Featured A Brief History of the GOP War on Yoga and Its Pants

"...a pack of naked bicyclists pedaled through his hometown."

Yes or No: Are you in favor of the legality of this activity?

 

Why a topic about something you don't favor or disfavor?

What case are you referring to? I don't know of one in which it was ruled that "anti-nudity laws are illegal."

Not really. If I want to wear my gun or saber...yes. How about a Yes or No from you on that (even though you can never seem to answer one of those 2 simple word)?

 

The quote is from your link, so it is a fair point to make.

The supreme court has ruled no such thing.

 

Your article claims the opposite of what you are saying.

For being such a master of words you sure blew that one.

 

Perhaps you should read with a little more care.

From your article:

"One might reasonably point out that this involves a great deal of subjectivity and could be a sweeping violation of free speech, but the Supreme Court has deemed nudity laws constitutional."

 

Sloppy reading means sloppy thinking and only leads to more sloppy thinking and sloppy statements made falsely.

 

Modest gals like the Duggars stay in skirts even when weightlifting:thumbs:

Joy Anna Duggar’s Wacky Workout Wear

 

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193
This is a current summary of each state's laws about public nudity. They would all be null if what you say is correct.

And do you think such questions should not be asked? -->

-->Apparent you do think so. And I answer this with No.

 

Answer the question Crabbie, you posted this nonsense. Are you in favor of naked bicyclists pedaling around your home?

You started this stupid thread. You must be hurting badly if this is the best you can do.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


And wimpy partisan attacks.

BTW, I support any community who bans what they see as offensive clothing. What I would object to is a federal law saying a community cannot do that. For future reference, that's what limited federal government means.

Wimpy attack, C.T.Boy. Full of sloppiness.

 

WHAT ABOUT WOMEN WEARING OPEN-TOED SHOES?!

No, but do you want them telling Comcast what video services they have to stream?

Seriously, if a local government wants to pass laws like these and try to enforce them, it's their prerogative. As Bro.Curtis said though, not at the federal level.

 

As do I..........

 

That freedom cuts both ways. Obviously, the federal government has no business passing modesty laws. But if a small town wants to have the freedom to set up community standards and the majority of people go along with it, it's their decision.

If a community so decides, then that's the law. I'd bet there are Amish communities with their own peculiar laws. Should they not have the freedom to vote and enforce these laws? If enough people object they can vote in other representation to over turn the law.

Should it be illegal to pass laws forbidding the sale of alcohol?

 

I understand the sentiment here, Curtis, but I would pump the brakes for a reason. If a community is allowed to ban what they see as "offensive clothing," then what's next? Can they ban what they see as "offensive speech?" Can they ban what they see as "offensive religion?"

What if you have a majority Christian community and, on the outskirts of town, there are a few Sikh families. These Sikh's want to build a center of worship. The majority townsfolk see their religion as offensive. Should that community be allowed to ban those families from building a worship center?

Your theory would open the door for community leaders to rally the community to punish anyone they disagree with under the guise of 'banning offensive material.' Say the Smith Family down the road offends the delicate sensibilities of one of the City Council members. If they're allowed to ban whatever they see as 'offensive,' then they can turn their anger toward that family, in petty retribution. It is a can of worms that has to be closely mediated if allowed.

I agree with limited federal government, but not to allow communities to transcend the constitutional rights of the citizens, especially under such a guise a "modesty," which varies from person to person and community to community. It's definitely a situation in which people need to tread lightly.

 

This is the second time on this one thread you have shown you cannot, or will not read.