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

[InTheLight]

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?"

No to the speech and no to the religion because they are protected under the U.S. constitution.

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?

Not based on religious grounds.

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.'

Offensive materials may or may not fall under the free speech clause of the constitution.

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.

Then explain how the FCC can ban swear words, nudity, and explicit sex acts on over the air TV?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

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?"

I have no say in an area I choose not to live.

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.

In Petersham Massachusetts, the townsfolk have decided that you can only paint your house white.

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.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting offensive clothing.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Going to admit your mistake, C.T. Boy ?

 

[OldRegular]

And here I thought all you good conservatives wanted government out of our lives. So much for freedom and being left alone y'all scream about.

So what should be illegal.

Can a man not wear a shirt and show his nipples? Should that be illegal?

Its the Marxists like you and Obamma and the Federal government that most people want out of their lives.

The Federal Government has two major responsibilities, deliver the mail and defend the country. Delivering the mail has been in trouble for years and under Obamma defending the country is in last place!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Its the Marxists like you and Obamma and the Federal government that most people want out of their lives.

The Federal Government has two major responsibilities, deliver the mail and defend the country. Delivering the mail has been in trouble for years and under Obamma defending the country is in last place!

Should the government, state or federal, tell you what clothes you can legally wear?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Going to admit your mistake, C.T. Boy ?

Nope, I made no mistake. It is a Montana politician in the Montana state government. It is not the federal government. But that is beside the point. Do you want the Montana state government to dictate what clothing is legal or illegal?

Also, why do you continually try to derail your own threads?

 

[PreachTony]

In Petersham Massachusetts, the townsfolk have decided that you can only paint your house white.

Is that a law or an agreed upon code? Kind of like my HOA agrees that you should keep your mailbox and post clean, but they cannot legally prosecute you if it gets dirty...

There is nothing in the constitution protecting offensive clothing.

No doubt. My only concern on your comment, Curtis, was the vagueness of the wording. Using the phrase "what they see as offensive" is what opens the can of worms. Some people, believe it or not, are offended by the American Flag (simply the symbol of our nation). Some people are offended by the Bible (the cornerstone printed document of entire faiths). Some people are offended by a swastika (an ancient far east sign, known as the gammadion cross, which is revered as a sacred symbol in eastern religions, yet was co-opted by Nazi Germany and turned into a symbol of hate).

Unless there is an agreed upon definition of what is and is not offensive, then we continue to tread that fine line. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

See ? You haven't read this thread. or you're being purposefully dishonest.

You made this clam…..(Ha ! Freudian typo)

The Supreme Court has ruled that anti-nudity laws are illegal.

Care to correct this ? Or am I a slanderer ?

Also, why do you continually try to derail your own threads?

Ummm, this is YOUR thread.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Is that a law or an agreed upon code? Kind of like my HOA agrees that you should keep your mailbox and post clean, but they cannot legally prosecute you if it gets dirty…

It's a local ordinance.

No doubt. My only concern on your comment, Curtis, was the vagueness of the wording. Using the phrase "what they see as offensive" is what opens the can of worms. Some people, believe it or not, are offended by the American Flag (simply the symbol of our nation). Some people are offended by the Bible (the cornerstone printed document of entire faiths). Some people are offended by a swastika (an ancient far east sign, known as the gammadion cross, which is revered as a sacred symbol in eastern religions, yet was co-opted by Nazi Germany and turned into a symbol of hate).

Agreed.

Unless there is an agreed upon definition of what is and is not offensive, then we continue to tread that fine line. That's all I was trying to say.

I agree with that as well. It's a slippery slope. But I don't want the feds involved, either way.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It's a local ordinance.

So do you want your local government telling you what you can legally wear?


Is it OK for a man from India to wear a turban?
Is it OK for a Scotsman to wear a kilt?

Where does the line stop even at the local level?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

C.T.Boy, you have a mistake to address. Are you going to do it ?

Do you think it's rational to ignore this ?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Because if you aren't going to correct your statement, then I'm pretty sure your caterwauling over my other thread can be written off as a bunch of hypocritical horse manure.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Tell you what. You admit you were wrong about the supreme court and I'll fix my thread title for you.

Deal ?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Tell you what. You admit you were wrong about the supreme court and I'll fix my thread title for you.

Deal ?

Nope, I was right as seen below. Prove to me that the sentence in the article is wrong.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against a government crackdown on broadcast profanity and nudity, saying the Federal Communications Commission had not given fair notice of its policy change in three high-profile incidents.

The unanimous high court ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, declared that the FCC's standards were vague as applied to the broadcasts at issue in the case.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...usa-televsion-indecency-idUSBRE85K10W20120621

[sizd="3"]The Supreme Court in its 1975 decision Doran v. Salem Inn again hinted that at least some nude dancing merits a degree of First Amendment protection. The case grew out of an ordinance passed by the town of North Hempstead, N.Y., that prohibited waitresses, barmaids and entertainers from exposing their breasts in public.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:laugh::laugh:Not at all on-topic. Your challenge is based on personal attire-in-public laws, not any broadcast decency laws, or laws concerning private establishments. Strip clubs are not part of this. Stop trying to squirm out of your own words.

The Supreme Court has ruled that anti-nudity laws are illegal.

Show us this ruling. And remember you cited your original article as proof of this.



Now you want us to look somewhere else.:laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

:laugh::laugh:Not at all on-topic. Your challenge is based on personal attire-in-public laws, not any broadcast decency laws, or laws concerning private establishments. Strip clubs are not part of this. Stop trying to squirm out of your own words.Show us this ruling. And remember you cited your original article as proof of this.



Now you want us to look somewhere else.:laugh:

It really does not matter what I post or how accurate it is ... you would never agree. That is easily seen as you will not admit that you were wrong in your understanding of the word "wimp" even though shown by several dictionary definitions that the word has absolutely nothing to do with testosterone.

Let's go on to another topic.

And you have yet to answer any of my questions about what clothing would be legal or illegal. Let's try that and stay on the OP topic, OK?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Crabtownboy, don't be a wimp, and admit that you misread your link about the supreme court, and it caused you to make an errant statement. They have not ruled anti-nudity laws illegal. Just say it. Then I'll fix the title of my thread about testosterone.

 

[Revmitchell]

It really does not matter what I post or how accurate it is ... you would never agree. That is easily seen as you will not admit that you were wrong in your understanding of the word "wimp" even though shown by several dictionary definitions that the word has absolutely nothing to do with testosterone.

Let's go on to another topic.

And you have yet to answer any of my questions about what clothing would be legal or illegal. Let's try that and stay on the OP topic, OK?

This has noting to do with broadcast laws and you know it. Just know that this post is seen for what it is.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This has noting to do with broadcast laws and you know it. Just know that this post is seen for what it is.

You must have become confused about what thread you were responding to. No one is talking about broadcast laws. We are talking about government telling you what you can and cannot wear legally.

So Rev. what do you say about the real topic?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabtownboy, don't be a wimp, and admit that you misread your link about the supreme court, and it caused you to make an errant statement. They have not ruled anti-nudity laws illegal. Just say it. Then I'll fix the title of my thread about testosterone.

The quote on the Supreme Court came from the article. It stands as the authority until you prove them wrong. Please do so.