Exotic Dancers Ordered to Cover Up

[Rhino]

Exotic Dancers in Daytona Beach Ordered to Cover Up
Saturday, June 30, 2007

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. — A federal appeals court upheld this Spring Break destination's zoning and nudity ordinances, meaning erotic dancers in adult bars in most parts of the city can't perform totally nude anymore.

The city and Lollipops Gentlemen's Club made their cases before the appeals court on March 23, and a ruling was handed down this week.

"The bottom line is the 11th Circuit Court (of Appeals) upheld the city's authority to enforce its zoning regulations and public nudity ordinance with regard to the adult entertainment establishments," City Attorney Bob Brown said....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287495,00.html

[Riverboat]

No pictures?

[DesertFox]

Darn!

[Wolfcounsel]

Are they allowed to be naked under their clothes?

[Madbomber]

I have mixed feelings about this.

[BEST45CAL]

They should cover up and be sober LOL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Gid1Ar9nU&NR=1)

[MrSanity]

Sexual immorality rots the soul.

[kenyon330]

What a bummer.

[Proud American]

Daytona Beach must be a crime free area if the cops are fixated on whether strippers have sufficiently covered up their naughty bits.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Daytona Beach must be a crime free area if the cops are fixated on whether strippers have sufficiently covered up their naughty bits." --Proud American

Yes. I know I feel like driving drunk on my ass and breaking into ATMs and smacking little old ladies whenever I see beautiful naked women.
<!-- / message -->

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Bwaahahahaha ... Daytona Beach, crime free? rofl


I am TOTALLY against establishments that "offer" the "exotic dancers" as entertainment, HOWEVER, I feel even more strongly we have too much regulatin' goin' on.

[DeclinetoState]

Does this mean that Wyatt will be changing his occupational and/or party plans this summer?

[Wolfcounsel]

"I am TOTALLY against establishments that "offer" the "exotic dancers" as entertainment, ..." --HomeschoolrsRUs

Exotic dancers? I wish! I like to see exotic dancers, like from Japan, the Philippines, Tahiti. The dances are very entertaining. Beautiful naked women dancing in adult bars are not what I consider public places, though, since I have yet to see any snot noses inside any of them. I find those nude dancers entertaining as well. Makes me wonder if Florida has any towns that hold "gay" pride parades in full view of everyone, and the city hall members just stick their heads up their asses and don't do anything to cancel them.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Makes me wonder if Florida has any towns that hold "gay" pride parades in full view of everyone, and the city hall members just stick their heads up their asses and don't do anything to cancel them.

Make yer plans now Wolfie, I'm sure hotel rooms are going fast, :evilgrin:

Welcome to PrideFest Key West 2008 (http://www.pridefestkeywest.com/)



------------http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon2.gif Exit, stage right, as fast as my little legs will carry me before Wolfie catches me and whacks me, :smirky:

[Wolfcounsel]

Do they still have those "gay" pride parades in Daytona Beach? Or "summer for gay" type of festivities?

[Rhino]

No pictures?http://www.lollipopsdaytona.com/

[Wolfcounsel]

And no upcoming events!

[Timberwolf]

Isn't a covered up exotic dancer an oxymoron??

[buzzthepug!]

We have Daytona beat - here in Las Vegas we have totally nude strippers (stripper is the correct term) PLUS we have legalized prostitution. Well, it's almost in Las Vegas - just an hour drive over the mountains.

Las Vegas also has some of the more "unusual" STDs - STDs that should not be around in 2007, the ones you just read about in old text books. Las Vegas, and probably Daytona, can boast of a high percentage of single-mothers, too.

Women dancing naked around a pole for men's money is not a good situation.

Can't have it both ways.

[BabyBeastie]

It should be erotic dancer, not exotic dancer. Right?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Women dancing naked around a pole for men's money is not a good situation." --buzzthepug!

