Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

  1. #1
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    With all of the talk and actions being taken in regards to overly restrictive SC legislation across our country, I would think a good attorney could argue that the privacy rights of "consenting adults" using Lawrence VS. Texas even though this case dealt with sodomy laws, the PRIVACY implications could be far reaching and maybe very beneficial as a PRECEDENT decision in combatting any anti SC legislation... What do you all think?

    LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.”
    —Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, agreeing with the majority.

    The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote.

    Though Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia offered a dissenting opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, in which they argued for a state's ability to establish a "moral code" of conduct, they were in the minority. The Lawrence decision,"can be reasonably interpreted as holding that public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    575
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 176 Times in 70 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Goings on in strip clubs are not private, they are in a public place of business, and even if it was a "member's only" type of club, the fact that money is being exchanged makes it a business transaction, not the mutually consenting private sexual act which occurs in this case, i.e. two adults having anal sex in private.

    The points of this case were 1)precedent 2)equal protection whether they are homosexual or heterosexual 3)due process-in this case when it came to their privacy

    In any case where incidents occurring in a strip club are brought to court, the issue is bound to be the exchange of money for certain sexual acts, however the city/county/state is defining those acts. Rights to privacy go out the window when you take the free striptease you give your boyfriend and put it in a public place where he is giving you twenty dollars.

    So, maybe if you're dancing for free this case could be applicable, otherwise, I doubt it.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    I agree that SC's are for the most part public places, but there are private-"members only" clubs where you have to buy memberships like Diamonds in Centerville, Ohio. Also, some VIP rooms are secluded which is at least semi private...I would definetly think this case is relevant to private "swingers clubs", as no direct $$$ is exchanged and maybe in some instances even stripclubs.
    Last edited by laplover69; 08-07-2006 at 03:35 AM.

  4. #4
    God/dess Bridgette's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Gettin the fuck outta Dodge!
    Posts
    14,241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    I'm thinking if they reached far enough to include activities in a strip club, they'd be effectively legalizing prostitution - even saying that states can't make it illegal. And that ain't gonna happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by pheno View Post
    When you lead a nontraditional life don't try to measure it with traditional milestones.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    An attorney could reasonably argue that in members only "private clubs" in a semi-private or private VIP room that a patron is just paying for a dancers "private time" and anything sexual HJ, BJ, FS could be construed as a voluntary "tip" thus not prostitution... I would think that if pushed this case should at least protect "lapdances" in cases where no "sex acts" occur. The Feds dropped ALL charges against Extreme Associates and Rob Black after the Lawrence decision and even though that is hard-core nasty stuff-it's all done for $$$. Swingers clubs should definetly be less regulated as a result of this decision IMHO . Will be interesting to see if this case can be used effectively to counter the efforts of the Theocracy based FASCIST groups like Scott Bergthold-Community Defense Counsel, Phill Burress-Alliance Defense Fund, Citizens For Community Values. Etc.
    Last edited by laplover69; 08-07-2006 at 05:02 AM.

  6. #6
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    If walks like prostitution, quacks like prostitution, looks like prostitution - it's prostitution!

    That's what any jury would say. You are asking for a pipe dream.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    166
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    The problem is that the exchange of money or lack thereof is not what mattered to the court in Lawerence. carolina is right on: it was a fourteenth amendment equal protection clause with a dash of due process thrown in so money doesn't matter. The moment a third party, be it another club patron, a bartendter, anyone, there is no more privacy or expectation thereof. The law does not recognize "semi-private," so there goes that. Nor does it Nor does it give anyone a end around by saying "well, it was just a tip, not a payment.

    That being said, the Black case is interesting. It could well be the feds are heading in that direction, that is, being much more permissive in terms of the sex industry, just not under Lawrence. Lawrence is still way big, though, and will be bigger once it's sister case hits the court from up here in Massachusetts, Goodridge. Remember, we did let two lesbians wed.

    What Laplover is onto isn't SCs. It's the nationwide legalization of gay marriage. And lots of other stuff.

    But that's for another thread. To keep it simple. I'm with Carolina. Keep thy dances in private.

    Siber, Esq.

