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

[Crabtownboy]

Watch out, tight blue jeans probably will be illegal in Montana. Certainly leotards will be a no, no.

Frankly, this should be a joke put in clean humor, but it is serious business in Montana.

And here I thought Republicans, especially conservative Republicans want government out of our lives.

This nation faces many struggles: deep deficits, malicious foreign hackers, rapidly changing climate. And yoga pants.

Perhaps you don't agree with the last item. Let Montana state Representative David Moore, a Republican from Missoula, explain the need for greater modesty. After a pack of naked bicyclists pedaled through his hometown, Moore decided the state needed to strengthen its indecent exposure laws.

The proposal would expand indecent exposure law to include any nipple exposure, including men’s, and any garment that “gives the appearance or simulates” a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple.

The Republican from Missoula said tight-fitting beige clothing could be considered indecent exposure under his proposal.

“Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,” Moore said after the hearing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ore-war-on-yoga-pants-illegal-speedos/385409/

 

[Alcott]

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

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

 

[Crabtownboy]

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

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

Not on the topic. The topic is about outlawing yoga pants and other tight fitting clothing.


Doesn't matter what I favor or not. The Supreme Court has ruled that anti-nudity laws are illegal. I would not participate in such an activity and I do not favor others doing so.

Do you want the government telling you what you can wear and what you cannot legally wear?

 

[Alcott]

Doesn't matter what I favor or not.

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

The Supreme Court has ruled that anti-nudity laws are illegal. I would not participate in such an activity and I do not favor others doing so.

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

Do you want the government telling you what you can wear and what you cannot legally wear?

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)?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Not on the topic. The topic is about outlawing yoga pants and other tight fitting clothing.

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

Doesn't matter what I favor or not. The Supreme Court has ruled that anti-nudity laws are illegal.

The supreme court has ruled no such thing.

 

[Crabtownboy]

cott;2191288]Why a topic about something you don't favor or disfavor?

Outlawing items of clothing like yoga pants, leotards, etc. If these can be outlawed why not tight blue jeans, tight men's shirts, men's shirts unbuttoned past the top two buttons. What a can of worms.

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

Prove the statement from the article I quoted incorrect.

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)?

Questions demanding a simple yes or now are usually irrational questions aimed at boxing a person into a corner and does not allow discussion.

So, a yes or no from you. Should government pass laws against tight clothing? [/SIZE]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Prove the statement from the article I quoted incorrect.

Your article claims the opposite of what you are saying.

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

 

[targus]

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

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."

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

 

[Jerome]

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

Joy Anna Duggar’s Wacky Workout Wear

the Duggar family enjoyed a buffet-style Christmas dinner over the holidays, so maybe Joy Anna was trying to work off some of that tater tot casserole.

“Joy was tearin’ it up in the workout room today!” Jessa captioned on Instagram the video. “She beat her previous record by parallel squatting 145 pounds!!

 

[Alcott]

Prove the statement from the article I quoted incorrect.

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.

Questions demanding a simple yes or now are usually irrational questions aimed at boxing a person into a corner and does not allow discussion.

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

So, a yes or no from you. Should government pass laws against tight clothing?

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

 

[OldRegular]

After a pack of naked bicyclists pedaled through his hometown, Moore decided the state needed to strengthen its indecent exposure laws.

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.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

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

: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.

 

[InTheLight]

Do you want the government telling you what you can wear and what you cannot legally wear?

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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

 

[Crabtownboy]

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?

 

[InTheLight]

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.

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.

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

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?

 

[PreachTony]

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.

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.

 

[Salty]

And here I thought Republicans, especially conservative Republicans want government out of our lives.

IMHO, the purpose of govt is to protect you from other people. And I would agree that citizens have a right not to see people going naked in public. Thus the govt is protecting you from others.
However, you did bring up a good point. Suppose the town wanted to outlaw open - toe shoes.
Or even worse - what if the town passed a law saying women could only wear dresses.
So the 64,000 dollar question: where do we draw the line and who decides where we draw the line.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

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.

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