I fail to see the bad. I've seen thousand of naked women. My wife has seen thousand of naked men. They're called nudists. Just because a naked woman entertains men it doesn't mean she's out to form a new type of criminal. If you're offended by that scene, stay away. Those places are not like the turd burglar/carpet muncher parade clowns, who have the need to exhibit their ugliness to the general public. I've also never seen any naked women dancing naked in front of children. so children don't get to see grown women's peepees or other things they have under their clothes.

[UnkHiram]

No Dang Photos

[buzzthepug!]

Strippers and nudists are not the same thing.

I never said the women are the criminals - nor did I say the men were criminals, either. I can absolutely see why guys would want to pay to see naked women swing around a pole. there's nothing wrong with sexuality, the human body or dancing. Or even drinking, for that matter.

But, if you think for one minute that stripping doesn't lead to other behaviors, like substance abuse among the strippers, single-motherhood or worse, abortion, then you're fooling yourself. I don't think it's in the best interest of a woman to strip for a living. That's all.

[Wolfcounsel]

"But, if you think for one minute that stripping doesn't lead to other behaviors, like substance abuse among the strippers, single-motherhood or worse, abortion, then you're fooling yourself. I don't think it's in the best interest of a woman to strip for a living. That's all." --buzzthepug!

Lots of young women don't need to strip for a living to do that. Lots of female high schoolers and junior high schoolers fall into the aforementioned lifestyle without at any time having danced naked in front of men for money.<!-- / message --> I don't believe stripping for money does that to women. How about some research studi--never mind. I'll stick to what I believe.

[buzzthepug!]

Well, I live in Las Vegas and I treat lots of strippers in my clinic. This is what I see. Mind you, they're nice but on a destructive road.

But, sex sells more than anything so there will be no shortage of strip joints or girls gone wild videos.

Anyway, cheers!

[Wolfcounsel]

"Well, I live in Las Vegas and I treat lots of strippers in my clinic. This is what I see. Mind you, they're nice but on a destructive road." --buzzthepug!

I see. But you can see that there are plenty of young women on a destructive road without them being strippers. I am willing to bet a million to one that there are strippers who see dancing naked as a way to make some money and they also keep their heads above water.

Mazel Tov!:thumb:

[buzzthepug!]

You're right. The more I think about your post the more I'm reminded how so many women, including older women, want to look like strippers/porn stars nowadays.

The ads for female real estate agents in Las Vegas are funny because you have a photo of a 55 year old in a va-va-voom, come-hither pose with newly inflated lips and big hair, taken with a foggy lens of course. The ads for female chiropractors aren't too different. Lap dance, anyone?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Just because someone CAN do something, doesn't mean they SHOULD, nor does it make it RIGHT.

[Gonzo67]

Sexual immorality rots the soul.


But who are you or anyone else to impose you're translation of "morality" on me?


I am TOTALLY against establishments that "offer" the "exotic dancers" as entertainment, HOWEVER, I feel even more strongly we have too much regulatin' goin' on.


As long as they enforce the "Adults Only" stipulation, I fail to see the problem. The club is owned by a private citizen. The dancers are there by CHOICE, no one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to do that. They are well payed (most of them) and the good ones make quite a bit of money.

I fail to see how you can be proud to live in a free country and at the same time support a government body who will force their way into a privately owned business and dictate what is and is not allowed.

And yes, I did see your "HOWEVER" stipulation which suggests that you do not "officially" support it. But your argument against it is a "passive support" of it none the less.

The solution is simple, if you do not approve of it, then simply do not open the door and walk in. Do not spend your money in that establishment. But don't tell me that I can not spend MY money there if I wish.


Women dancing naked around a pole for men's money is not a good situation.


Perhaps. But again, no one has forced the woman to be there, and the men that frequent the place are spending THEIR money, not yours.

Do you smoke? If so, they're bad for you, should I have the right to force you to quit?

Do you eat red meat? If so, it's bad for you. Do I have the right to force you to be a vegetarian?

Your morals are perfectly acceptable. UNTIL you attempt to force them on another.