    PS: Way cool thread, Laplover
    "Maybe you'll ask me to come back again and
    Maybe I'll say.... Maybe"

  8. #8
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Though Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia offered a dissenting opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, in which they argued for a state's ability to establish a "moral code" of conduct, they were in the minority. The Lawrence decision,"can be reasonably interpreted as holding that public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."

    "PUBLIC MORALITY i.e. (stripclubs?) not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality." ???? I would hope some good pro stripclub attorney like Luke Lirot or Jon Roger Diamond is working on this...

  9. #9
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Quote Originally Posted by laplover69
    An attorney could reasonably argue that in members only "private clubs" in a semi-private or private VIP room that a patron is just paying for a dancers "private time" and anything sexual HJ, BJ, FS could be construed as a voluntary "tip" thus not prostitution... I would think that if pushed this case should at least protect "lapdances" in cases where no "sex acts" occur. The Feds dropped ALL charges against Extreme Associates and Rob Black after the Lawrence decision and even though that is hard-core nasty stuff-it's all done for $$$. Swingers clubs should definetly be less regulated as a result of this decision IMHO . Will be interesting to see if this case can be used effectively to counter the efforts of the Theocracy based FASCIST groups like Scott Bergthold-Community Defense Counsel, Phill Burress-Alliance Defense Fund, Citizens For Community Values. Etc.
    I think the only way you could legally argue that Lawarence vs. Texas could apply to a strip show is if it is in a truly private venue, like a home or in a bar/nightclub that closed to the public and only opened to those holding invitations (like the owner of the bar throws a bachelor party for a buddy in his establishment and closes to the public that day).

    If you truly wish for prostitution to be legalized, you are going to have to vote libritarian.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  10. #10
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    I think the only way you could legally argue that Lawarence vs. Texas could apply to a strip show is if it is in a truly private venue, like a home or in a bar/nightclub that closed to the public and only opened to those holding invitations (like the owner of the bar throws a bachelor party for a buddy in his establishment and closes to the public that day).

    If you truly wish for prostitution to be legalized, you are going to have to vote libritarian.

    I am very much a Libertarian at heart, they just don't get elected...Would have to agree with you in general, but creative attorneys have plenty of wiggle room arguments as a result of the Lawrence decision that could be very favorable for the SC industry in combatting overly restrictive legislation...

  11. #11
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    575
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 176 Times in 70 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    That's funny that you mention Diamond's in Centerville, as I am a member there Pure Platinum (now known as Vanity) in Columbus, used to be a membership club also.

    I don't see a lawyer seriously trying to argue that a case of say, giving a hand job in a private membership club, where the customer paid for half an hour of a girl's "time" and the hand job was consensual, private, between consenting adults, and claiming precedent under lawrence v kansas. I think it would be shot down. If the case had actually dealt with anything like dancing...say one of the guys was a dancer in a gay bar and met the other man in the bathroom after being tipped...then there would be a case. These were two men having sex in the privacy of a home. The case was not even about their privacy so much as the fact that they were being discriminated against as homosexuals. Heterosexuals having anal sex was not on the books as illegal, which was a big part of the case.

    I think you are reading too much into the term "privacy". It's not your right to have sex with goats or children or snort cocaine just because you are in the privacy of your home. You do have the right to privacy, but when there is a "compelling interest" to stop something that you are doing in private, then the state can step in. The compelling interest in a strip club case would be an act of sex in exchange for money. Just like if you had a private club where you snorted cocaine or hacked into peoples' home computers, the state would have a compelling interest to stop you, as your acts are illegal, though private.

    There is a lot of info on due process on wikipedia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

    Public morality is not at the heart of most strip club cases. It is what causes crackdowns and laws like 6 foot away dances, but it does not effect the illegality of sex for money. Prostitution is indeed a moral issue, but until the law is changed, it is first and foremost a legal issue.

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    If walks like prostitution, quacks like prostitution, looks like prostitution - it's prostitution!
    Actually, under the precedent of Lawrence vs. Texas, it's very arguable that every law that controls interaction between 'consenting adults' in a 'private setting' is now unconstitutional ... including prostitution laws. In fact, I have been privy to a couple of conversations among clubowners on this subject ... with speculation that if VIP rooms were made 100% private (no surveillance, no bouncers, locking doors with key cards), and if the club rented out VIP rooms by the 1/2 hour or hour in compliance with local hotel / motel laws, then under Lawrence vs. Texas anything taking place between the 'consenting adults' in the VIP room would be 100% legal. The state can indeed regulate sex in public places, and the state can also regulate sex from a health standpoint, but under the Lawrence vs. Texas precedent the state can't legislate that sex between 'consenting adults' is illegal under certain circumstances but legal in other circumstances (theoretically now a violation of equal treatment under the law).

