ACLU hits a new low...ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private...

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

It is based on the language of the Constitution, just not the way you want the language to be interpreted.

This is no different than when Fundamentalist Christians get upset when other Christians have a different take on the same Bible...

Don't you get it? It is just your opinion in conflict with someone of a different opinion, it has nothing to do with some absoluteness of the English language that you alone have ownership of.

It would be no different than Fundamentalist Christians wanting to replace liberal Christians in certain Churches with Fundamentalist Christians so that their can indoctrinate according to their belief systems.


A fundamentalist is someone who believes that all issues can be definitively decided by reference to certain fundamental principles and truths. Strict constructionists in constitutional law, biblical fundamentalists, and foundationalists in philosophy all (loosely speaking) share this basic intellectual stance. Such a position is inherently traditionalist, as it defines texts of the past as definitive guides to the changing present. Progressive thinkers believe that texts of the past need to be used as guides but also reinterpreted in light of changing conditions (e.g., the changing role of women in society); a social changes as deviant when they are not accounted for in the texts of the past. Moreover, since each religion has its own foundational (sacred) texts, fundamentalism tends toward separatism which can easily shade into intolerance.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13855.htm

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Wrong. Is it really too much to ask that opinions be based on the language of the Constitution? It is quite clear what the Drafters meant when they used the words "establishment of religion." It certainly had nothing to do with manger scenes or crosses on public property.

 

[Thunderdog]

I think that some of you folks are being just a bit too "intellectual" and putting too fine a point on it. I don't think it is so much the solicitation for sex that is directly at issue, but the actual sex that invariably follows in the bathroom stalls once consent is established. I think that it is the rutting in the next stall that most normal people are upset about. If it were only a matter of solicitation for sex to be conducted elsewhere, you would think that most discerning individuals would seek it from someone of whom they have seen a bit more than just a shoe and a pant cuff. No, the reason for the undercover police involvement is invariably because the sex immediately follows. In a public restroom. Do you people really want to live in world where people are having sex in a public washroom?! And if you're so "worldly" that it does not bother you, then what about the father who is taking his small child to a public restroom?

And as for the solicitation, I find that repugnant as well. Is not the overt solicitation for sex between people who have not even established mutual interest in one form or another, grounds for sexual harassment?

What is it with some of you pseudo intellectuals?

 

[John_Wensink]

This is the inherent problem with liberalism. No common sense, no sense of right and wrong.

How about two men, a man and a women or two women having sex in a public stall is just plain wrong?

If I interpret murder differently than whatever the law says will the ACLU defend me if I put a cap in your hat Z10? or should common sense tell me it's probably wrong and I shouldn't do it?

Geeez.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is based on the language of the Constitution, just not the way you want the language to be interpreted.

This is no different than when Fundamentalist Christians get upset when other Christians have a different take on the same Bible...

Don't you get it? It is just your opinion in conflict with someone of a different opinion, it has nothing to do with some absoluteness of the English language that you alone have ownership of.

It would be no different than Fundamentalist Christians wanting to replace liberal Christians in certain Churches with Fundamentalist Christians so that their can indoctrinate according to their belief systems.


A fundamentalist is someone who believes that all issues can be definitively decided by reference to certain fundamental principles and truths. Strict constructionists in constitutional law, biblical fundamentalists, and foundationalists in philosophy all (loosely speaking) share this basic intellectual stance. Such a position is inherently traditionalist, as it defines texts of the past as definitive guides to the changing present. Progressive thinkers believe that texts of the past need to be used as guides but also reinterpreted in light of changing conditions (e.g., the changing role of women in society); a social changes as deviant when they are not accounted for in the texts of the past. Moreover, since each religion has its own foundational (sacred) texts, fundamentalism tends toward separatism which can easily shade into intolerance.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13855.htm

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So if some man and woman, good looking young folks were having hot sex in a stall and the woman was moaning like a cat in heat, you would call the cops?

I doubt it.

Quote from John_Wensink:

This is the inherent problem with liberalism. No common sense, no sense of right and wrong.

How about two men, a man and a women or two women having sex in a public stall is just plain wrong?

If I interpret murder differently than whatever the law says will the ACLU defend me if I put a cap in your hat Z10? or should common sense tell me it's probably wrong and I shouldn't do it?

Geeez.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So if some man and woman, good looking young folks were having hot sex in a stall and the woman was moaning like a cat in heat, you would call the cops?

I doubt it.

What if you were with your 5-year-old son and he needed to use the public restroom?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Kids gotta lean about sex sometime...

It too is a bodily function.

Quote from Thunderdog:

What if you were with your 5-year-old son and he needed to use the public restroom?

 

[John_Wensink]

I would tell them they are animals and to get the F out of there and probably issue a beating to them man if he had anything to say about it.

Apparently your parents didn't do a very good job teaching you right vs. wrong.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So if some man and woman, good looking young folks were having hot sex in a stall and the woman was moaning like a cat in heat, you would call the cops?

I doubt it.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Kids gotta lean about sex sometime...

It too is a bodily function.

You're a depraved pig. Oh, but a spiritual one, because you believe in god.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

My parents taught me the difference between personal taste and any kind of moral absolute, the danger of puritanical morality thinkers, and that sex is not dirty between consenting adults.

Quote from John_Wensink:

I would tell them they are animals and to get the F out of there and probably issue a beating to them man if he had anything to say about it.

Apparently your parents didn't do a very good job teaching you right vs. wrong.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

What if you walked in with a 5 year old kid and some guy was barfing his brains out and retching like a dying dog? What if he was "stinking up the joint" by passing a real growler? What if he were farting like a redneck? What there was a homeless and was taking a bath in the sink?

Quote from Thunderdog:

What if you were with your 5-year-old son and he needed to use the public restroom?