I second that Bridgette! You are totally right!
I second that Bridgette! You are totally right!
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!





I agree in principle Bridget. However, if the only legal clubs are zero contact 'show clubs', I suspect that there will still be plenty of 'illegal' clubs where lap dances escalate to outright sex acts, and where business degenerates into a revolving door of busts, fines, and plea bargains. This will result in bad publicity for ALL dancers, not just the ones working in 'illegal' clubs.





Actually, it's not strictly true that SB32 sets a new precedent even if it avoids a constitutional challenge. Lots of other states and cities have enacted laws/ordinances which contain each and every provision of SB32 ... i.e. dancer's licensing, hours of business limitations, clothing standards for 'semi-nudity', a sin tax etc. ... just never so many restrictions all in the same law to the best of my knowledge.If SB32 had passed we wouldn't be here next month, no strip club's, no book store's, no toy's and novelties...... nothing!!!!! If passed nothing could have beat it and it would have set a precedence for the rest of the country
It's also not strictly true that SB32 would directly put strip clubs, adult stores etc. out of business. But it would surely make turning a profit more difficult for businesses which obey the law. In actuality, you can bet that the majority of clubs and adult stores will NOT obey the law, starting a revolving door of busts, fines, plea bargains, and more 'illegal' activity inside the clubs and adult stores.




Just for the record here, for all those who aren't familiar with the intimate details of this thing, a clarification of terms is in order. SB32 was the original bill under consideration to restrict strip clubs and other adult businesses. It dealt with that subject and that subject alone. It stalled without passage. What happened on the last day of the legislative session was that a few of the provisions in SB32, including the 10-foot distance rule, got transferred to a different bill that originally was only about drunken driving. That modified bill then passed. In other words, if SB32 had passed in its original form, it might not have been nearly as vulnerable to a court challenge as the "stripped down" version of the restrictions thrown into the bill that did pass.Originally Posted by crazybob
-Ev





Yes I understand that the Missouri appeal is based on a constitutional issue i.e. the state legislature rolled in much of the SB32 anti-dance club regulations into a drunk driving bill, which will surely be struck down on appeal SOLELY based on the fact that the MO constitution prevents their legislature from writing these sort of 'omnibus' bills which attempt to address widely different subjects under the same title. However, without this particular constitutional issue, the individual anti-dance club provisions would probably all survive appeal themselves - which probably means that MO will write and pass a new, dedicated, anti-dance club bill next year containing the same individual anti-dance club provisions, which will be extremely difficult to strike down on appeal.
There is still plenty of room for arguments and thus appeals even if the issues of a bill are identical to that of SB 32 come up in next years session. If the SC's surviive this unconstitutional garbage and a temporary injunction against enforcement is granted this year, I believe it would be better for ALL of the clubs in Missouri to go just TOPLESS with lap dances with or w/o alcohol instead of full nude/ lappers or BYOB. The reason being the Erie-Paps Supreme Court PRECEDENT decision grants the authority of states to regulate NUDE dancing (NOT TOPLESS) based upon the often bogus "secondary effects" theory. When the issue is just "topless" dancing there is no precedent case I am aware of that is detrimental to this industry... Furthermore, the "secondary effects" studies/theories can be challenged and often refuted to our advantage.





'Areas' don't enact laws, politicians do... the Seattle city council is a non-partisan body, not a Democratic or Republican one.Originally Posted by Melonie
The idea that someone can be conscious in America and not understand which side of the aisle is trying to restrict your personal freedoms boggles my mind.
Could you please document your claims that Democratic politicians in the areas you listed did what you claimed they did? Is it true or just more spin that won't stand scrutiny? Thanks in advance...





Federal courts have consistently held that states have 'carte blanche' in regard to regulating alcohol sales. So if you are talking about 'topless' clubs with alcohol, there's a mountain of precedent that favors just about any regulation that states want to impose. If you're talking about 'topless' clubs without alcohol, then you're correct about a lack of precedent. However, 'topless' clubs without alcohol do have a major precedent regarding extremely poor earnings potential !When the issue is just "topless" dancing there is no precedent case I am aware of that is detrimental to this industry...





In the case of NYC, Lodi NJ, and a bunch of other localities in the general area, Democrats have taken a very active role in regulating clubs. However, their purpose was not so much motivated by 'moral' issues. Rather, it was motivated by financial issues. In NYC's case, regulating the clubs was a prerequisite to convincing Disney et. al. to invest in Manhattan, which greatly increased the city's tax base. In Lodi, NJ's case, the motivation was suburban property values and the ability to attract ex-pat New Yorkers. In a LI case, the motivation was NIMBY i.e. having a strip club in the next township is fine, but not in an 'exclusive' area mainly consisting of the vacation homes of rich NY liberals.Could you please document your claims that Democratic politicians in the areas you listed did what you claimed they did? Is it true or just more spin that won't stand scrutiny? Thanks in advance...
Yes, certainly states have the right to regulate alcohol sales, but specifically related to the issue of "secondary effects" of topless stripclubs that serve alcohol and offer lap dances; the "topless only"/alcohol/lapper clubs have greater likilihood of NOT being regulated out of business by the courts than do clubs that are full nude, offer alcohol and lappers as based on the Erie-Paps Supreme Court (not Federal) decision. There are many areas of the country where nude/alcohol and laps exist w/o any of the "secondary effects" claims, whether or not the cities/states are successful in regulating them out of business based upon the often bogus "secondary effects" theories,(i.e. Missouri) (Nashville, Knoxville, TN, Seattle, WA) is critical to these types of clubs survival everywhere.Originally Posted by Melonie





Sorry, but we have a wide disagreement here. If a state liquor board can say to a club ... "if you want a liquor license your dancers MUST maintain a 6ft distance from customers at all times while topless, if you want a liquor license your club MUST NOT have any 'private areas' which are not in full view of the main club area and bar", with no other legal justification necessary beyond stating that these are the state's rules if the club (or any bar, restaurant or other business) wants a liquor license, then I fail to see where such liquor license regulations affecting 'topless' alcohol clubs are more difficult to enact or any easier to challenge than the 'secondary effects' vs 'first amendment' tack which some states have chosen to take to enact anti-dance club laws affecting 'topless' clubs.the "topless only"/alcohol/lapper clubs have greater likilihood of NOT being regulated out of business by the courts than do clubs that are full nude, offer alcohol and lappers as based on the Erie-Paps Supreme Court (not Federal) decision.
Your point is certainly well taken Melonie, and it does depend on the cities/states involved; however if you take a look at the TRENDS so far i.e. Seattle, WA, Nashville & Knoxville TN, Missouri, etc. ALL of these places involve NUDE dancing and or alcohol/ BYOB. Seattle doesn't offer alcohol as an option in their nude clubs, but you still have Erie-Paps as the guiding light precedent decision if the clubs lose the first few rounds as this decision doesn't distinct between alcohol or no alcohol. I would suspect that many clubs whether they are topless/lappers and alcohol or nude/ no alcohol/ alcohol/lapppers begin to consistently and successfully refute some of the "secondary effects" allegations that are used often just as a guise to regulate them out of business, and that we probably will have a new precedent case based upon this decided in the next year or so.
Bookmarks