g o verning a uthority h ad actual n otice of SB

532’s impending introduction, and it is possible that this substantial c ompliance w ith the objective

of subsection (b) was enoug h. Compare O C G A § 1-3-1 (c) (“A substantial compliance with any statutory requirement, especially on the p art o f public officers, shall be deemed a nd held sufficient,

and no proceeding shall be declared void for want of such compliance, unless e x p ressly so provided by law.”), with Cook v. NC Two, L

. P., 289 Ga. 462, 464-465 (712 SE2d 831) (2011) (“[ W ] here a

statute is ‘plain and susceptible of but one natural and r easonable construction,

. . . the leg islature’s

clear intent

. . . will not be thwarted by invocation o f the rule of “ substantial compliance.”’” (citation omitted)). Then ag ain, OCGA § 28-1-14 (c) casts doubt on the proposit i o n that any part of the

statute can be satisfied b y substantial compliance, by requiring that a copy o f the notice as published

and an affidavit by the a

u thor of the bill “stating that the notice has b een published as provided by

this Code section and that the notice requirements of this Code section have been met” b e attached

to the bill so it becomes part of the bill. T his Court has said that if such an attachment is not made,

the law is invalid

– but w e have also said that the attachment to the e nrolled bill is controlling on the question of whether the required notice was provided. See B leckley v. Vickers, 225 Ga. 593, 594 (170 SE2d 695) (1969) (“‘W hen the enrollment of any local or special bill has incorporated therein

th e required proof of notice, and a fter it has b een properly sig ned and filed with the Secretary of State, it will n o t o n l y i m p u t e a bsolute verity as to its contents, but it will also conclusively show

upon its face its validity with r espect to the cons t i t u t i o n a l r e quirements a s to proof of notice; whereas, if such enrollment fails to show the required proof of notice, it is upon its face invalid.’” (citation omitted)). I n this case, SB 532 had attached to it a copy of the notice published on March 8, 2012 and an a ffidavit from Senator F ran Millar, who was a sponsor of the bill, say ing that notice

of the bill “was published in the Champion w hich is the official org an of DeKalb County on March 8, 2 012, and that the notice requirements of Code Section 28-1-14 have been met.” Althoug h the

affidavit say s nothing specifically about notice to the City

, u nder our case law, the enrollment of the

bill say ing that the statutory “notic e r e q u i r e m ents” w ere met mig ht be deemed to “conclusively”

establish that fact. See B leckley , 225 Ga. at 594.

8OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4

. Bu t a p a rty o n ly h a s sta n d in g to a sse rt a p ro c e d u ra l rig h t “ so

lo n g a s th e p ro c e d u re s in q u e stio n a re d e sig n e d to p ro te c t so m e th re a te n e d

c o n c re te i n t er e st o f his th a t is th e u ltim a te b a sis o f h is sta n d in g .” Lu ja n v

.

De fe n d e rs o f Wild life

, 5 0 4 U.S

. 5 55

, 57 3

, n. 8 (1 2 2 S C t 2 13 0 , 1 19 LE2 d 3 5 1 )

(1 9 9 2 ). 9

OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4 (a ) is c le a rly d e sig n e d to p ro te c t th e in te r e s t s o f th e

p u b lic th a t m a y b e a ffe c te d b y th e a m e nd m e n t o f a lo c a l la w, by re q u irin g n o tic e

to th e lo c a l p u b lic o f th e in tro d u c tio n o f su c h a b ill. Oa sis, a s a b usin e ss in th e

a re a th a t sto o d to b e a ffe c te d b y S B 5 3 2

, wo u ld h a v e sta n d in g to c o m p la in h a d

th e n otic e re q u ire d b y su bse c tio n (a ) n ot b e e n g iv e n

— b u t th a t n o t ic e wa s

p ro p e rly g iv e n . OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4 (b ) is c le a rly d e sig n e d to p ro te c t a d iffe re n t

in te re st

— t h e i n t e re st o f a lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t e n tity in n o tic e o f a p o te n tia l

a m e n d m e n t to its o rg a n ic la w. S u b se c tio n (b ) d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t a n y th in g b e

d o n e w ith re g a rd to th e p u b l ic

, wh o se in te re st in n o tic e is a d dre sse d b y

su b se c tio n (a ). S e e , e .g ., GE Ca p ita l M o rtg a g e S v c s., In c

. v

. Cla c k, 2 7 1 Ga

. 8 2

,

8 3 (5 15 S E 2 d 6 1 9 ) (1 99 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t a p a rty wh o wa s g iv e n n o tic e o f a ta x

9 This Court h as pr e v i o u s ly cited L ujan in assessing standing under Georg ia law. See

Granite State Outdoor Advertising

, I nc. v. City of Roswell, 2 83 Ga. 417, 4 18 (658 SE2d 587) (2008).

9sa le a s sta tu to rily re q u ire d “ m a y n o t a tta c k th e sa le o n th e g ro u n d of la c k o f

n o tic e to a n o th e r p a rty ” ); Ue a l v

. AAA P a rtn e rs in Ad o p tio n , In c ., 2 6 9 G a

. Ap p

.

2 5 8

, 2 6 0 (6 03 S E2 d 6 7 2 ) (2 0 0 4 ) (e xp la in in g th a t o n ly th e “ p e r s o n h a rm e d b y

th e la c k o f n otic e to h im ” m a y ra ise th e issu e ); Ry d e r Au to m o bile Le a sin g Co

.

v . Ta te s, 1 1 2 Ga

. Ap p

. 1 8

, 2 0 (1 4 3 S E2 d 4 11 ) (1 9 6 5 ) (“ ‘As ag e n e ra l ru le

, th e

q u e stio n o f d e fe c tiv e se rv ic e m a y be ra ise d o n ly b y th e o ne o n wh o m a tte m p te d

se rv ic e wa s m a d e , a n d on e d e fe n d a n t is n o t e n title d to u rg e d e fe c ts in th e se rv ic e

o n a c o-d e fe n d a

n t.’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )).

Ne v e rth e le ss, c itin g c a se s lik e Bro w n v . Clo we r, 22 5 G a

. 1 6 5

, 1 6 6 (1 6 6

S E2 d 3 6 3 ) (1 9 6 9 ), Oa sis a rg u e s th a t th e p u rp o se o f th e lo c a l le g isla tio n n o tic e

sta tu te is to p ro te c t th e in te re sts o f th e p u blic

. S e e id

. a t 1 6 6 (“ [T] he p u rp o se o f

th e a d v e rtise m e n t a s t o l o c a l le g isla tio n

. . . is to ‘p ro te c t th e p e o p le a g a in st

c o v e rt o r s u rp rise le gisla tio n .’” (c ita tio n o m itte d)). Th e c a se s Oa sis c ite s,

h o we v e r, we re de c id e d a t a tim e wh e n th e o n l y n o tic e re q u ire d wa s b y

n e wsp a p e r pu b lic a tio n

. Se e Ga

. Co n s t

. o f 1 94 5, Art. III, S e c

. VII, Pa r. XV

(re q u irin g th a t n o tic e of in te n tio n to in tro d u c e a lo c a l b ill b e p u b lish e d in th e

n e wsp a p e r in th e a ffe c te d a re a ). Th is g e n e ra l n o tic e re q uire m e n t wa s m e a n t to

p ro te c t b o th th e p u b lic a n d t h e a f f e c te d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t. S e e Fle m in g v

.

1 0Da n ie ll, 2 2 1 Ga

. 4 3

, 4 5 (1 42 SE2 d 8 0 4) (1 9 6 5 ) (e xp la in in g th a t o ne o f th e m a in

p u rp o se s o f th e c o n s t itu tio n a l n o tic e re qu ire m e nt wa s “ to p re v e n t du tie s a n d

o b lig a tio n s b e in g im

p o se d o n lo c a l g o ve rn m e n ts with o u t g iv in g th o se in c h arg e

o f su c h g o ve rn m e n ts a n op p o rtu n ity to o p po se th e ir p a ssa g e .” ). Th is c o n tin u e d

to b e th e la w u n d e r th e 1 9 8 3 C o n s t i t u t i o n , with th e n o tic e re q u ire m e n t p la c e d

in OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4

.

In 1 9 9 6

, h o we v e r, th e g o v e rn m e n t n otic e re q u ire m e n t wa s se p a ra te d fro m

th e p u b lic n o tic e re q u ire m e nt, with th e a d d itio n to th e sta tu te o f su bse c tio n (b ).