But, if you think for one minute that stripping doesn't lead to other behaviors, like substance abuse among the strippers, single-motherhood or worse, abortion, then you're fooling yourself. I don't think it's in the best interest of a woman to strip for a living. That's all.


The "effects" you listed are not specific to the "cause" you cite.

John Belushi died of substance abuse. I don't recall mention of him being a "stripper". Chris Farley, death by substance abuse. And there's no way that fat ass was a stripper. Many Non-Celebrities die of substance abuse daily. It's safe to assume that a VERY SMALL percentage of them are "strippers".

Single Motherhood? Lets see. My grandmother had my mother out of wed lock. Grandma was not a stripper. My sister had her first child out of wed lock. My sister is not a stripper. A good friend of mine has 2 kids, he and the mother are not married. Yet she is not a stripper.

Abortion? My grandmother on my fathers side had one. And guess what... she wasn't a stripper. Homes, here in these very forums admits that she herself had one. Hey Homes, you're not a stripper by any chance are you? I really don't think Home's morality would allow for the stripper career path.

Those "end results" are PERSONAL CHOICES. You can not blame a "career path" for them any more than you can follow that bullshit liberal line of thinking and blame society for a criminals behavior. IT'S A CHOICE that someone made. Good choice or bad, it doesn't matter. It's not up to YOU to make that choice for them.


Just because someone CAN do something, doesn't mean they SHOULD, nor does it make it RIGHT.


Quite true Homes. But you do not have the right to tell someone who CAN do something, "you CAN'T". Just because you feel they SHOULD NOT do it, doesn't mean that THEY feel they should not. It might not be right, in YOUR eyes. But you do not have the "RIGHT" to impose your sense of morality on someone who does not want it.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Just because someone CAN do something, doesn't mean they SHOULD, nor does it make it RIGHT." --HomeschoolrsRUs

You got that right. It's still not criminal what they're doing, until they try to entice kids with their nudity. Again, not to compare a naked dancer to a nudist in a family-oriented nudist resort. The women there don't go walking by the swimming pool gyrating and shaking their boobs to anybody. And yes, I know most of the people in a nudist resort are the Helen Thomas and Ted Kennedy type, but also I've seen plenty who would make mincemeat out of a Miss Universe contestant.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[buzzthepug!]

But who are you or anyone else to impose you're translation of "morality" on me?

This is the same argument HOMOSEXUALS use against conservatives

As long as they enforce the "Adults Only" stipulation, I fail to see the problem. The club is owned by a private citizen. The dancers are there by CHOICE, no one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to do that. They are well payed (most of them) and the good ones make quite a bit of money.

No one said the women are victims and the men are bad. Clearly, the women make the decision to go down that path.

I fail to see how you can be proud to live in a free country and at the same time support a government body who will force their way into a privately owned business and dictate what is and is not allowed.

Our laws are based on Christian values. I suppose this is the difference between libertarians and republicians.

And yes, I did see your "HOWEVER" stipulation which suggests that you do not "officially" support it. But your argument against it is a "passive support" of it none the less.

So what?

The solution is simple, if you do not approve of it, then simply do not open the door and walk in. Do not spend your money in that establishment. But don't tell me that I can not spend MY money there if I wish.

I don't go to strip clubs (duh, I'm a [cute] girl)

Perhaps. But again, no one has forced the woman to be there, and the men that frequent the place are spending THEIR money, not yours.

More likely than not the men that patron strip clubs are married and spending money behind their wives' backs. True, this is none of our business but you can see this is not a positive situation. [AND, the wives of these guys should get a clue and do something to make their husbands WANT to stay at home]

Do you smoke? If so, they're bad for you, should I have the right to force you to quit?

I don't smoke

Do you eat red meat? If so, it's bad for you. Do I have the right to force you to be a vegetarian?

I eat red meat and there's NOTHING wrong with red meat. Vegetarians are usually less healthy - not enough vitamin B-12

Your morals are perfectly acceptable. UNTIL you attempt to force them on another.