    You do have the right to privacy, but when there is a "compelling interest" to stop something that you are doing in private, then the state can step in
    Ah yes, but the Lawrence vs Texas precedent specifically shot down attempts by the states to legislate morality between two 'consenting adults'. In your other examples there is a "victim" i.e. harm done as with your computer hacking example. Underaged persons are legally incapable of giving legal 'consent', so that sort of interaction fails the 'consenting adults' test. As to bestiality now being legal, nobody has yet figured out how to legally determine whether the sheep is of legal age and 'consenting' or not !!!

    Lawrence vs Texas opened up a serious new can of worms in terms of legal precedent. However, with Roberts and Alito now on the Supreme Court, the ACLU and most other groups have been extremely reluctant to try and 'push their luck' by stretching the precedent, because the odds are that any follow-up case to now be brought before the Supreme Court would see Lawrence vs Texas reversed.
    Last edited by Melonie; 08-07-2006 at 07:09 PM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    166
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Mmmm.... but remember that the law does treat the home differently in other areas. For example, you have greater protection from the police searching and seizing your stuff under the fourth amendment in your home and, and so many colleagues have pointed out, lawrence was in his home, and SCs aren't homes. Granted, this is not a fourth amendment issue (it's 14th and 5th, mostly 14th) but usually courts take guidance from what they did with other amendments.

    And why not give more protection elsewhere? I kinda think that I should have more protection from the government in my own bedroom than anywhere else... as should we all... yes?

    If anything, the moral code stuff may well intersect with the 1st amendment, but no one's sure it does. That's what blew and is blowing everyone's mind. I mean, abortion, all that stuff, is first amendment law. Your right to privacy is under freedom-o-speech, so everyone figured so too was your right to do everything else private, but no... it's under the 14th which... for those what slept through 10th grade history... was designed to protect freed slaves.

    Got all that?

    All true.

    Siber
    "Maybe you'll ask me to come back again and
    Maybe I'll say.... Maybe"

  14. #14
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    ^^^ hotel / motel laws give rented private rooms (theoretically including totally private VIP rooms rented by the 1/2 hour) the same legal status as homes for the duration of the rental.

    As I said, a couple of high profile clubowners were making plans to seriously do this right after the Lawrence ruling came out - but changed their minds when Roberts and Alito came onto the Supreme Court. I guess their thinking was that it was too risky to pony up major bucks to try and make the filings and changes necessary to have their VIP rooms classified as a motel business, and then pay legal fees to fight the inevitable local court challenges, with the strong possibility that the new Supreme Court would reverse the precedent as the result of a follow-up case.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    166
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Oooo! Watch it Melonie! Lots of Fed court rulings (which I can't get just now, it being late) that hold prostitutes are victims as they are pushed into the life by pimps, and, thus, can't consent, so any sex for money isn't consentual.

    Hey, I don't write it.

    Siber

    And they are not not not not not going to reverse Lawrence. It was a huge seminal groundbreaking decision! Court doesn't move like that. It steers like a battleship, not like a sportscar. Maybe they alter it, not reverse it outright. It's around a while, like it or not.
    Last edited by Siber; 08-07-2006 at 07:31 PM.
    "Maybe you'll ask me to come back again and
    Maybe I'll say.... Maybe"

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    166
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    ^^^ Depends on the fed circuit. Some have held that yes, you're right, some no, cuz teh manager has a key.

    You're good.

    Siber
    "Maybe you'll ask me to come back again and
    Maybe I'll say.... Maybe"

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    And they are not not not not not going to reverse Lawrence. It was a huge seminal groundbreaking decision! Court doesn't move like that. It steers like a battleship, not like a sportscar. Maybe they alter it, not reverse it outright. It's around a while, like it or not.
    Seminal indeed LOL ! I really don't want to get too far off the point here, but certain powers that be would LOVE to see Lawrence reversed. If the 'new' right to privately engage in gay sex without moral interference from the states granted under Lawrence were to be legally and inseparably linked to similar 'new' rights to legalized prostitution, legalized polygamy etc. such that either they all had to be illegal or all had to be legal on the same 'consenting adults' equal treatment basis, there would be huge support for a reversal.