S e e Ga

. L. 1 9 9 6

, p

. 1 1 9 8

. Th e title o f th e 19 96 a c t e x p la in e d th a t OCGA § 2 8

-

1 -1 4 wa s b e in g a m e nd e d “ to p ro v id e th a t a n otic e of in te n tio n to in tro d u c e lo c a l

le g isla tio n b e p ro vid e d to th e g o v e rn in g a u th o rity o f an y c o un ty

, m u n ic ip a lity

,

o r c o n so lid a te d g o v e rn m e n t a ffe c te d b y su c h le g isla tio n .” Id

. A n d th e la n g u a g e

o f OCGA § 2 8-1 -1 4 (b ) m a k e s p la in th a t th e p u rp ose of th is a dd itio n a l n o tic e

re q u ire m e n t wa s no t to p ro v id e a s e c o n d w a y fo r p e op le in g e n e ra l to le a rn

a b o u t po te n tia l lo c a l le g isla tio n b u t ra th e r to d ire c tly n o t i f y t h e lo c a l go ve rn m e n t

so th a t it c o u ld re sp o n d

. 1 0

1 0 T h i s understanding is supported by the orig inal subsection (b) (3) of the 1996 statu t e , which sa i d t h at direct notice to the local g overnment was not required when the local bill was “requested by resolution o r other written notification of the g overning authority .” O CGA § 28-1-14

1 1Th u s, o nly th e lo c a l g o v e rn m e nt wh ose in te re st OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4 (b )

p ro te c ts — h e re , th e City of Do ra v ille — h a s sta n din g to c o n te st c om p lia n c e

with th a t n o tic e re q u ire m e n t. D o ra v ille h a s n o t c o m p la in e d a bo ut a la c k o f

n o tic e , o r in d e e d a

b o u t th e e n a c tm e n t o f S B 5 3 2

. A n d Oa sis ha s n o le g a l

e n title m e n t to c o m

p la in

. Co n se q u e n tly

, we n e e d n o t, a n d d o n ot, d e te rm in e

wh e th e r th e re wa s a d e q u a te c o m p lia n c e with OCGA § 2 8 -1 -1 4 (b ) wh e n S B 5 3 2

wa s in tro d u c e d a n d p a sse d in to la w.

3

. H a v in g e sta b lish e d th a t Oa sis is su b je c t to th e Do ra ville Co d e o f

Ord in a n c e s, we tu rn n e x t to th e c lu b ’s c o n stitu tio n a l c h a lle n g e s to th e su b sta n c e

o f th e se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e ss c o d e

. Oa sis is c o rre c t th a t t h e S O B c o d e

im p lic a te s c o n stitu tio n a l fre e d o m o f e x p re ssio n

. Ero tic d a n c in g — wh ic h

in c lu de s th e ty pe of d a nc i n g w h i l e n u d e do ne b y Oa sis’s e m p lo y e e s — is a

fo rm o f e x p re ssio n p ro te c te d b y th e fre e sp e e c h p ro v isio n s o f b o th th e U n i t e d

S ta te s an d Ge o rg ia Co n stitu tio n s. S e e , e .g ., Gra ve ly v

. B a c o n , 26 3 Ga

. 2 0 3

, 2 0 5

(b) (3) (1996). The g overning authority ’s making of such a request would n ot notify the p ublic that

the local law requested w as actually g oing to be introduced, but it o bviously would demonstrate that

the g overning authority was a ware of the bill. This subsection was removed in 2002, w hen specific

notice procedures for annex a tion throug h local acts were repealed, see Ga. L

. 2002, p. 985, §§ 1, 3,

but nothing in the repealing b ill sug g ests that the p urpose of the g overnment notice r equirement in

OCGA § 28-1-14 (b) chang ed o r that it was now meant to provide a second way f o r the public to be notified of impending local leg islation.

1 2(4 2 9 S E 2 d 6 6 3 ) (1 99 3 ); Ha rris v

. En te rta in m e n t S y ste m s, 2 5 9 Ga

. 7 0 1

, 7 0 2 (3 8 6

S E2 d 1 4 0 ) (1 98 9). S e e a lso Ba rn e s v

. Gle n T h e a tre

, In c ., 5 0 1 U. S

. 5 6 0

, 5 6 6

(1 1 1 S Ct 2 4 56

, 1 1 5 LE2 d 5 0 4 ) (1 9 9 1) (p lu ra lity o p in io n ) (“ [N] u d e d a n c in g o f

th e k in d so ug h t to b e p e r fo rm e d h e re is e x p re ssiv e c o n d u c t with in th e o u te r

p e rim e te rs of th e F irst Am e n d m e n t, th o u g h we v ie w it a s o n ly m arg in a lly

so .” ). 1 1 Bu t fre e sp e e c h p ro te c tio n o n ly g o e s so fa r; p ro te c te d e x p re ssio n m a y

so m e tim e s b e re stric te d in lim ite d wa y s wh e n ju stifie d b y su ffic ie n t go ve rn m e n t

1 1 The F irst Amendment to the United States Constitution say s “Cong ress shall make no law

. . . a bridg ing the freedom of speech, or of the press

. . . .” Art. I

, Sec. I

, Par. V of the 1983 Georg ia

Constitution say s, “No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech o r of the press. Every person may

speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects b ut shall be responsible for

the abuse o f that liberty .” Althoug h Oasis raised b oth f ederal and state constitutional claims in the trial court, on appeal it invokes only the free speech protection of the Georg ia Constitution.

Doraville arg ues that the Georg ia Constitution p rovides less free speech protection than the

F irst Amendment and that under a proper interpretation o f our state c onstitution, nude dancing is not protected at all. Discussing the tex t and history of the state provision, Doraville asserts that cases such as G ravely and Harris, where this Court held that nude dancing is protected under the state constitution, should be abandoned b ecause they r elied primarily on federal precedent. However, “[ a] s far back as 1932, this Court [ has] looked to federal cases interpreting the F irst Amendment f or

g uidance in apply ing Georg ia’s free speech g uarantee.” G r ady v. Unified Government of

Athens-Clarke County

, 289 Ga. 726, 728 (715 SE2d 148) (2011). And in 1982, we said that “‘[ i] n the absence of controlling state p recedent this court h as applied analog ous F irst A m e n d m e n t
standards when construing the sta t e c o n stitution.’” I d. (quoting Paramount Pictures Corp. v. B usbee,

250 Ga. 252, 255, n. 5 (297 SE2d 250) (1982) )

. D o r aville’s arg u ment – which Oasis heartily disputes

– is interesting

, and its position was once e n d o rs e d b y t w o members of this Court. See Harris, 259 Ga. at 705 (W eltner, J

., joined by Marshall, C. J

., d issenting ) (“I c annot b elieve that our forebears, in writing these protections, intended to vest i n e ach Georg ian a constitutional rig ht to
dance naked for tips in a b arroom. Nor do I think that the citiz e ns of Georg ia who ratified the

Constitution of 19 8 3 intended to preserve or to create any such ‘rig ht.’”). B ut w e see no need to
reconsider our precedents on this point in this case, because as w e ex plain below, even treating nude dancing as protected speech, Doraville’s reg ulations are constitutional.

1 3in te re sts, with o u t v io la tin g th e Co nstitu tio n. S e e S ta te v. Ca fé Ero tic a , 2 6 9 Ga

.

4 8 6

, 4 8 8 -4 8 9 (5 00 S E 2 d 5 7 4 ) (1 9 9 8 ); Ha rris, 2 5 9 Ga . a t 7 01 -7 0 2

.

(a ) In c o n sid e rin g wh e th e r th e S OB c od e re stric ts fre e e x p re ssio n in a

c o n stitu tio n a lly p e rm issib le w a y , we first de te rm in e if th e re g u la tio n is c o n te ntn e u tra l a n d th u s su b

je c t to in te rm e d ia te

, ra th e r th a n stric t, ju dic ia l sc ru tin y

. S e e

Ca fé Ero tic a v

. P e a c h C o u n ty

, 2 7 2 Ga

. 47

, 4 9 (5 2 6 S E2 d 5 6) (2 0 0 0 ); S ta te v

.

Ca fé Ero tic a , 26 9 Ga . a t 4 8 9 (e x p la in in g th a t re gu la tio n s ta rg e tin g th e c o n te n t

o f p ro te c te d sp e e c h a re su b je c t to stric t sc ru tin y a n d th u s mu s t b e “ ‘n e c e ssa ry

to se rv e a c o m

p e llin g sta te in te re st a n d

. . . n arro wly d ra wn to a c h ie v e th a t e n d ’”

(c ita tio n o m itte d )).

