While I would never work at Hooters because I wouldn't be comfortable with the dress code, or lack thereof more precisely, and honestly, I wouldn't fill out the tank top in the way they would like. But they are using the word vicarious.
Vicarious Adj. experienced through another by imagining: experienced through somebody else rather than at first hand, by using sympathy or the power of the imaginationIt seems pretty simple to me that they are not saying that they are an organization that is trying to classify itself as an adult entertainment business, but it allows it to be sorta kinda like one. While I really don't have much interest in defending the adult entertainment industry, I don't think that this should be given a pass simply because I am not all that jazzed at how the women who work there dress.
This is just yet another example of people using the court system to run our lives. If a parent doesn't like the tight shirts and orange shorts then don't bring your kids there. It really is that simple. There is no reason to force this business to change its business model because NOW is finding yet another thing to object to.
The women who take a job with this restaurant chain now what they are getting into. It is a business that expects you to dress a certain way that is sexual in nature. You are expected to make yourself look attractive with your grooming as well with your makeup and hair styles.
I think Hooters has some of the best chicken wings around, especially for the price that they charge. If I decide to take my own children there that is my business. People who walk into Hooters know what they are going to get, the name tells you all you need to know. If you don't think your children should be exposed to the waitstaff, then take them somewhere else. This is not something that a court should be wasting resources on.