    Attempting to 'poke around' for legal ways to differentiate the 'new' right to consensual gay sex under Lawrence while still excluding consensual sex with a tip thrown in, while still excluding consensual polygamous relationships etc. in order to allow consensual gay sex to remain beyond the reach of the states while the others are still fair game for state legal prohibitions would be the legal equivalent of 'walking through a mine field' - which could very well result in an explosion of Lawrence with Roberts and Alito now on the big bench. And if GWB manages to get one more Supreme Court appointment in over the course of the next 2 years ... fugeddaboudit.
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 08-07-2006 at 08:10 PM.

  18. #18
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Seminal indeed LOL ! I really don't want to get too far off the point here, but certain powers that be would LOVE to see Lawrence reversed. If the 'new' right to privately engage in gay sex without moral interference from the states granted under Lawrence were to be legally and inseparably linked to similar 'new' rights to legalized prostitution, legalized polygamy etc. such that either they all had to be illegal or all had to be legal on the same 'consenting adults' equal treatment basis, there would be huge support for a reversal.

    Attempting to 'poke around' for legal ways to differentiate the 'new' right to consensual gay sex under Lawrence while still excluding consensual sex with a tip thrown in, while still excluding consensual polygamous relationships etc. in order to allow consensual gay sex to remain beyond the reach of the states while the others are still fair game for state legal prohibitions would be the legal equivalent of 'walking through a mine field' - which could very well result in an explosion of Lawrence with Roberts and Alito now on the big bench. And if GWB manages to get one more Supreme Court appointment in over the course of the next 2 years ... fugeddaboudit.
    ~
    I don't think Roberts is much for overturning "precedent" cases and this was a 6-3 decision...Probably here to stay for a good while. If the religious right continues to attempt and force their fascist theocracy agenda upon the rest of us, I'm sure some club owners will test the boundaries of how far reaching this Lawrence decision can be. This is bound to happen cause there are now cities where just legitimate "lapdancing" is banned as a result of the religious organizations legislating their morality i.e. Nashville, TN Covington, KY and up for a vote in Scottsdale, AZ just to name a few.
    Last edited by laplover69; 08-07-2006 at 09:07 PM.

  19. #19
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    ^^^ agreed that the status of 'lapdancing' is under attack by local govt's in various cities from coast to coast. Also agreed that the ultimate legal resolution of the status of 'lapdancing' is inexorably tied to a state's right to regulate 'sexual conduct' between consenting adults (or lack thereof) ... an issue which was arguably changed by the Lawrence decision.

    Some strip clubs have taken cases against local regulations all the way to the Supreme Court in the past, with mixed results. However, there has never really been a consistent legal philosophy set down by the Supreme Court beyond a general agreeement that local govt's do have the right to regulate the 'time, place and manner' of strip club operations, and a general agreement that 'free speech' protections for exotic dancers do not fall under the the stronger 'inner ambit' protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Another aspect is that in the past the costs of taking cases all the way to the top court in the land have mostly been borne by the ACLU or other groups. In the last couple of years, the ACLU has backed away from helping clubowners - arguably because they do not want the principles of Lawrence scrutinized again either. This effectively translates into whatever clubowner or group of clubowners who wish to pursue the Lawrence precedent having to be prepared to spend millions on legal fees out of their own pockets - which is not going to happen easily.

  20. #20
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    ^^^ agreed that the status of 'lapdancing' is under attack by local govt's in various cities from coast to coast. Also agreed that the ultimate legal resolution of the status of 'lapdancing' is inexorably tied to a state's right to regulate 'sexual conduct' between consenting adults (or lack thereof) ... an issue which was arguably changed by the Lawrence decision.