[T ]h e p rin c ip a l in q u iry in d e te rm in in g wh e th e r a le g isla tiv e a c t is

c o n t e n t-n e u tra l is “ wh e th e r th e go ve rn m e n t h a s a do p te d a

re g u la tio n o f sp e e c h b e c a u se o f d isa g re e m e n t with th e me s sa g e it

c o n v e y s. Th e go v e r n me n t’s p u rp o se is th e c o ntro llin g

c o n sid e ra tio n

. A re g u la tio n th a t se rv e s p u rp o se s u n re la te d to t h e

c o n te nt o f e x p re ssio n is d e e m e d n e u tra l, e v e n if it h a s a n in c id e n ta l

e ffe c t on so m e sp e a k e rs o r m e ssa g e s b u t n o t oth e rs.” A n o rd in a n c e d e sig ne d to c o m

b a t th e u n d e sirab le se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts o f se x u a lly

e x p lic it b u sin e sse s is c o n te n t-n e u tra l. Be fo re e n a c tin g a n o rd in a n c e

to c o m b a t u n d e sira b le se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts, a le g isla tiv e b od y is

re q u ire d to c o n sid e r sp e c ific e v id e n c e o f th e u nd e sira ble se c o n d a ry

e ffe c ts th a t it re a so n a

b ly b e lie v e s re le v an t to th e p ro b le m s it se e k s

to a dd re ss b y p a ssin g th e o rd in a nc e

.

G o l d r u s h II v. City o f M a rie tta

, 2 6 7 Ga

. 6 8 3

, 6 9 0 (4 8 2 S E2 d 3 4 7 ) (1 9 9 7 )

1 4(c ita tio n s o m itte d ). “ ‘“ [O] nly th e c le are st p ro o f c o u ld su ffic e to e sta b lish th e

u n c o n stitu ti o na lity of a sta tu te ” o n th e g ro u n d th a t “a p u n itiv e p u rp o se in fa c t

la y b e hin d th e sta tu te ,” ’” a n d e v e n s t a te m e nts b y in d iv id u a l o ffic ia ls m a y n o t

p ro v e a go v e rn m e n t’s p u rp o se b e c a u se “ w h a t m o tiv a te s o n e le g isla to r to m a k e

a c o m m e n t a

b o ut a la w is n o t n e c e s s a r i ly w h a t m otiv a te s fe llo w le gisla to rs to

e n a c t th e la w.” Id . a t 6 9 1 -6 9 2 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

Oa sis c o n te nd s t h a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in h o ld in g th a t th e S OB c o d e is

c o n te n t-n e u tra l. T h e c lu b a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se th e c o urt g ra n te d Do ra v ille

ju d g m e n t o n th e p le a din g s, th e c ou rt wa s re q u ire d to ta k e a s tru e th e a lle g a tio n s

in Oa sis’s a m e n d e d c o m pla in t sta tin g th a t Do ra v ille ’s m o tiv e in p a ssin g th e

S OB c o d e wa s to ta rg e t Oa sis a n d th a t th e re a so n fo r th e re g u la tio n s o ffe re d b y

Do ra v ille

— ta rg e tin g th e n e g a tiv e se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts o f se x ua lly orie n te d

b u sin e sse s — wa s p re te x tu a l.

Th e p re a m

b le to Ord in a n c e No

. 2 01 2 -1 8

, wh ic h e na c te d th e S O B c o d e ,

re c ite s th e C ity C o u n c il’s fin d i n g s th a t se xu a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s “ a re

fre q u e ntly u se d fo r u n la w fu l se x u a l a c tiv itie s, in c lu d in g p ro stitu tio n a n d se x u a l

lia iso n s o f a c a s u a l n a tu re ” ; th a t “ th e re is c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t se x u a lly

o rie nte d b u sin e sse s, a s a c a te go ry o f e sta b lish m e n ts, h a v e d e le te rio u s se c o n d a ry

1 5e ffe c ts a n d a re o fte n a sso c ia te d with c rim e a n d a d ve rse e ffe c ts o n su rro u n d in g

p ro p e rtie s” ; a nd th a t th e Co u n c il “ d e sire s to m in im iz e a n d c o n tro l th e se a d v e rse

e ffe c ts a n d th e re b y p ro te c t th e h e a lth

, sa fe ty

, a n d we lfa re o f th e c itiz e nry .” Th e

p re a m b le sp e c ifi e s t h at Do ra v ille ’s in te n tio n is to re g u la te se x u a lly orie n te d

b u sin e sse s “ th ro u g h a n a rro wly ta ilo re d o rd in a n c e d e sig n e d to se rv e th e

su b sta n tia l g o v e rn m e n t in te re st in p re v e n tin g th e ne g a tiv e se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts o f

se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s.”

Ord in a n c e N o

. 2 0 1 2 -2 2

, wh ic h wa s p a sse d a m o n th la te r, a m e nd e d th e

S OB c o d e to

, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, “ a d o p t[ ] a nd in c o rp o ra te [ ] h e re in [th e C ity

Co u n c il’s] sta te d fin d in g s a n d l e g i s l ativ e re c o rd re la te d to th e a d v e rse se c o n d a ry

e f f ec ts o f se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s, in c lu d in g th e ju d ic ia l o p in io n s a n d

re p o rts re la te d to su c h se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts, th a t we re b e fo re th e City Co u nc il with

Ord in a n c e 2 0 1 2 -1 8

. ” Th e in c o rp ora te d le g isla tiv e re c ord

, wh ic h wa s a lso p a rt

o f th e re c o rd b e fo re th e tria l c o u rt, in c lu d e s a be v y o f stu d ie s, re p o rts, a n d c a se s

illu m in a tin g th e d a rk u n d e rb e lly o f se x u a lly o rie n te d bu sin e sse s a n d e x a m in in g

th e n e g a tiv e se c on da ry e ffe c ts a s s o c ia te d with th ose b u sin e sse s. Do ra v ille ’s

sta te d re lia n c e on th e se m a te ria ls wa s su ffic ie n t e v id e nc e th a t th e City ’s p u rp ose

in e n a c tin g th e S OB c o d e wa s to c o m ba t u n d e sira b le se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts. S e e

1 6Go ld ru sh II, 2 6 7 Ga

. a t 69 1

- 6 9 2 ( c on c lu d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e o ffe re d b y th e

c ity

, in c lu d in g th e o rd in a n c e ’s p re a m b le a n d th e tra n sc rip t o f th e c ity c o u n c il

m e e tin g sh o win g a d isc u ssio n o f n e ga tiv e se c on d a ry e ffe c ts, e sta b lish e d th a t th e

“ p re do m in a te in te n t” of th e o r d i n a n c e wa s to c o m b a t n e g a tiv e se c o n d a ry

e ffe c ts).

Oa sis d id n o t a lle g e in its p le a d in gs a n y fa c ts to re fu te Do ra v ille ’s sta te d

re lia nc e o n th e se m a te ria ls in e n a c tin g th e SOB c o d e , a nd it h a s n o t a lle g e d a n y

fa c ts to sh o w th a t Do ra v ille a d o p te d th e o rd in an c e to ta rg e t a c e rta in m e ssa g e

.

Oa sis d id a lle g e th a t it is th e so le b u sin e ss a ffe ct e d b y th e SOB c od e

. Ev e n

t a k in g th is fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n a s tru e , h owe v e r, th e tria l c o u rt wa s n o t re q u i r e d

to ta k e a s tru e Oa sis’s c o n c lu sio n th a t b e c a u se it is th e o n ly b u sin e ss a ffe c te d a t

th is tim e , Do ra v ille wa s ta rg e tin g Oa sis’s e x p re ssio n a n d Do ra v ille ’ s s t a te d

p u rp o se o f a d d re ssin g ne g a tiv e se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts wa s p re te x tu a l. S e e T ro p , In c

.

v

. City o f Bro o k h a v e n , 2 9 6 Ga

. 8 5

, 8 7 (7 6 4 S E2 d 3 98 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ Wh ile a tria l

c o u rt [ru lin g o n a m o tio n fo r ju d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s] is re q u ire d to c o n sid e r

a n o n -m ov in g p a rty ’s fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s to b e tru e , it is n o t re q u ire d to a c c e p t

th e le g a l c o nc lu sio n s th e n o n -p a rty su g ge sts th a t th o se fa c ts d ic ta te .” ). Oa sis

m a y b e th e o n ly b u sin e ss c u rre n tly a ffe c te d by th e S O B c o d e , b u t th a t d o e s n o t

1 7e sta b lish th a t Do ra v ille wa s ta rg e tin g wh a te v e r m e ssa g e Oa sis se e k s to c o n v e y ,

a s o p po se d to th e risk s of ne ga tiv e se c o n d a ry e ffe c t s a sso c ia te d w ith se x u a lly

o rie nte d b u s i n e s se s in ge n e ra l. S e e Go ld ru sh II, 2 6 7 Ga

. a t 6 9 1 -6 9 2

. We

th e re fo re c o n c lu d e th a t th e tria l c o u rt c o rre c tly fo u n d t h e S O B c o de to b e

c o n te n t-n e u tra l. Se e Tro p , 2 9 6 Ga

. a t 8 7 (h old in g t h a t a sim ila r se x u a lly

o rie nte d b u sin e ss re g u la tio n wa s c o n te n t-n e u tra l).

