Post by: Brad Johnson on February 17, 2007, 12:34:04 PM
I have no problem with conservative regs that protect the community from the intentional deceit of others. However, when you start busting people just because you have a personal moral problem with something, I have to start shaking my head in amazement.
It's quickly become a source of polarization within the community. Our city and county govt have all but declared war against any sexually oriented businesses (aka strip clubs). They aren't calling it that, but they have begun denying applications for even the merest hint of a technical violation (going so far as using simple punctuation mistakes as a reason). A lot of people are getting on the moral issue bandwagon. I will intentionally stay out of that for this post because the bottom line is really the issue of a few people with an agenda shutting down a legal, legitimate business just because they don't like what's going on there.
The "recently strengthened" sexually oriented business regs are a pathetic joke. They are intentionally vague, circuitous, and designed to be difficult to interpret, much less follow. In other words, it was designed for intentional abuse.
Brad
http://fox34.lubbockonline.com/stories/021707/loc_021707051.shtml
Post by: Monkeyleg on February 17, 2007, 01:56:56 PM
There are jerks on both sides of the political spectrum.
Post by: Standing Wolf on February 17, 2007, 05:27:36 PM
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on February 17, 2007, 05:29:54 PM
It's not really "conservatism" it's regular, old-fashioned, standard-issue being a nosy dick.
~GnSx
Post by: RevDisk on February 17, 2007, 05:41:21 PM
Should have warned that it required reg.
Ah, betcha we'll see a dozen "That's x, not conservatism!" posts. Then someone will say liberals are just as evil, so it makes it all ok. (They are, and no, it's not.)
Call me strange, but everyone was above age and consenting. The law seems intentionally rigged to be a vague catch all. Cute. Pull a Dover, PA and vote out all the morality police wack jobs. Doubt it'd happen, but it'd be a good idea to have the new bunch that replaces the morality loons fire all the cops that eagerly enforced that dreck. The Nuremberg Defense is not a valid defense.
Post by: Moondoggie on February 17, 2007, 05:58:17 PM
yet nobody in DFW ever raised a stink over the Dallas Cowboy's Cheerleaders going into a children's hospital in costume.
Beyond being hypocrites these are just folks who want to exercise power/control over others without being granted the authority.
Post by: RevDisk on February 18, 2007, 09:30:22 AM
Beyond being hypocrites these are just folks who want to exercise power/control over others without being granted the authority.
Well said.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2007, 11:50:55 AM
Having said that, I don't quite understand why things like porn and "exotic dancing" are legal while prostitution is illegal. What's the difference? If you hire a street-walker to give you a lap-dance while you still have your clothes on, would that be prostitution or dancing? What's the difference between being paid to have sex on film and being paid to have sex in the privacy of a hotel room?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 18, 2007, 12:20:21 PM
Quote from: fistful
Having said that, I don't quite understand why things like porn and "exotic dancing" are legal while prostitution is illegal. What's the difference? If you hire a street-walker to give you a lap-dance while you still have your clothes on, would that be prostitution or dancing? What's the difference between being paid to have sex on film and being paid to have sex in the privacy of a hotel room?
Some of the reasons why I believe prostitution should be legalized. People sell their time, and physical and mental labor, no matter what the profession is.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2007, 07:39:06 PM
Post by: cosine on February 18, 2007, 09:48:49 PM
Stop the world, I want to get off.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 02:29:43 AM
Post by: Art Eatman on February 19, 2007, 04:34:36 AM
The Hub: The slowest moving part of the wheel.
, Art
Post by: MechAg94 on February 19, 2007, 04:55:34 AM
Post by: roo_ster on February 19, 2007, 08:18:30 AM
Let them pass such a law at the local or state level & I realy don't care*, as long as those laws are in accordance with the State const and the local charter**.
Let folks live as they like in what communities they like. In Lubbock, I guess that means no skin bars.
If I don't like it, I'll leave and move to some place where I can watch naked folks flaunt their attributes or be able to drive to the corner for a video of same.
Not every community in America has to be the same. We don't need what I listed in my title.
* Oh, I care about laws passed in my hierarchy of governments: city, county, state, other entity like school district. I would agitate for the outcome that mirrored my particular beliefs.
** It is obviously in accord with the US Const, as the US Const is silent on such matters.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2007, 08:24:06 AM
Quote from: fistful
Having said that, I don't quite understand why things like porn and "exotic dancing" are legal while prostitution is illegal. What's the difference? If you hire a street-walker to give you a lap-dance while you still have your clothes on, would that be prostitution or dancing? What's the difference between being paid to have sex on film and being paid to have sex in the privacy of a hotel room?
Some of the reasons why I believe prostitution should be legalized. People sell their time, and physical and mental labor, no matter what the profession is.
If prostitution was legalized, and prostitutes were required to have licenses and health exams, (like in Firefly), we wouldn't have so much of a problem with STD transmission, perhaps?
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 19, 2007, 08:24:25 AM
Quote
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/lubbockonline.com
Should have warned that it required reg.
Should have warned that it required reg.
Oops, sorry. Forgot about that. Apologies to all.
Update - Now the city is claiming that the arrests were made because the owner hadn't gotten a permit for a "Sexually Oriented Business/Show". Under that provision the PD was trying to push charges at a state level, the end result being conviction on a Class A misdemeanor.