    Some strip clubs have taken cases against local regulations all the way to the Supreme Court in the past, with mixed results. However, there has never really been a consistent legal philosophy set down by the Supreme Court beyond a general agreeement that local govt's do have the right to regulate the 'time, place and manner' of strip club operations, and a general agreement that 'free speech' protections for exotic dancers do not fall under the the stronger 'inner ambit' protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Another aspect is that in the past the costs of taking cases all the way to the top court in the land have mostly been borne by the ACLU or other groups. In the last couple of years, the ACLU has backed away from helping clubowners - arguably because they do not want the principles of Lawrence scrutinized again either. This effectively translates into whatever clubowner or group of clubowners who wish to pursue the Lawrence precedent having to be prepared to spend millions on legal fees out of their own pockets - which is not going to happen easily.


    Agreed, but the "time" and "manner" restrictions should be valid ONLY if the perceived negative "secondary effects" theories can be proven on a LOCAL level. IMHO
    Last edited by laplover69; 08-09-2006 at 03:08 AM.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    166
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Seminal indeed LOL !
    ~




    Dear lord, I never noticed how much we lawyers need to get out... using words like that, joining the "bar...." ........ He said, typing a response to the law thread on SW.... not that this isn't cool!

    Ok, my lady (who is a member here) is on vacation and therefore can't stop me so here goes.

    The most important person here isn't Bush it's Roberts cuz he's Chief Justice. That means he's the only person on the planet that can stop Anthony Kennedy from writing the opinion in Goodridge v. Medford.

    Kenndedy? Who's he? You may ask. Well, if you're paying very close attention he's a Reagan appointee who wrote all the "gay rights" opinions since Royer. He's got this mad constitutional agenda that really doesn't have much to do with gays or prostitution. He is, however, using gays as a vehicle to get his agenda furthered, as the plight of homosexuals (and the timing of the gay rights movement) gives him the chance.

    What he wants to do is huge. Kennedy really believes in the depths of his supreme court justice soul is this: There is a clause in the 14th amendment that says this: "No state shall deny any citizen equal protection under the law." That was written in 1871 to protect the rights of freed slaves. No one, ever, EVER, has taken it literally. I mean, hell? If everyone was really equal, 5-year olds could drive.

    Well, Kennedy thinks equal means equal. Period. Driving kids and all! Don't like it? Amend the constitution.

    So why hasn't he done it earlier? Well, he couldn't. Judges can't just say, this is the law. They need the right case. And that case is Goodridge. In Lawrence, Kennedy said, "I'd do this if I had x, y, z." In the state opinion of Goodridge (two lesbians marrying), MA state supreme Cheif Justice Marshall gave him x y and z.

    So lets assume Goodridge comes up and Goodridge wins (which would make some sense considering Lawrence won. If she loses, we can all go home). Does Kennedy write? Depends. If Roberts votes the way Rhenquist would've (that is, AGAINST gay marriage) then he sure does, cuz he's the most senior guy in the majority. Then, drop a nuke on the constituion and let our great great grandchildren sort it out. If Roberts votes FOR gay marriage, then..... hmmmmm.... it gets interesting....

    We get gay marriage...... but perhaps less collateral damage........

    And the stuff we're talking about HERE..... believe it or not..... is collateral damage.

    At least collateral damage of THIS opinion...... There are others that still matter quite a bit to SCs, privacy, etc. There are whole classes one could take.

    Ok. Sorry if that was boring.

    Siber
    "Maybe you'll ask me to come back again and
    Maybe I'll say.... Maybe"

  22. #22
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Well, driving isn't a right - it is a priviledge. So that is how they work it to screw people over ya know. They say - "this isn't a right, it is a priviledge" and so they can decide who it applies to.

    See, they like to say marriage is a right - but as soon as they start licensing it - it becomes a priviledge. If it was a right, there would be no need for a license to get married. Who is to say who can and cannot get married and spend their lives together?

    As I understand it, the whole license thing came up to prevent blacks and whites from marrying in the south.

    One has to watch out for the government changing rights into priviledges. Right now it is happening with privacy in a big way.

  23. #23
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    MAYBE THIS WILL BE THE CASE WHERE LAWRENCE AND "PRIVACY" RIGHTS ARE TESTED WITH THE HELP OF THE ACLU?...DON'T SF DANCERS BELONG TO SOME UNION?

    SAN FRANCISCO Exotic dancers are protesting a move by San Francisco officials to ban private rooms in adult clubs.

    Several dancers spoke at a hearing of the city's Entertainment Commission yesterday.

    The dancers say the private rooms give them a safe place to work, and that they are more exposed to abuse at hotels or clients' homes.