(b ) Co nte n t-n e u tra l re g u la tio ns th a t h a v e a n in c id e n ta l e ffe c t o n

p ro te c te d sp e e c h a re re v ie we d u n de r th e th re e -p a rt te st e sta b lish e d in P ara m o u n t

P ic tu re s Co rp

. v. Bu sb e e , 25 0 Ga

. 2 5 2 (2 9 7 S E 2 d 25 0 ) (1 9 8 2 ), wh ic h h old s th a t

th e re g u la tio n is c o n stitu tio n a lly p e rm issib le if (1 ) it fu rth e r s a n im p o rta n t

g o v e rn m e n ta l in te r e s t ; (2 ) it is u n re la te d to th e su p p re ssio n o f sp e e c h ; a n d (3 )

its in c id e n ta l re stric tio n o f sp e e c h is n o g re a te r th a n e sse n tia l to fu r t h e r t h e

im p o rta n t g o v e rn m e n ta l in te re st. S e e id . a t 2 5 5-2 5 6

. 1 2

1 2 I nverting Doraville’s arg ument that the Geor gi a Constitution provides less free speech protection than the F irst Amendment, see footnote 11 a bove, Oasis arg ues that the state Constitution

prov ides more free speech protection than the federal Constitution, a nd in particular that the third
part of the Paramount Pictures test should b e r eplaced with the “least restrictive means” r equirement adopted in Statesboro Publishing Co. v. City of Sy lvania, 271 Ga. 92, 95-96 (516 SE2d 296) (1999).

As we ex plained in Grady

, howe v e r , this Court’s occasional statements sug g esting that the 1983 Georg ia Constitution “provides even broader protection” than t h e F irst Amendment, which orig inated in State v

. Miller, 260 Ga. 669, 6 71 ( 398 SE2d 547) (1990), have not been supported by “any discussion of the tex t, history

, or case law r eg a rding the p rotection of free speech provided in

the 1983 or previous Georg ia Constitutions.” Grady , 289 Ga. a t 728-729. Grady also c ast serious

1 8Oa sis first a rg u e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in d e c id in g a t th e p le a d in g s

sta g e th a t th e SOB c o d e a c tu a lly fu rt h e r s a n im p o rta n t g o v e rn m e n t in te re st,

b e c a u se th e c lu b m

u st b e p e rm itte d to p re se n t e v id e nc e c h a lle n gin g th e stu d ie s

a n d o th e r m a te ria ls o n wh ic h th e Do ra v ille City C o u n c il re lie d in c o nc lu d i n g

th a t se x u a lly o rie nte d b u sin e s s e s c a use n e g a tiv e se c o n d ary e ffe c ts. F o r th is

a rg u m e n t, Oa sis re lie s m a in ly o n C ity o f Lo s An g e le s v

. Ala m e d a Bo o k s, In c .,

5 3 5 U. S

. 4 2 5 (1 2 2 S Ct 1 7 2 8

, 1 5 2 L E2 d 6 7 0 ) (2 0 0 2 )

, in wh ic h th e U. S

.

S u p r e m e Co u rt sa id th a t a m u n ic ip a lity c a n no t “ g e t a wa y with sh o d d y d a ta o r

re a so nin g ” in c ra ftin g o rd in a n c e s re g u la tin g se x ua lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s:

Th e m u n ic ip a lity ’s e v id e n c e m ust fa irly su p p o rt th e

m u n ic ip a l ity ’s ra tio n a le fo r its o rd in a n c e

. If p la in tiffs fa il to c a st
d ire c t d o u b t o n t h i s ra tio n a le

, e ith e r b y d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e

m u n ic ip a lity ’s e v id e n c e d o e s no t su p p o rt its ra tio n a le o r b y fu rn ish in g e v id e n c e th a t d isp u te s th e m u n ic ip a lity ’s fa c tu a l

fin d in gs, th e m

u n ic ip a lity m e e ts th e sta n d a rd se t fo rth in R e n to n [v

.

doubt o n the provenance and validity of Statesboro Publishing and its limited prog eny , which are the only cases in which the Miller d ictum has become an actual holding

. See Grady

, 2 89 Ga. at 729-731.

B u t in any event, we have held that the Statesboro Publishing test applies only to laws that directly

reg ulate the time, place, and manner of protected ex p r e s s ion (such as the ordinance in that case, which prohibited the distribution of free printed material in driveway s and y ards), as opposed to

reg ulations that have only an incidental effect on protected speech. See Great American Dream, I nc.

v. DeKa l b C o u n t y , 2 9 0 Ga. 749, 751-752 & n. 7 (727 SE2d 667) (2012). Neither the Doraville

Code’s prohibition of the sale and consumption o f alcohol (which is not protected ex p ression) nor the prohibition of nudity (which is not itself protected ex p r e s sion) directly reg ulates protected speech. The Code restricts the protected ex p ression o f e rotic dancing o nly incidentally by reg ulating

the a mount of clothing the dancers must wear and whether alcohol can be served in their vicinity

. According ly , we will apply the Paramount Pictures test.

1 9P la y tim e Th e a tre s, In c ., 4 7 5 U. S

. 4 1 (1 06 S C t 9 2 5

, 8 9 LE2 d 2 9 )

( 1 9 8 6 )

, to sh ow th a t th e o rd in a nc e is d e sig n e d to se rv e a

g o v e r n m e n t in te re st]

. If p la in tiffs su c c e e d in c a stin g d o u b t on a

m u n ic ip a lity ’s ra tio n a le in e ith e r m a n n e r, th e b urd e n sh ifts b a c k to
th e m un ic ip a lity to su p p le m e n t th e re c o rd with e vid e n c e re ne win g

su p p o rt fo r a

th e ory th a t ju stifie s its o rd in anc e

.

Ala m e d a Bo o k s, 5 3 5 U. S . a t 4 3 8 -4 3 9 (p lu ra lity o p in io n ).

Ev e n a s a m e nd e d twic e , h o we v e r, Oa sis’s c om p la in t n e v e r a lle g e d th a t th e

e x te n siv e m a te ria ls o n wh ic h Do ra v ille e xp re ssly r e l i e d d o n o t su p p o rt th e

City ’s ra tio n a le fo r th e S OB c o d e o r we re in a c c u ra te

. Th u s, Oa sis fa ile d to c a st

d ire c t d ou b t o n D o r a v i l l e ’ s p ro ffe re d e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g its in te re st in

re g u la tin g se x u a lly orie n te d b u sin e sse s. Se e Ala m e d a Bo ok s. a t 4 4 2 (u ph o ld in g

a z o n in g o rd in a n c e re stric tin g l o c a tio n s o f se x u a lly o rie n te d b usin e sse s, a n d

e x p la in in g th a t “ ou r c a se s re q u ire o n ly th a t m u n ic ip a litie s re ly u p o n e v id e n c e

th a t is ‘re a so n a

b ly b e lie v e d to be re l e v a n t ’ t o th e se c on da ry e ffe c ts th a t th e y

se e k to a d d re ss” (c ita tio n o m itte d )); P e e k -A-Bo o Lo u ng e o f B ra d e n to n , In c

. v

.

Ma n a te e Co u n ty

, F lo rid a , 6 3 0 F 3 d 1 3 4 6

, 1 35 5 -1 3 6 0 (1 1 th Cir. 2 0 1 1 ) (g ra n tin g

su m m ary ju d g m e n t to th e lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t a fte r fin d in g th a t “ th e Co un ty h a s

m e t its in itia l b u rd e n a

n d th a t P e e k -a -Bo o h a s fa ile d to c a st d ire c t do u b t” o n th e

stu die s th e c o u n ty re lie d o n ); Clu b S ou th e rn B u rle sq u e , In c

. v. City o f

2 0Ca rro llto n , 2 6 5 Ga

. 5 2 8

, 5 3 1 (4 5 7 S E2 d 8 16 ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e c ity ’s

“ u n re b u tte d e v id e nc e ” th a t it “ re lie d o n sp e c ific stu d ie s w h ic h it re a so n a b l y

b e lie v e d to b e re le v a

n t to th e p ro b le m s a d d re sse d by th e o rd i n a n c e ” wa s

su ffic ie n t to p ro v e th a t t h e o rd in a n c e w a s d e sig n e d to fu rth e r a n im p o rta n t

g o v e rn m e n t in te re st).

