Posts
See, this is just like "gay rights." If I happen to be in a nightclub and the girls start taking off their clothes -- which is strictly a hypothetical scenario, you understand -- I'm not going to file a complaint with the City Liquor Board. On the other hand, don't tell me it's your "right."A popular Colorado Springs nightclub that was punished by the city's liquor board with a 10-day suspension of its liquor license after several women exposed their breasts during a rowdy "Girls Gone Wild" filming is appealing the decision.
An attorney representing the owners of 13 Pure, 217 E. Pikes Peak Ave., said women flashing their breasts is protected by the First Amendment.
"It's our position that it's constitutionally protected conduct," Denver-based attorney Mike Gross said Thursday.
But prosecuting attorney Scott Patlin said the nightclub violated local and state laws.
This is another one of those phony liberal "rights" you don't actually have. Liberals peddle phony "rights" because it's a way of convincing people they're being victimized and oppressed by The Man. The intended message here is: "Vote Democrat, or else those evil Republicans will force you to keep your clothes on in a nightclub."
You're not stupid enough to believe that, are you? Now, you're probably wondering: What about the "right" to get nekkid as a jaybird to protest taxes? That's different. Ever hear of "civil disobedience"?
(H/T: Hot Air, the coolest blog evah.)
UPDATE: I've got a few minutes here before a blogger conference call, so why don't I refer you to my story about Judge Roy Moore and Ex Parte HH. People want to imply that, just because you disagree with someone about their "rights," it means you don't like them. Can anyone credibly accuse me of hating hotties? Am I "anti-breast"? You people need to wake up and smell the indoctrination. You've been brainwashed and haven't even been through the "rinse" cycle yet. HTTJYUB.UPDATE II: Hey, how about a teacher's "right" to have sex with her teenage student?
UPDATE III: Linked by Doug Mataconis, with whom I have a dialogue in the comments.
UPDATE IV: Dave C. e-mails to say the back-and-forth in the comments reminds him of this joke:
Three married men were talking about their sex lives during coffee. The first man -- the newlywed of the bunch -- said, "It's been good. No complaints here. My wife and I have sex three to four times a week."Yeah. But I've dug my grave so deep now, I'm going to stop digging before I get to China.
The second man -- at the seven year mark -- gloomily mumbled, "Once or twice a month. If I'm lucky."
The last man -- who has been married the longest -- was bouncing off his seat when he said, "Once a year!"
The other two men looked at him in astonishment.
"Why are you so excited then?" one of them asked.
"Because tonight's the night!"
I bet Antonin Scalia's behind this!
ReplyDeleteAnd Clarence Thomas is in front of it?
ReplyDeleteBwahahaha!
ReplyDeleteHey, you misspelled "you're" in the headline.
Why shouldn't this be an issue of property rights ?
ReplyDeleteIf the owner of the bar wants to permit it, then who is the state to tell him otherwise ?
Hmmm. Interesting point, Doug. So you're saying that a chick flashing her hooters in a bar is like smoking in a bar?
ReplyDeleteYou're probably a hired lobbyist for Big Boob.
I'm saying that the owner of the bar should have the right to determine how his property is used.
ReplyDeleteIf he wants to let young women flash their breasts, so be it. He gets to make the rules, especially when we're talking about so-called crimes that are, in fact, victimless.
Ah! But what about this hypothetical scenario, Doug:
ReplyDelete1. I go to a bar.
2. Hot women get naked.
3. My wife finds out.
4. She knifes me in my sleep.
"Victimless crime"? I. Don't. Think. So.
Well, I don't think you can hold the bar owner responsible for stupid husbands.
ReplyDeleteBut what about my "right" to be protected from myself?
ReplyDeleteWell I haven't been married nearly as long as you, but I've come to learn that when the wife finds out you screwed up, you have no rights ;)
ReplyDeleteI think that you've got an interesting post in this exchange with Doug, Stacy. I'd say you ought to write it up as a hypothetical, but Patterico's gone till Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteWe're being oppressed, Doug. There are only two alternatives:
ReplyDeleteBreast Control
or
Knife Control
Otherwise, our right to life might be infringed.
Perhaps but, something occurs to me....
ReplyDeleteYour wife must not know about your blog, otherwise Rule 5 itself probably would've warranted a knifing ;)
Doug, my wife reads the blog all the time. I've been in the doghouse so long, I'm getting used to eating Milkbones.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I support abstinence education. If kids don't learn to do without it when they're single . . .
(Note to Mrs. Other McCain: That was a joke, dear. Do you need a backrub? Want me to wash the dishes? Take you to dinner? Just put down that knife, honey . . .)
Let's stop all this "Breast Control" talk right now!! So help me God if I have to wait 10 days to cup a boob, I'm going on a killing spree.
ReplyDeleteHey, what about my property right not to live or do businness next door to the de facto amateur strip club?
ReplyDeleteI am open to a bootlegger-baptist style workout on the matter. Call me.
Mammophobia rears its ugly . . . nipple?
ReplyDeleteStacy,
ReplyDeleteI saw an interesting comment on the Today show the other day. It was "Men Tell All" segment with Hoda and Kathie Lee. "When a man cheats, it is because he had a failure of character."
If you walk into a bar (whatever happened to the advice, "Never talk to anyone where they serve alcohol, that you didn't arrive with."??) and notice there are nekkid people, and you aren't happy with that - leave. Report to the wife, "Kids today! I couldn't even have a drink or three - there was women in the bar with their tops off! And no, I didn't stay until they got dressed again, I just left."
First, nekkid is not the same as a sex act, they are completely unrelated. Next, breasts have been held, in Federal court, to not be considered genitals - the Rochester 12 trial about women going topless for a picnic, as men were wont to do at the time, was held to be legal and not "indecent" exposure. Witness New York recently passing an ordinance explicitly allowing breast feeding on subway trains.
Unless the women were actually exposing below the waist, or engaged in sexually explicit acts - it sounds like Colorado Springs is wasting a lot of taxpayer money chasing a wild hare. Or, more likely, just plain harassing legal activities they frown on.
When I worked in Colorado Springs about 1993, the local schools had a "comparative religions" program. All went fine for several weeks - until the scheduled Wiccan presentation. Then all the church-going parents got all up in arms, and the city rang with outrage - that a pagan would be allowed into the public schools, and allowed to talk to *gasp* public school students in a "comparative religion" presentation.
What you have with this bar and this incident is certainly harassment, not law enforcement.
I doubt you need to worry about walking into something like this unaware. The people doing the filming likely had someone at the door, informing anyone wanting to enter about the video.
BTW - did someone actually make a complaint to the city or the police? Who, and why? Isn't that an important part of a journalist's job, to get the whole story? I mean, was it a girl that got edited out of the video, some patron's wife (acting on hearsay)? Was it a drunk upset because his "favorite" wouldn't canoodle with him/her? Inquiring minds want to know!
In Answer to Brad. K, the original article cites a police undercover investigation from the establishments MySpace page. Now, one does have to wonder why the police were frequenting the club's MySpace page in the first place... but then again...
ReplyDeleteMy question is as follows: If there is no universal right to bare breasts, is there no God? Bare breasts are an unalloyed good.
I'm really on the fence with this one...
Breast control!, rofl.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me the fundamental issue is that either Mr. Other McCain doesn't believe that people have property rights in themselves and should be able to do with themselves as they wish if they don't violate the property rights of others... or that state and/or local governments justly have the power to selectively transform private property into public property...
IMHO...