Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 15 of total 15 in this topic |
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 02:03pm PT
|
I for one am comforted knowing that my Government will protect us from being overrun by rampant boobies.
If you let one boobie run free than in a short matter of time there will be boobies everywhere.
Then it will be too late to put the boobies back inside once they have tasted freedom.
|
|
Ballo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 02:06pm PT
|
Can't they go to a nudist beach?
Oh wait, this isn't about them having a good time, but forcing others to have a bad time, 'cause they're sekcis for saying there are differences between the sexes..
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 02:22pm PT
|
As careful readers of this site will know, whenever I express a view on a legal matter, the actual law is invariably the opposite.
With that in mind . . .
The first thing an actual lawyer would do if he or she were considering this professionally would be to see how other courts have ruled on this issue. But that requires some real work (or at least a Google search), so I'll skip it.
I'd say it should be found to be unconstitutional to allow bare male breasts (yes, we have them, even though we don't always think of that way -- but with the ever-increasing obesity in the US, with some guys it's pretty obvious) but prohibit female breasts.
As to the possible argument that people will go crazy if they see females but not males, that's conceptually similar to an argument the state made in Loving (the case that outlawed the so-called anti-miscegenation laws): that popular prejudice against mixed-race children was so strong that the state was just protecting (unborn) children by outlawing miscegenation. The Court said that reinforcing existing prejudice isn't a good reason to allow discriminatory laws.
Sex is treated different from race in Constitutional Law, and this is just an analogy anyway, but I'd say the law violates ladies' rights to be topless, at least to the extent men have that right.
As to a possible argument that laws (including the Constitution) should be interpreted according to what those who passed the laws thought they would mean, and no one who enacted anything in the Constitution would think that females had the right to go topless--that view has been widely discredited by modern legal commentators.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 02:25pm PT
|
Would a European even bother to yawn over this?
|
|
Ballo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 02:28pm PT
|
I'm not a lawyer, but if you want to claim something is unconstitutional, shouldn't you cite the Constitution?
A local ordinance against chesticle exposure doesn't infringe on your first amendment rights. I fail to see what the Constitution has to say about any of it.
The ban isn't on women, it's on uncovered chesticles and other titillating areas.
|
|
Ballo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 02:29pm PT
|
Would a European even bother to yawn over this?
This isn't Europe, Africa, or Saudi Arabia.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 02:55pm PT
|
I'm not a lawyer, but if you want to claim something is unconstitutional, shouldn't you cite the Constitution?
Hmmmm, I'm no expert, but think there's something about "equal protection" somewhere in there . . .
Anyway, citing the Constitution is a good idea when arguing that something is unconstitutional, but it's mostly ritualistic at the stage.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 03:27pm PT
|
First world problem, if ever there was one.
Note that primitive societies think nothing of boobies hanging out all over the place.
Ah... civilization.
|
|
Yury
Mountain climber
T.O.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 05:48pm PT
|
Dream on!
There is a difference between theory and practice.
For example women of Toronto successfully fought sexist discrimination in a court.
Now (similar to men) they have a right not to cover their breasts in public spaces.
At the same time I do not recall seeing even a single woman with bare breasts in Toronto. :(
CORRECTION: Thank you Ghost!
I need to drink less and proofread more.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 07:32pm PT
|
I do not recall seeing even a single woman with bear breasts in Toronto.
But did you see any women with human breasts in Toronto? I mean, it's actually south of some places in the US, and not really overrun by bears at all. Yeah, there are bears a bit further north, but I don't think very many Toronto women interbreed with them.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2018 - 08:41pm PT
|
Pretty sure I saw some in Barrie. Mind you, the lake was still half frozen so it was too warm
to fish and too cold to sunbathe.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2018 - 05:54am PT
|
The ordinance notes that while not everyone is offended by the sight of female breasts in public, it “is still seen by society as unpalatable.”
I am of a completely opposite opinion. Breasts epitomize palatable.
A federal appeals court in Colorado heard oral arguments this week in a similar case...
Why wasn't I called as an expert witness?
“The Mayor and City Council firmly believe that Ocean City must continue to be a family resort that does not permit women to be topless on our beaches or in other public areas,” Meehan said.
"firmly believe", who writes this?
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2018 - 06:13am PT
|
Well both then DMT. Infants go for a hands and mouth attachment. In a truly safe society only toothless individuals would be allowed to latch on.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 15 of total 15 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!