Oa sis d id a lle g e th a t it h a s n o t c a u se d a n y o f th e n e g a tiv e se c o n d a ry

e ffe c ts Do ra v ille se e k s to a v o id

. Bu t th is Co u rt a nd th e Un ite d S ta te s Su p re m e

Co u rt h a v e e x p la in e d th a t it is n o t n e c e ssa ry fo r a lo c a l g ov e rn m e n t to pro v e th a t

t h e n e ga tiv e se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts it re a so n a b ly fe a rs, b a se d o n e v id e n c e o f

p ro b le m s e x p e rie n c e d e lse w h e re , h a v e a lre a dy b e e n e x p e rie n c e d lo c a lly

. S e e

Ca fé Ero tic a v

. P e a c h Co u n ty

, 27 2 Ga

. a t 4 9 ; R e n to n , 4 7 5 U. S

. a t 5 1 -5 2

. P u t

a n o th e r w a y , th e Co n stitu tio n d o e s n o t re q u ire g o v e rn m e n ts to fo re sta ll

re a so na b le re gu la tio n u n til th e m e ss me a n t t o b e a v oid e d is p ro v e d to h a v e

a rriv e d a n d n o w n e e d s to be c le a n e d u p. In d e e d

,

it w a s n o t in c u mb e n t u p o n th e [City ] to pro v e th e e ffic a c y of th e

stu d ie s. T o th e c on tra ry , th e [City ] wa s on ly re q u ire d to p ro v e th a t
it c o n sid e re d “sp e c ific e v id e n c e of th e p e rn ic io u s se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts

o f a d u lt e n te rta in m e n t e sta b lish m e n ts w h ic h it re a so n a b ly b e lie v e d

to b e re le va n t to th e p ro b le m s a dd re sse d b y th e o rd in a n c e .”

P a rk e r v

. Wh itfi e l d C o u n ty

, 2 6 5 Ga

. 82 9

, 8 2 9 -8 3 0 (4 6 3 S E2 d 1 1 6 ) (1 9 9 5 )

2 1(c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d). B e c a u se Oa sis’s p le a d in g s did n ot c h a lle n g e

th e m a te ria ls o n w h ic h Do ra v ille re lie d o r a sse rt th a t th e City ’s re lia n c e o n th e m

wa s u nre a so n a

b le

, th e tria l c o u r t w a s p e r m itte d to re nd e r a ju d gm e n t o n th e

p le a d in g s o n th is issu e a n d to p ro p e rly c o nc lu d e th a t Do ra v ille ’s S OB c o d e

fu rth e rs a n im

p orta n t g o ve rn m e n t in te re st.

(c ) We ne x t tu rn to a p p l y i n g th e P a ra m o u nt P ic tu re s te st to th e two

sp e c ific p a rts o f th e S OB c o d e c h a lle n g e d b y Oa sis

— th e p ro v isio n p ro h ib itin g

se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s fro m se rv in g a lc o h o l, Co d e § 6 -4 1 6 (d ), a n d th e

p ro v isio n p ro h ib itin g e m

p lo y e e s a t se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s fro m a p p e a rin g

c o m p le te ly n u d e , Co d e § 6 -4 1 6 (a ).

(1 ) Th is Co urt h a s re p e a te d ly u p h e ld b an s on a lc o h o l in se x u a lly

o rie nte d b u sin e sse s a ga in st c h a lle n g e s u n d e r t h e G e o r g i a C o n s t i t

u tio n. S e e , e .g .,

Tro p , 2 9 6 Ga

. a t 8 7 ; Go ld ru sh II, 2 6 7 Ga

. a t 69 2-6 9 3 ; Gra v e ly

, 26 3 Ga

. a t 2 0 6

-

2 0 7

. Re g ula tio n s lik e Co d e § 6 -4 16 (d ) sa tisfy th e first p a rt o f th e P ara m o u n t

P ic tu re s te st b e c a

u se th e y fu rth e r th e im

p o rta n t go ve rn m e n t in te re st in re d u c in g

n e g a tiv e se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts. I t d o e s n o t c o m e a s a sh o c k th a t m ix in g a lc o h o l

with se x ua lly p ro v o c a tiv e a c tiv ity c a n re su lt in u n d e sirab le c o nse q u e n c e s. Th is

is b orn e o ut b y ma n y o f th e m a te ria ls o n wh ic h Do ra v ille re lie d

, wh ic h sh o w

2 2th a t ne g a tiv e e ffe c ts re su lt fro m th e c o m b in a tio n o f a lc oh ol c on su m p tio n a n d

se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s.

As fo r th e se c o n d a n d th ird p a rts o f th e te st, Co d e § 6 -4 1 6 (d ) is d e sig n e d

to a lle v ia te n e g a tiv e se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts, n o t to su p pre ss e xp re ssio n , a n d th e

in c id e n ta l e ffe c t it h a s o n th e fre e e x p re ssio n o f Oa sis a n d its e m p lo y e e s is

m in im a l. S e rv in g a lc o h o l is n o t itse lf pro te c te d e x pre ssio n , a nd Co d e § 6 -4 1 6

(d ) le a v e s Oa sis’s e m

p lo y e e s fre e to e x p re s s t h e m se lv e s a s th e y wish th ro u g h

d a n c e o r o th e rwise

. Mo re o v e r, lik e th e sim ila r o rd in a n c e we re c e n tly u p h e ld in

Tro p , Do ra ville ’s a lc oh o l p ro h ib itio n a p p lie s o n l y t o se x u a lly orie n te d

b u sin e sse s, a n d “ m a in stre a m pe rfo rm a n c e h o u s e s , m u se u m s, o r th e a te rs” a re n o t

a ffe c te d. Tro p , 2 9 6 Ga

. a t 8 8

. S e e a lso Gra v e ly

, 26 3 G a

. a t 2 0 6 -2 0 7 (e x p la in in g

th a t th e a lc o h o l b a n u ph e ld th e re d id n o t a p p ly to p riv a te c o n du c t o r to

“ e sta b lish m e n ts [th a t] h a v e n o t b e e n sh o w n to c o n trib u te to in c re a se d c rim e a n d

n e ig hb o rh o o d b lig h t,” su c h a s c o n c er t h a lls, m u se u m s, a n d e d u c a tio n a l

in stitu tio n s). Co m

p a re Ha rris, 2 5 9 Ga

. a t 7 0 3 -7 0 4 (strik in g d o wn an o rd in a n c e

th a t p ro h ib ite d n u d ity a t a ll e sta b lish me n t s th a t se rv e d a lc o h o l, in c lu d in g “ a t

m u se um s, a t th e o p e ra , o r a t m a in str ea m p e r f o rm a n c e a n d m o v ie th e a te rs” ).

Th e re re m a in a m

p l e o pp ortu n itie s a nd c h a n ne ls fo r d a n c e a n d o th e r fre e

2 3e x p re ssio n in th e City o f Do ra v ille

.

(2 ) W h e t h e r a fre e -sta n d in g p ro h ib itio n on fu ll n u dity in se x u a lly

o rie nte d b u sin e sse s m e e ts th e P a ra m o u n t P ic tu re s te st is a c lo se r q u e stio n —

a n d o n e th a t th is Co u rt a p pe a rs n o t to ha v e sq u a re ly a d d r e sse d b e fo re

. We

c o n c lu d e , h o we v e r , th a t Do ra v ille ’s Co d e § 6 -4 1 6 (a ) p a sse s th e P ara m o u n t

P ic tu re s te st.

F irst, th e o rd in an c e fu rth e rs th e a sse rte d im p o rta n t g o v e rn m e n t in te re st.

M a n y o f th e m a te ria ls c o n sid e re d b y D o ra v ille fo u n d a lin k b e twe e n n e g a tiv e

se c o nd a ry e ffe c ts a n d t h e p re se n c e o f se xu a lly orie n te d b u sin e sse s o f a ll

v a rie tie s — n o t o n ly strip c lu b s lik e Oa sis b u t a lso b u sin e sse s wh e re a lc o h o l is

n o t se rv e d lik e a d u lt b o o k a n d v id e o sto re s a n d m o v ie th e a te rs. On e stu d y , fo r

e x a m p le

, s h o we d th a t se x u a lly o rie n te d bu sin e sse s a ttra c t p re d a to ry c rim in a ls

b e c a u se th e se b u sin e sse s d ra w c u sto m e rs fro m a wid e a re a a n d th e p a tro n s a re

“ d isp ro p o rtio n a te ly m a le

, o p e n to v ic e o v e r t u r e s, [a n d ] re lu c ta n t to re p ort

v ic tim iz a tio n s to th e po lic e ,” m a kin g th e m “ so ft ta r g e t s .” A n d se v e ra l o f th e

stu die s sp e c ific a lly a d d re ss n e g a t i v e se c o nd a ry e ffe c ts — in c lu d in g ille g a l

se x u a l a c tiv ity

— th a t pro l i f e r a te in a n d a ro u n d strip c lu bs. B e c a u se th e

in te ntio n o f Do ra v ille Co de § 6 -4 1 6 (a ) is to m itig a te th e se n e g a tiv e e ffe c ts, a n d

2 4n o t to su p p re ss sp e e c h

, it p a sse s th e first two p a rts o f th e P a ra m o u nt P ic tu re s

te st.

As fo r th e th ird p a

rt o f th e te st, it is tru e th a t d ic ta tin g th e ty p e o f c o stu m e

a n in d iv idu a l m

u st we a r wh ile d a n c in g — or, a s th e c a se he re , d ic ta tin g th a t th e

d a n c e r we a r a t le a st so me m in im a l k in d of c o s t u me

— im p o se s m o re o f a

re stric tio n on p r o te c te d e x p re ssio n th an pro h ib itin g a lc o h o l in th e v ic in ity

.

Co d e § 6 -4 1 6 (a ), h o we v e r, strik e s a c o n stitu tio n a lly pe rm issib le fit b e twe e n th e

o b je c tiv e o f re d u c in g u n de sira b le se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts a n d th e n e e d to p ro te c t fre e

sp e e c h

.

To b e g in with

, lik e th e a lc oh o l p ro hib itio n , th e S OB c o de ’s pro sc rip tio n

o f fu ll nu d ity a

p p lie s o n ly to se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s a s de fin e d in th e c o d e

— no t to p riv a te c on du c t; m a in stre a m pe rfo rm a n c e h o u se s, m u se u m s, th e a te rs,

a n d o th e r a rtistic

, e n te rta in m e n t, an d e d u c a tio n a l v e nu e s n o t re g u la rly fe a tu rin g

liv e c o nd u c t c h a ra c te riz e d b y se m i-n u dity o r n u d ity ; o r th e m an y o th e r ty p e s o f

b u sin e sse s th a t d o n o t q u a lify a s se x ua lly o rie n te d b u s i n e sse s. S e e Tro p , 2 9 6

Ga

. a t 88

. An d a lth o u g h th e City ’s re g u la tio n p r o h ib its fu ll n u d ity

, it p e rm its

“ se m i-n u d ity ,” wh ic h m e a n s th a t a fe m a le d a n c e r m a y c h o o se t o we a r o n ly

p a stie s c o v e rin g he r a re ola e a n d a G-strin g c o ve rin g he r g e n ita l a re a an d a n u s,

2 5a n d a

m a le d a n c e r n e e d o nly we a r a G-strin g

.

Oa sis a rg u e s th a t th is le v e l o f re g u la tio n is n ot su ffic ie n tly lin k e d with th e

a sse rte d g o v e rn m e n t in te re st, a n d it is tru e th a t th e m a te ria ls o n wh ic h Do ra v ille

re lie d d o n o t m a ke e x p lic it a lin k b e twe e n fu ll nu d ity

, a s o p p ose d to a lmo st fu ll

n u d ity

, a n d n e g a tiv e se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts. O n e stu d y , fo r e x a m p le

, n o te s th a t

se x u a lly o rie n te d bu sin e sse s th a t “ p ro v id e o n-site e n te rta i n me n t” in c re a se th e

o p p ortu n itie s fo r v ic e c rim e a n d c u sto m e r- e m p l o y e e a s s a

u l t s , b u t th a t stu d y d oe s

n o t sp e c ific a lly a d d re ss th e d e g re e o f nu dity a s a fa c to r le a d in g to th o se n e g a tiv e

se c o nd a ry e ffe c ts. S im il a r l y , th e stu die s th a t fo c u s sp e c ific a lly on strip c lu b s

in c lu de re p o rts o f n u d e d a n c e rs e n g a g in g in ille ga l a c ts lik e p u b lic m a stu rb a tio n

a n d p ro stitu tio n, b u t d o n o t e v a lu a te wh e th e r su c h c o n d u c t wo u ld b e m itig a te d

if th e d a n c e rs h a d to w e a r p a stie s a n d G-strin g s.

Alth o u g h th is Co u rt h a s n e v e r dire c tly a dd re sse d wh e th e r a fu ll n u d ity

b a n , distin c t fro m a b a n o n a lc o h o l a lo n g w ith nu dity

, v io la te s th e Ge o rg ia

Co n stitu tio n, we c a n lo ok to th e re le v a n t F irst Am e n d m e n t p re c e de n t fo r

g u id a n c e , a s we ofte n h a v e do n e b e fo re

. S e e Ha rris, 2 5 9 Ga

. a t 7 0 2 ; P ara m o u n t

P ic tu re s, 2 5 0 Ga . a t 2 5 5 , n . 5

. In 1 9 9 1

, th e Un ite d S ta te s S u p re m e Co u rt h e ld

th a t re q u irin g e m

p lo y e e s a t a se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e ss to w e a r a t le a st p a stie s

2 6a n d G-strin g s d o e s n o t v io la te th e F irst Am e nd m e n t. S e e Ba rn e s, 5 0 1 U. S . a t

5 6 5 -5 6 6 (p lu ra lity o p in io n).

Th e Co u rt a d d re sse d th e issu e a g a in

, a nd re a c he d th e sa m e c o n c lu sio n , in

City o f E rie v. P a

p ’s A.M., 5 2 9 U. S. 2 77 (1 2 0 S C t 1 3 8 2

, 1 4 6 LE2 d 2 6 5 )

(2 0 0 0 ). Th e c o n tro llin g plu ra lity o p in io n fo un d th a t t h e c ity ’s “ a sse rte d

in te re sts o f re g u la tin g c o n d u c t th ro u g h a p u b lic nu d ity b a n a n d o f c om b a tin g th e

h a rm fu l se c o nd a ry e ffe c ts a sso c ia te d with n u d e d a n c in g a re un d e n ia b ly

im p o rta n t.” 5 2 9 U. S . a t 2 9 6 . Mo re o v e r,

[b ] e c a u se th e n u d e d a nc in g a t [issu e ] is o f th e sa m e c ha ra c te r a s th e

a d u lt e n te rta in m e n t a t is s u e i n R e n to n , Yo u ng v

. Am e ric a n Min i

Th e a tre s, In c ., 4 2 7 U.S

. 5 0 [(9 6 S Ct 2 44 0

, 4 9 LE2 d 3 10 )] (1 9 7 6 ), [wh ic h b o th d e a lt with m o v ie th e a te rs,] a n d Ca lifo rn ia v. L a Ru e , 4 0 9 U. S

. 1 0 9 [(9 3 S C t 3 9 0

, 3 4 L E2 d 3 4 2 )] (1 9 7 2 ), [wh ic h d e a lt

with liv e e n te rta in m e n t,] it wa s re a so n a b le fo r [th e c ity ] to c on c lu d e

t h a t su c h n u d e d a n c in g wa s lik e ly to p ro d u c e th e sa m e se c o n d a ry

e ffe c ts.

City o f Erie

, 5 2 9 U. S

. a t 2 9 6 -2 9 7 (p lu ra lity o p in io n ). Th e Co u rt th e n

e x p la in e d :

To b e su re , re q u irin g da n c e rs to we a r p a stie s a n d G-strin g s m a y n o t

g re a tly re d u c e th e se se c o n d ary e ffe c ts, b u t O’Br i e n r e q u ire s on ly

th a t th e re g u la tio n fu rth e r th e in te re st in c o m b a tin g su c h e ffe c ts.[ 1 3 ]

1 3 City of E r ie (and B arnes) appli e d t h e t h ree-part F irst Amendment test for reviewing

content-neutral reg ulations that w as developed in United States v. O’B rien, 391 U. S. 367 (88 SCt

2 7Ev e n th o u g h th e d isse n t q u e stio n s th e wisd o m o f [th e c ity ’s] c h o se n

re m e d y , th e “ ‘c ity m

u st b e a l l o we d a re a so n a ble o pp o rtu n ity to

e x p e rim e n t w ith so lu tio n s to a d m itte d ly se rio u s p ro b le m s.’” It a lso

m a y b e tru e th a t a pa stie s a n d G-strin g re q u ire m e n t wo u ld n o t b e a s

e ffe c tiv e a s, fo r e x a m

p le

, a re q u ire m e n t th a t th e d a nc e rs b e fu lly

c lo th e d

, b u t th e c ity m

u st b a la n c e its e ffo rts to a d d re ss th e p ro b le m with th e re q u ire m e n t th a t th e re stric tio n b e n o gre a te r th a n

n e c e ssa ry to fu rth e r th e c ity ’s in te re st.

City o f Erie

, 5 2 9 U. S

. a t 3 01 (p lu ra lity o pin io n ) (c ita tio ns o m itte d). In a d d itio n ,

wh ile a nu d ity b a n ma y h a v e “ so m e m in im a l e ffe c t on th e e ro tic m e ssa g e b y

m u tin g th a t p o rtio n o f th e e x p re ssio n th a t o c c u rs wh e n th e la st stitc h is d ro p p e d

,

th e d a n c e rs

. . . a re fre e to p e rfo rm we arin g p a stie s a n d G-strin g s. A n y e ffe c t o n

th e ov e ra ll e x p re ssio n is d e min imis .” Id

. a t 2 9 4

. In su m , “ [t] h e re q uire m e n t

th a t d a n c e rs w e a r pa stie s a nd G-strin g s is a m in im a l re stric tio n in fu rth e ra n c e

o f th e a sse rte d g ov e rn m e n t in te re sts, a n d th e re stric tio n le a v e s a m p le c a p a c ity

to c o n v e y th e d a n c e r’s e ro tic m e ssa g e .” Id . a t 3 0 1

.

We a g re e with th is re a so n in g

. Th e pa stie s a n d G-strin g d re ss (o r la c k o f

d re ss) c o d e re q u ire d b y § 6 -6 1 4 (a ) o f th e Do ra v ille Co d e is a c o n stitu tio n a lly

1673, 20 L E2d 672) (1968)

– which is the test this Court adopted in Paramount Pictures for analy sis

of this sort of free speech issue under the Georg ia Constitution. See 250 Ga. at 256 (citing O’B rien,

391 U. S. at 377). Under O’B rien, g o vernment reg ulation o f protected ex pression is constitutional

if it furthers a

n important g overnment interest; if the interest is u n related to the suppression of free

ex p ression; a

nd if the incidental res t r i c t i o n o n F irst Amendment f reedoms is no g r eater than is

essential to the furtherance of that interest. See 391 U.S. at 377.

2 8v a lid b a la nc e b e twe e n th e City ’s d e sire to e l i m i n ate th e n e ga tiv e se c o n d a ry

e ffe c ts o f se x u a lly o rie nte d b u sin e sse s a n d th e n e e d to pro te c t fre e e x p re ssio n

.

Th e P a ra m o u n t P ic tu re s te st re q u ire s th a t an in c id e nta l re stric tio n o f p ro te c te d

sp e e c h b e n o g re a te r th a n e sse n tia l to fu rth e r th e im po rta nt g o v e rn m e n t in te re st,

n o t n o le sse r

. S e e 2 5 0 Ga

. a t 25 6. A lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t m a y a p p ro p ria te ly

c h o o se to a d o p t a c o n te n t-n e u tra l re g u la tio n th a t fu rth e rs its im p o rta n t in te re st

in a slig h tly le ss re stric tiv e wa y , th e re b y p e rm ittin g m o re e x p re ssio n , e ve n if th a t

a lso slig h tly re du c e s th e be n e fic ia l e ffe c ts o f th e p olic y

— fo r e x a mp le

, b y

a llo w in g a lm o st-n u d e b u t n o t fu lly -n u d e c on du c t in se x u a lly o rie n t e d

b u sin e sse s. 1 4

4

. In a dd itio n to c h a lle n g in g Do ra ville ’ s S OB c o de

, Oa sis se e k s to

c h a lle ng e Co d e § 3 -3 1

, th e p r o v isio n o f th e City ’s a lc oh o l c o de th a t pro h ib its

th e sa le o f a lc oh o l in e sta b lish m e n ts th a t fe a tu re n u d ity

. 1 5 Th e tria l c o urt

1 4 Oasis also raises a g eneraliz ed claim that the SOB code is overbroad

, b u t the only

arg ument made o n this point is that the code is too broad in prohibiting nudity even w here alcohol

is not served. As just ex plained, such a restriction on full nudity in sex ually o riented b usinesses

– even teetotaling

ones – is constitutional.

1 5 At the time Oasis applied for an alcohol license, Code § 3-31 prohibited nudity at any
establishment that served alcohol. The code has since been amended to add an e x ception for nude

“conduct in theaters, c o n cert halls, art centers, museums, o r similar establishments that are primarily devoted to the arts or theatrical performances.”

2 9c o n c lu d e d th a t Oa sis d o e s n o t h a v e sta n din g to c h a lle n g e a n y p a rt o f th e a lc o h o l

c o d e b e c a u se it d o e s n o t ha v e a Do ra v ille a lc o h o l lic e nse

. Th a t h o ld in g wa s to o

b ro a d. Oa s i s do e s no t h a v e a Do ra v ille a lc o h o l lic e nse b e c a u se Do ra v ille

a c tu a lly a pp lie d to Oa sis a p ro v isio n o f th e City ’s a lc o h ol c o d e

. In d e n y in g

Oa sis’s re q u es t f

o r a n a lc o h o l lic e nse , Do ra v ille n o te d se v e ra l te c h n ic a l

p ro b le m s with th e a

p p lic a tio n b u t e x pla in e d c le a rly th a t th e “ sin gu la r” re a so n

fo r th e d e n ia l wa s th a t O a sis qu a lifie d a s a se x u a lly o rie nte d b u sin e ss an d th u s

wa s p ro h ib ite d fro m

se rv in g a lc o h o l u n d e r § 6 -4 1 6 (d ) o f th e S O B c o d e

.

Ac c o rd in g ly

, th e a

p p lic a tio n w a s d e n ie d u nd e r a lc o h o l c o d e § 3 -2 1 (3 ),

wh ic h sa y s th a t a n a lc o h o l lic e n se will no t b e issu e d wh e n “ th e g ra n tin g o f su c h

lic e n se w o u ld c o n stitu te a v io la tio n o f fe d e ra l, sta te o r lo c a l la w

. . . .” Be c a use

Oa sis wa s d e n ie d a lic e n se u n d e r § 3-2 1 (3 ), th e c lu b wo u ld h a v e sta nd in g to

c h a lle ng e th a t p ro visio n a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. S e e Bo F a n c y P ro d u c tio n s, In c

. v

.

Ra b u n C o u n ty Bd

. o f Co m mrs., 2 6 7 Ga

. 3 4 1

, 3 4 4 (4 7 8 S E2 d 3 7 3 ) (1 9 9 6 ).

Co m p a re Tro p, 2 9 6 Ga

. a t 86

, n

. 1 (e x p la in in g th a t th e tria l c o urt wa s c o rre c t in

c o n c lu d in g th a t t h e P in k P o n y did n o t h a v e sta n din g to c h a lle n g e th e

Bro ok h a v e n a lc o h o l c od e b e c a u se th e c l u b h a d n e v e r a p p lie d fo r a n a lc o h o l

lic e n se ). To th e e x te n t O a sis ra ise s su c h a c h a lle n g e to § 3 -2 1 (3 ), ho w e v e r, th a t

3 0c la im la c k s m e rit. As d is c u s s e d i n D i v isio n 3 a bo ve , § 6 -4 1 6 (d ) o f th e S OB

c o d e is c o n stitu tio na lly v a lid in p ro h ib itin g a lc o h o l in s e x u a lly orie n te d

b u sin e sse s, a n d § 3-2 1 (3 ) se rv e s o n ly to m a k e th e a lc o h o l c o d e c o nsiste n t with

th e S OB c o d e in th is re sp e c t.

Bu t th e tria l c o u rt wa s c o rre c t to th e e x te n t i t h e l d th a t Oa sis la c k s

sta n d in g to c h a lle n g e § 3 -3 1 o f th e a lc o h o l c od e

. T h e first se n te n c e o f § 3 -3 1

sa y s: “ It is th e p u rp o se of th is se c tio n to re g ula te e sta b lish m e n ts lic e n se d to se ll,

se rv e , o r d isp e n se a lc o h o l i c b e v e ra g e s

. . . .” If Oa sis p o sse sse d a n a lc o h o l

l ic e n se , it m ig h t b e su b

je c t to p e n a ltie s u n d e r § 3 -3 1 fo r se llin g a lc o h o l

. B u t

Oa sis d o e s n o t h a v e a n a lc o h o l lic e n se , a n d its a p p lic a tio n fo r a lic e n se wa s n o t

— an d c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n — d e n ie d b a se d on § 3 -3 1 , wh ic h re g u la te s o n ly

e sta b lish m e n ts th a t h a v e a lre a d y b e e n “ lic e n se d to s e l l

, se rv e , o r d isp e nse

a lc o h o lic b e v e ra g e s.” In de e d

, th e City ’s le tt e r d e n y in g th e c lu b ’s lic e nse

a p p lic a tio n n e v e r m e n tio n s § 3

- 3 1

. Co n se q u e n tly

, Oa sis la c k s sta n d in g to

c h a lle ng e Co d e § 3 -3 1

. S e e Gra n ite S ta te O u td o o r Ad ve rtisin g , In c

. v

. City o f

Ro swe ll, 2 8 3 G a

. 4 1 7

, 4 2 1 (6 58 S E2 d 5 87 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (e x p la in in g th a t Ge o rg ia la w

d o e s n o t “ p e rm it a p a rty d e n ie d a p e rm it b a se d o n th e n o n c o m p lia n c e with a

c o n stitu tio n a lly p e rm issib le p ro v isio n to a tta c k oth e r p ro v isio n s b y w h ic h it wa s

3 1n o t in

ju re d in a n y

m a n ne r wh a tso e v e r” (fo o tn o te o m itte d)).

5

. Oa sis ra ise s th re e o th e r c o nstitu tio na l c h a lle ng e s t o D o ra v ille ’s

Co d e , wh ic h m a y b e q u ic kly re b u ffe d

. Oa sis first a rg u e s th a t it h a s a v e ste d a n d

th u s c o nstitu tio n a lly p ro te c te d in te re st in p ro vid in g a lc o h o l a n d n ud ity a s it

a lwa y s h a s, so i t i s e n title d to g ra n d fa th e re d sta tu s a n d sh o u ld b e p e rm itte d to

o p e ra te with o u t re g a r d to th e S OB a n d a lc o ho l c o d e s. As th is Co u rt ha s

e x p la in e d

, ho we v e r , wh ile v e ste d rig h ts m a y , un de r c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s,

p re c lu d e “ re tro a c tiv e a

p p lic a tio n o f a zo n in g o rd in a nc e , th e sa me i s n o t

a p p lic a b le to lic e nse s to c o n d u c t a b u sin e ss.” Go ld ru sh II, 2 6 7 Ga

. a t 6 9 8

(c ita tio n o m itte d ; e m

p h a sis in o rig in a l).

Th o se wh o h o ld lic e n se s th a t e xp ire a n n u a lly a c t a t th e ir p e ril a n d

a ssu m e th e risk th a t th e ir lic e n se s m ig h t n o t b e re n e we d

n o twith sta n d in g th e y h a v e “ c o m m itte d th e ir liv e s a n d th e ir c a pita l

to b u ild in g th e ir b u sin e sse s” wh ic h n e e d lic e n se s to o p e ra te

.

Id

. (c ita tio n o m itte d ). S e e a lso Tro p , 2 9 6 Ga

. a t 8 8 (re je c tin g “ P i n k P o n y ’s

e rro n e ou s a rg u m e n ts th a t it ha d so m e v e ste d r i g h t to c o n tin u e o pe ra tio n a s a

n u d e d a n c in g c lu b th a t se rv e s a lc o h o l” b a se d o n th e c lu b ’s p rio r a g re e m e n t with

De Ka lb Co un ty ).

Oa sis n e x t c h al l e n g e s Do ra ville ’s z o n in g o rd in a n c e o n th e g ro u n d s th a t

3 2th e City Co u n c il d id n o t fo llo w th e City ’s re q u ire m e n ts fo r p a ssin g a n o rd in a n c e

a n d th a t th e z o n in g sc h e m e d o e s n o t le a v e su ffic ie n t lo c a tio n s a v a ilab le fo r

se x u a lly o rie n te d b u sin e sse s. On De c e m b e r 3 1

, 2 01 2, th e d ay th e e xp an sio n o f

Do ra v ille ’s c ity lim its b e c am e e ffe c tiv e , th e City Co un c il e n a c te d a z o n in g

o rd in a n c e c ov e rin g its n e w te rrito ry

. Th e la n d o n wh ic h Oa sis sits wa s in c lu d e d

in z o n in g c a te g o ry C -1 (n e ig h b o rh oo d c o m m e rc ia l), t h e sa m e d e sig n a tio n th e

la n d h a d u nd e r De K a lb Co u n ty ’s z o n in g sc h e m e

. Alth o u g h Do ra v ille ’s z o n in g

c o de re stric ts se x u a lly orie n te d b u sin e sse s to a re a s z on e d M-2 ( h e a v y

m a n u fa c tu rin g ), th e C i t

y ’ s a t t o rn e y h a s c o n siste n tly re p re se n te d in th is litig a tio n

th a t Oa sis is n o t re qu ire d to m o v e , a n d th e r e i s n o a l l e g a tio n th a t th e City ha s

so u g h t to a

p p ly its z o n in g c o d e to a ffe c t Oa sis. T h u s, O a sis ha s no t b e e n in ju re d

b y Do ra ville ’s z o n in g c o d e a n d d o e s no t h a v e sta n d in g a t th is tim e to c h a lle n g e

it. S e e Gra n ite S ta te

, 2 8 3 Ga . a t 4 2 0 -4 2 1. S e e a lso Ma n lo ve v

. Un ifie d Go v t.

o f Ath e ns-Cla rk e Co u n ty

, 2 8 5 Ga

. 6 3 7

, 6 3 8 (6 8 0 S E2 d 40 5) (2 0 09 ) (fin d in g n o

sta n d in g wh e re th e p la in tiffs fa ile d to sh o w th a t th e c h a lle ng e d ord in a n c e h a d

b e e n e nfo rc e d a g a in st th e m o r th a t th e re w a s a n im m i n en t t h re a t o f

3 3e n fo rc e m e n t). 1 6

F in a lly , Oa sis c o n te n d s b ro a d ly th a t m a n y o f th e o th e r p ro v isio n s o f th e

S OB a n d a l c o h o l co d e s a re u n c o n stitu tio n a l a s a p p lie d to th e c lu b. Oa sis

m a in ta in s th a t w ith re g a rd to its a s-a p p lie d c h a lle n g e s, ju dg m e n t o n th e

p le a d in g s wa s n e c e ssa rily im p ro p e r b e c a

u se a tria l c ou rt c a nn o t r u l e o n su c h

c h a lle ng e s u n le ss a n d u n til a fa c tu a l re c o rd h a s b e e n de v e lo p e d

. Ho we v e r, th e

c a se s Oa sis c ite s fo r th is p ro p o sitio n a c tu a lly s a y o n l y th a t to p re se nt a

ju stic ia b le c la im

, a n a s-a p p lie d c h a lle ng e re q u ire s fa c tu a l a lle g a tio ns sh o win g

h o w th e c h a lle ng e d la w a c tu a lly h a s b e e n (o r i s c re dib ly th re a te ne d to b e )

a p p lie d to th e p la in tiff. S e e , e .g

. , Ge o rg ia Ca rry .Org , In c . v . Ge o rg ia , 6 8 7 F 3 d

1 2 4 4, 1 25 5

, n

. 20

, 1 2 6 1

, n

. 34 (1 1 th Cir. 2 0 1 2 ). Oa sis fa ile d to a lle g e a n y fa c ts

su p p o rtin g a

n a s-a p p lie d c h a lle n g e to th e se o th e r p ro v isio n s o f th e Do ra v ille

Co d e , so th e tria l c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s re je c tin g th o se c la im s wa s

p ro p e r.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

1 6 B ecause Doraville has not tried to apply its z oning code to O a sis, we also need n ot decide whether Oasis would be entitled to g randfathered status under the z oning code.

3 4De c id e d Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 5
– Re c o n sid e ra tio n d e nie d Ju ly 1 3 , 2 0 1 5

.

Bu sin e ss Co d e ; c o n stitu tio n a l q ue stio n. De K a lb Su p e rio r Co u rt. B e f o r e

Ju d g e Ja c k so n

.

Be g n e r & Be g n e r, Ala n I. Be g n e r, Co ry G. Be g n e r; Lin d a I. Du n la v y ; G.

Bria n S pe a rs, fo r a

p p e lla n ts.

S c o tt D. Be rg th o ld , Bry a n A. Dyk e s, fo r a p p e lle e s.

3 5