In the US we force our laws on society with our laws - the Godless in society push back.


The "effects" you listed are not specific to the "cause" you cite.

John Belushi died of substance abuse. I don't recall mention of him being a "stripper". Chris Farley, death by substance abuse. And there's no way that fat ass was a stripper. Many Non-Celebrities die of substance abuse daily. It's safe to assume that a VERY SMALL percentage of them are "strippers".

John Belushi? You forgot ANNA NICOLE SMITH...welcome to the 21st century.

Single Motherhood? Lets see. My grandmother had my mother out of wed lock. Grandma was not a stripper. My sister had her first child out of wed lock. My sister is not a stripper. A good friend of mine has 2 kids, he and the mother are not married. Yet she is not a stripper.

Hey, I never attacked your grandmother or single moms. My best friend is a single mom. We all know this is not an optimal situation for kids.

Abortion? My grandmother on my fathers side had one. And guess what... she wasn't a stripper. Homes, here in these very forums admits that she herself had one. Hey Homes, you're not a stripper by any chance are you? I really don't think Home's morality would allow for the stripper career path.

Abortion is a really personal decision. The thing is when girls start stripping, they usually do a lot of drugs and aren't thinking clearly. They do things for money and can end up pregnant - again and again. That's all. I'm not going to preach.

Those "end results" are PERSONAL CHOICES. You can not blame a "career path" for them any more than you can follow that bullshit liberal line of thinking and blame society for a criminals behavior. IT'S A CHOICE that someone made. Good choice or bad, it doesn't matter. It's not up to YOU to make that choice for them.

This is the difference between libertarians and republicans. You are certainly entitled to your choices but some choices lead to unsavory consequences.

Quite true Homes. But you do not have the right to tell someone who CAN do something, "you CAN'T". Just because you feel they SHOULD NOT do it, doesn't mean that THEY feel they should not. It might not be right, in YOUR eyes. But you do not have the "RIGHT" to impose your sense of morality on someone who does not want it.

Again, this is the same argument gays use. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Gonzo, I think it's great how impassioned you are about these issues. I enjoy "discussing" things with you. :biggrin:

[Gonzo67]

This is the same argument HOMOSEXUALS use against conservatives


And in this instance, the homosexuals are right, and the conservatives are wrong, at least in my opinion they are.

When Homosexuals parade down the street, pushing their sense of morality on a public that has not asked for it (think "gay pride parade") I say the same thing about them. They have no right to force their lifestyle on me.

If Conservatives were to parade down the street in an attempt to dictate what I do in the privacy of my own PRIVATE HOME, simply because it doesn't fall in line with their morals, then I'll treat those conservative the same way I treat the marching homosexuals. In my opinion, conservatives that do that are nothing more than another militant fascist group. Just as the "gay pride" people are. No better, no worse.

What someone does on PRIVATE PROPERTY (A business as well) is the concern of the owner and the patrons. If you don't like the business that is taking place, so long as it's not violating the law, then don't go in. Simple.


Our laws are based on Christian values. I suppose this is the difference between libertarians and republicians.


You see, that's where the major problem comes into play. RELIGION has nothing to do with LAW. Keep religion out of the law.

Our laws are based on HUMAN RIGHTS. If something is to be made "illegal" it should be made illegal because it infringes on the rights of another.

Murder is illegal. NOT because the bible says "thou shalt not kill", but because to take someone's life is to deny them their RIGHT TO LIVE.

Theft is illegal. Not because the Bible says "Thou shalt not steal", but because to take another persons property is to deny that person of their RIGHT to keep the property they obtained legally.

The Bible does a good job as a reference tool. As a place to build the foundation of your morals. But the Bible should NEVER be a "law book" that the whole of society is to live by. If that's the case, how can you condemn the Muslim religion? They are trying to do just that. THEIR bible tells them to kill you. Their bible tells them that their religion should be the highest law and that YOU should be forced to follow it.