    The dancers also say the ban would hurt their livelihood.

    City officials proposed the legislation after they heard reports that there was illicit sexual activity in some private rooms.

    The commission will take the issue up again at its next meeting later this month. If the commission approves the ordinance, it would then go to the Board of Supervisors.

  24. #24
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    ^^^ certainly the 'raw material' is there for a court challenge, should the Board pass this new ordinance. However, I suspect that the ACLU won't be volunteering to slug it out with SF city officials in support of clubowners at the ACLU's expense. Again, from a certain viewpoint, there is a behind the scenes conflict of interest here ... and for the same reason. Lawrence vs. Texas, and the ACLU support of that case, was based on gay rights. SF city officials have been one of the more outspoken proponents of gay rights. While Lawrence vs Texas broached issues of 'privacy' and the rights of 'consenting adults' to engage in sexual activities frowned on by the state (of Texas), in California and in SF in particular the state is trying to sit on both sides of the fence ! If the issue comes down to 'all or nothing' i.e. the legal principle arguably established in Lawrence vs Texas applies to both gays in bedrooms and dancers in VIP rooms such that they're either both protected or both not protected, all hell would break loose in SF ! Throw in the legalized prostitution movement which already exists on the west coast and there is a real chance that an 'all or nothing' ruling would result in support of Lawrence vis a vis gay rights plus legalized prostitution, legalized polygamy, etc.

    Like the recent settlement agreement DejaVu entered into to avoid a court ruling being made re 'employee' dancers, IMHO neither the SF city officials nor the clubowners nor the ACLU nor the gay rights people want this issue ruled on officially at a state or federal level, because none of these groups wants the 'total package' such an official ruling would likely entail. Put bluntly, both California clubowners and SF city officials really do not want to see prostitution legalized !
    Last edited by Melonie; 08-09-2006 at 03:40 AM.

  25. #25
    Veteran Member laplover69's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: SC' LAWS & LAWRENCE VS TEXAS

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    ^^^ certainly the 'raw material' is there for a court challenge, should the Board pass this new ordinance. However, I suspect that the ACLU won't be volunteering to slug it out with SF city officials in support of clubowners at the ACLU's expense. Again, from a certain viewpoint, there is a behind the scenes conflict of interest here ... and for the same reason. Lawrence vs. Texas, and the ACLU support of that case, was based on gay rights. SF city officials have been one of the more outspoken proponents of gay rights. While Lawrence vs Texas broached issues of 'privacy' and the rights of 'consenting adults' to engage in sexual activities frowned on by the state (of Texas), in California and in SF in particular the state is trying to sit on both sides of the fence ! If the issue comes down to 'all or nothing' i.e. the legal principle arguably established in Lawrence vs Texas applies to both gays in bedrooms and dancers in VIP rooms such that they're either both protected or both not protected, all hell would break loose in SF ! Throw in the legalized prostitution movement which already exists on the west coast and there is a real chance that an 'all or nothing' ruling would result in support of Lawrence vis a vis gay rights plus legalized prostitution, legalized polygamy, etc.

    Like the recent settlement agreement DejaVu entered into to avoid a court ruling being made re 'employee' dancers, IMHO neither the SF city officials nor the clubowners nor the ACLU nor the gay rights people want this issue ruled on officially at a state or federal level, because none of these groups wants the 'total package' such an official ruling would likely entail. Put bluntly, both California clubowners and SF city officials really do not want to see prostitution legalized !
    A lot of the SF SC's have been basically brothels from what I understand, and the dancers like the feeling of being in a safe working environment compared to being an outcall "ESCORT"; which Lawrence facially legalizes w/o the $$$ being specifically exchanged for sex...? Maybe an escort agency that gets busted for prostitution will also test the parameters of the Lawrence decision?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. laws in texas?
    By Aslinn in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-19-2011, 07:24 PM
  2. Laws for dancing in Texas?
    By Naida in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 06:10 PM
  3. Houston, Texas New Laws?
    By laplover69 in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-16-2007, 12:44 PM
  4. Lapdance Marathon: Laws & Logistics
    By Yekhefah in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-10-2007, 04:03 PM
  5. Texas Laws?
    By AlwaysGabrielle in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2006, 06:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •