You do know that "fornicate" means to have sex with someone other than your life partner, don't you?
Not to worry, I think we all know what you mean.
ACLU hits a new low...ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private...
- Thread starter John_Wensink
- Start date
You do know that "fornicate" means to have sex with someone other than your life partner, don't you?
Not to worry, I think we all know what you mean.
At the very least, should Craig not be charged with sexual harassment? If he specifically followed an established protocol understood by restroom afficionados as being a blatant request for sex, then is that not sufficiently offensive to an uninterested party to warrant legal intervention? Note that we are not talking about a friendly smile, or asking someone if they would like to have coffee with you. It is the communicative equivalent of walking up to a stranger in a public place and saying, "Wanna fuck?" Because to the extent that Craig's foot or hand or whatever crossed the line of his stall and entered that of the other stall, the conduct is no longer exactly private. Go ahead, approach a woman you've never met who is minding her own business in a restaurant and ask her if she wants to have sex with you. See what happens, depending on her level of outrage.
SWS:
>breaking hands on a female may be over the
>top. But I would protect my families honor to
>the death.
A: I find it totally reasonable to have laws against sex in "public" restrooms.
B: I find it sad that you consider someone breaking such a law to be a threat to your families "honor".
JB
>breaking hands on a female may be over the
>top. But I would protect my families honor to
>the death.
A: I find it totally reasonable to have laws against sex in "public" restrooms.
B: I find it sad that you consider someone breaking such a law to be a threat to your families "honor".
JB
So if I'm having sex in a washroom and you walk in, I'm defiling your family's honour?
I assume you're not Muslim, right? Because that sound a but like something a Muslim would say.
Hmmm... okay, I respect your right to hold your own opinion, but I don't see what two people having sex in a public washroom has to do with your family's honour.
Re: a man smashing a woman in the face, that's a moral transgression way worse than having sex in a public washroom, unless you are in an organized fight with her (and male-female boxing is coming in the next 10 years for sure). You either get that or you don't.
Only a fanatic would suggest that Muslims have a monopoly on fanaticism.
I'm not sure that this is the issue here since legal precedent has already established that anyone in a public washroom stall enjoys "a reasonable expectation of privacy" . Without probable cause peeping police could be charged with violation of privacy ( but good luck getting any cop convicted of anything this petty ).
Maybe you know something here that I don't - are the police challenging the validity of the precedent? They could. They might even have a shot at winning.
Cheers
Perhaps you ought to read the opening post on this thread? Pay particular attention to how the first paragraph is framed.
Twice, I have raised the tangential issue of Craig potentially engaging in sexual harassment, but no one seems willing to commment on this view. Why is that?
Their original charge was violation of the officer's privacy. Why they decided to switch from that I don't know, given that it seems it was an open and shut case. Maybe there was some technicality involved or maybe they wanted to go with something that would more definitely out the senator as a gay.
Craig admitted to tapping the officer's foot and to peeking under the stalls' divider. Even the ACLU is conceding that Craig was making sexual advances but perhaps they had to be more aggressive and/or persistent to constitute sexual harassment.
As others have suggested, Craig will probably walk - if only because this is the kind of case that could ultimately cost millions to prosecute given that it seems to involve several fundamental contitutional rights.
Like Craig's fundamental constitutional right to tap the officer's foot in the next stall and peek under the stall's divider?