The only difference between them and you, when you tell ME I should be required to follow YOUR Bible's version of what's right and what's wrong, is nothing more than a difference of degrees.

And before anyone gets all bent out of shape, I am not saying that Christianity and Islam are even REMOTELY the same. I am simply saying that the tactics used by both parties, on occasion, differ only by degrees of violence.

No matter how much you want it to be so, not everyone in America follows your religion. Not everyone in America is a Christian. So why do you feel your religion has more right than any other religion to claim "ownership" of this nation?

Because the Pilgrims who came here formed a Christian society?

Well, you're right. They did. But they did so on the bones of a very spiritual people. So why don't we adopt the spiritual morals of the early Native Americans? After all, there were here long before those European Puritans showed up. In my opinion, the Native Americans have more of a valid claim over the right to rule than any Christian.

Why should I be forced to bow to your God and your Bible? I may have my own God and my Own Bible I live by. And so long as I do not stomp on the rights of anyone else, who are you to tell me what I do is wrong?


In the US we force our laws on society with our laws - the Godless in society push back.


Correct. LAWS, not RELIGION. But you see, in these forums, there are some to whom those 2 words are interchangeable.

The LAW should be concerned with stopping one person from removing the rights of another. As I said above, your Bible says you should not kill someone. And the LAW says you're not allowed to kill someone. But the first thing you see is that the law is based on Christian belief.

Well, what about other religions? Is Christianity the ONLY religion that frowns on murder? What about Hinduism? Taoism? Do they frown on murder? If so, could we not equally say that the law is based on the Taoists belief? Or the law is based on the Hindu faith, because Hindu's don't want you to kill anyone.

The Law says that if you commit a crime, you'll be punished. The rule of 3 applies to the Wiccans. What ever you do is returned to you 3 fold. The Wiccans believe if you do bad, you'll be punished. Is our law based on the Wiccan belief?

Law is not Religion. The two are separate, they should remain separate. YOUR Religion should not be the basis of law that EVERYONE should be required to follow. If you honestly believe different, then I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong.


Hey, I never attacked your grandmother or single moms. My best friend is a single mom. We all know this is not an optimal situation for kids.


I know you didn't attack my grandmother, and I never accused you of attacking anyone at all. I was simply exposing the flaw in the line of thought you had strayed onto.


This is the difference between libertarians and republicans. You are certainly entitled to your choices but some choices lead to unsavory consequences.


You are absolutely correct. Some choices one makes leads to trouble for that person. But it's THEIR choice to make. You are free to offer them your advice. But you should do so remembering that they are also free to reject your advice.

The woman who decides to strip to make a living must live with the choice she makes. She must accept the consequences it brings because she willingly made that choice.

But so long as her choice is not infringing on the rights of another, the government, and religion both, have no business sticking their noses into it.


Gonzo, I think it's great how impassioned you are about these issues. I enjoy "discussing" things with you.


The feelings mutual. I enjoy "arguing" with someone that doesn't immediately resort to name calling and childish tactics. ;)

[buzzthepug!]

I'm a biased person; I think Judeo-Christian values are superior to other religious values. I've seriously studied Daoism for 3 years while concurrently studying Tibetan Buddhism in San Francisco. When I moved to Las Vegas I tried studying with a Zen Buddhist master in Las Vegas when 9/11 happened. Well, that was the end of the religions with ambiguous "morals" for me. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Daoism and Buddhism are limited in their philosophical view of morals, lifestyle, a way to conduct business and personal responsibility to be a part of a civilized society. Plus, the Zen master pissed me off by saying America did somthing to deserve the attack. It was our karma, don't you know! Karma can take a long walk off a short pier.

Back to our discussion:

Our laws in the US are based on religious laws - Christian laws which are ultimately based on Jewish law. Judao-Christian law is higher than any other religious laws because it's the most humane. We don't advocate beheading people but we try to hold people accountable for their decisions. Until attorneys get involved.

The funny thing is, Jesus in all His greatness, was friends with gamblers, prostitutes and other people with "bad habits". He wanted to lift them up to a higher way of living. Remember when Jesus told the adulteress at the well to "go and sin no more"? People that engage in "sleazy" behavior don't feel good about doing it or about themselves.

Anyway, I'm not saying we should shut down all strip clubs. But, I certainly would not encourage women to take their clothes off and swing around a pole for money. It's not in their best interest for their future. Geez, it's not even in a guy's best interest to patron those places. I think true conservatives would feel likewise. However, intellectually I understand where libertarians are coming from but from my heart and mind I cannot support theories/philosophies that erode Judeo-Christian values.

America is different and better than, yes, better than, other countries because of our JC values we try to incorporate into our lives, our businesses and our choices. (please don't remind me of the evil Enron execs).

Most Asian countries are guilty of engaging in the child sex trade industry. Don't people have a choice or a right to have sex with children in Asia? Excuse me while I vomit.

Drawing the line in the sand - Buzz.

PS I know you're not saying Islam is the same as Christianity.

[DesertFox]

My head hurts

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Homes
I am TOTALLY against establishments that "offer" the "exotic dancers" as entertainment, HOWEVER, I feel even more strongly we have too much regulatin' goin' on.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

As long as they enforce the "Adults Only" stipulation, I fail to see the problem. The club is owned by a private citizen. The dancers are there by CHOICE, no one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to do that. They are well payed (most of them) and the good ones make quite a bit of money.

I fail to see how you can be proud to live in a free country and at the same time support a government body who will force their way into a privately owned business and dictate what is and is not allowed.

And yes, I did see your "HOWEVER" stipulation which suggests that you do not "officially" support it. But your argument against it is a "passive support" of it none the less.

The solution is simple, if you do not approve of it, then simply do not open the door and walk in. Do not spend your money in that establishment. But don't tell me that I can not spend MY money there if I wish.

BACK the bus up, buddy!

Do I believe stripping is wrong? Yes

Do I think it should be regulated? To a certain extent, yes, in the same manner as establishments that provide alcohol.

BUT I ABSOLUTELY believe that the biggest problem in this country right now is not that we don't have the right legislation but that we have TOO MUCH legislation, and not enough enforcement of the legislation that needs enforcement.

To me, this issue is comparable to that of the issue of smoking. I am FIRMLY anti-smoking, however I am MORE STRONGLY pro-individual choice in this area. You want to smoke and kill your lungs more power to ya. You want to open a restaurant that caters to smokers, good on ya, hope it succeeds. But others should be free to open no-smoking establishments as well -- the market should dictate.

Again, as long as children are not being directly effected, influenced or infringed upon (regarding the stripping thing), then other than subjection to zoning laws, they should be free to run their establishment as they see fit.

Quite true Homes. But you do not have the right to tell someone who CAN do something, "you CAN'T". Just because you feel they SHOULD NOT do it, doesn't mean that THEY feel they should not. It might not be right, in YOUR eyes. But you do not have the "RIGHT" to impose your sense of morality on someone who does not want it.

I never said that.

[Gonzo67]

To me, this issue is comparable to that of the issue of smoking. I am FIRMLY anti-smoking, however I am MORE STRONGLY pro-individual choice in this area. You want to smoke and kill your lungs more power to ya. You want to open a restaurant that caters to smokers, good on ya, hope it succeeds. But others should be free to open no-smoking establishments as well -- the market should dictate.


And I for one am glad to know you feel that way. And do not read this as me saying this is what YOU PERSONALLY do, I am talking about the "vocal Anti-Smoking" crowd here...

When is the last time you saw a group of smokers picketing a non-smoking restaurant and telling them they do not have the right to open their business?

We smokers fully accept the fact that a restaurant may go 100% Non Smoking. There are a few near where I live. And you know, I don't go to them.

The "Pro-Smoking" population is willing to allow "NO Smoking" Restaurants to open. It's the "ANTI-Smoking crowd who wants to say that if I want to open a restaurant, and allow smoking inside it, I'm not allowed.


Again, as long as children are not being directly effected, influenced or infringed upon (regarding the stripping thing), then other than subjection to zoning laws, they should be free to run their establishment as they see fit.


Fair enough. But the problem still remains is how far should the "zoning laws" be allowed to go?

I understand not allowing a Dynamite Factory to open next to a school. Or a riffle range to open next door to a treatment center for patients with "post traumatic stress disorder". But why should a zoning law state "Ok, you can open a bar, serve alcohol, offer adult entertainment, but you have to wear purple pasties with tassels no more than 4 inches long, the women must wear stockings and garters in White, Light blue, Black, or Pink only. " etc...


The Zoning law should be concerned with what TYPE of establishment can be opened. So long as the PRIVATE CLUB keeps it's business within the confines of that private property, and does not expose citizens that are unwilling to witness what happens inside, there should be no argument at all.

If a person wants to open a bar, and inside that bar have 30 Belgian Midgets, naked, with Popsicle sticks in their butts, running around serving drinks to people willing to see that, thats perfectly acceptable. So long as those little midgets don't run out into the street and start flinging their Popsicle sticks are pedestrians, the business owner should be allowed to run that establishment.

Unfortunately, we have "moral watchdogs" who feel it's their responsibility to walk into that establishment, even though they have no desire to patronize that place, just so they can claim they're "morally insulted" and demand it be shut down.

I find that more offensive than said midget with the Popsicle stick enema.


I never said that.


Yes, I know you did not say they "Can't". That is not what I was attempting to say. My apologies for not wording it more clearly. I simply used your comment as an example, to indicate that where you stopped at "shouldn't", theres more than a few people out there who will ALWAYS take it further to "can't" and "better not".

[Rhino]

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m212/omahabob/signs-sillythread.jpg

[Rhino]

No Dang PhotosThere's a link in post 16, if you're brave enough to follow it. I assume there are pictures, since it's one of those "Adults Only" warnings.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And I for one am glad to know you feel that way. And do not read this as me saying this is what YOU PERSONALLY do, I am talking about the "vocal Anti-Smoking" crowd here...

Well, I kind of look at it in a weird way, I guess. I break it down to a behavioral thing ... it's a choice to strip, a choice to smoke, just as it is MY choice to homeschool my children. When "they" (the govt) begin to usurp and/or infringe upon rights to individual behavior, behavior that does NOT infringe or encroach upon others, then what's to stop them from infringing, encroaching, and usurping mine?

I basically believe in two fundamental laws: 1) One must do all they have agreed to do, and 2) one must never encroach on other persons or their property. (Two Fundamental Laws explained by Richrard J. Maybury, for more check here: Bluestocking Press (http://www.bluestockingpress.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=80))

Fair enough. But the problem still remains is how far should the "zoning laws" be allowed to go?

Hence my "too much regulatin' going on" comment, :smirky:.

Yes, I know you did not say they "Can't". That is not what I was attempting to say. My apologies for not wording it more clearly.

Gotcha. No prob-bob, no harm done. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif

I just wanted my position clarified.


The other, and it's first & foremost, basic core of my beliefs (which also happens to have been claimed for my own after our economics study of Maybury) is this: I believe there is a Higher Law than any government's law, and often times government's law contradicts Higher Law (such as in the case of abortion). We must choose which law will we support and defend.

[Wolfcounsel]

"There's a link in post 16, if you're brave enough to follow it. I assume there are pictures, since it's one of those "Adults Only" warnings." --Rhino

I prefer to see natural women, unaccompanied by some ogre's butthole-ugly guy, or parts of him. If I want to see Barbie dolls, my granddaughters have lots of them.:evilgrin:<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Rhino]

I don't know what's in the pictures. I didn't look. But some seem to want to see them, so I put the link up. Requesting pictures seems to be a trend here lately.

[Wolfcounsel]

I looked. There is really "nothing" to see.