Also, the dancers were released without having to post bail. The judge specifically stated there was not enough evidence to require bail in the case, much less support the city's position on the higher offense charged. In essence the judge laughed in their face and told them to get a life, get a grip, and stop trying to be the morality police.
The city is still pressing the issue and is now going along the "without a permit" route. They are going to convict on something and get money out of someone just to prove their point.
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2007, 08:41:40 AM
Update - Now the city is claiming that the arrests were made because the owner hadn't gotten a permit for a "Sexually Oriented Business/Show". Under that provision the PD was trying to push charges at a state level, the end result being conviction on a Class A misdemeanor.
Also, the dancers were released without having to post bail. The judge specifically stated there was not enough evidence to require bail in the case, much less support the city's position on the higher offense charged. In essence the judge laughed in their face and told them to get a life, get a grip, and stop trying to be the morality police.
The city is still pressing the issue and is now going along the "without a permit" route. They are going to convict on something and get money out of someone just to prove their point.
Brad
Also, the dancers were released without having to post bail. The judge specifically stated there was not enough evidence to require bail in the case, much less support the city's position on the higher offense charged. In essence the judge laughed in their face and told them to get a life, get a grip, and stop trying to be the morality police.
The city is still pressing the issue and is now going along the "without a permit" route. They are going to convict on something and get money out of someone just to prove their point.
Brad
Translation: They're pissy because they didn't get their cut of the tax/license fee/revenue pie.
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 19, 2007, 08:53:16 AM
Brad
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 19, 2007, 10:01:36 AM
Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 10:07:33 AM
Let them pass such a law at the local or state level & I realy don't care*, as long as those laws are in accordance with the State const and the local charter**.
Let folks live as they like in what communities they like. In Lubbock, I guess that means no skin bars.
If I don't like it, I'll leave and move to some place where I can watch naked folks flaunt their attributes or be able to drive to the corner for a video of same.
Not every community in America has to be the same.
* Oh, I care about laws passed in my hierarchy of governments: city, county, state, other entity like school district. I would agitate for the outcome that mirrored my particular beliefs.
** It is obviously in accord with the US Const, as the US Const is silent on such matters.
Let folks live as they like in what communities they like. In Lubbock, I guess that means no skin bars.
If I don't like it, I'll leave and move to some place where I can watch naked folks flaunt their attributes or be able to drive to the corner for a video of same.
Not every community in America has to be the same.
* Oh, I care about laws passed in my hierarchy of governments: city, county, state, other entity like school district. I would agitate for the outcome that mirrored my particular beliefs.
** It is obviously in accord with the US Const, as the US Const is silent on such matters.
OK, I was against it before I was for it. That's something I could agree with too, but it's a larger issue. Been meaning to start a thread on that.
Post by: roo_ster on February 19, 2007, 10:13:09 AM
Just got off the phone with an attorney friend. Out of personal curiousity (and a little profession-related marketing) he did a some poking around. According to him, the cafe and the dancers could, with only a modicum of effort, take the city to the proverbial cleaners on this. Should be interesting to watch it play out.
Brad
[Preacherman]Now, that would be some naked ambition on the part of the dancers.[/Preacherman]
Brad
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 21, 2007, 02:37:31 PM
I finally had a chance to look up the Lubbock city code for Sexually Oriented Businesses. What a mess, and what a farce.
Directly from the document...
Quote
"Sexually Oriented Business shall mean and include any commercial venture who's operations on any calendar day include: The providing, featuring, or offering of employees or entertainment personnel who appear in a state of nudity, semi-nude or simulated nudity and provide live performances or entertainment intended to provide sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to customers and which is offered as a feature of a primary business activity of the venture..."
That's all well and good ... except for the sentence following that paragraph. A single sentence, buried deep in the middle of the code, but which happens to be the key to the entire document. It reads:
Quote
"The term Sexually Oriented Business shall include, but not be limited to the following:"
"..but not be limited to the following:". Sounds innocent enough, except those seven words give the city Carte Blanche in determining what constitutes a sexually oriented business. According to that phrase a sexually oriented business can be whatever the city wants it to be! Including the four words "...not be limited to..." means that a sexually oriented business could be ANY business, regardless of any specific definitions given in this particular document.
It is a legal door that's been left wide open. The city knows it, and they're playing it for all it's worth.
Brad
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 21, 2007, 04:22:17 PM
Just got off the phone with an attorney friend. Out of personal curiousity (and a little profession-related marketing) he did a some poking around. According to him, the cafe and the dancers could, with only a modicum of effort, take the city to the proverbial cleaners on this. Should be interesting to watch it play out.
Brad
[Preacherman]Now, that would be some naked ambition on the part of the dancers.[/Preacherman]Brad
What, freedom-loving strippers showing that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes?
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 23, 2007, 07:34:05 AM
Translation - the city should have written everyone a ticket and hashed it out in municipal court afterwards instead of having a mass arrest in front of several hundred witnesses, hauling off a bunch of dancers in leg irons (yes, leg irons!), and trying to charge them with what is essentially a felony offense.
From what I can gather the declination of state-level charges by the DA now opens up the city to all kinds of liability for their way-past-prudent actions. Jail time for an offense comparable in legal severity to littering is something a jury probably would frown upon, not to mention clapping a bunch folks in leg irons "just because".
Brad
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 24, 2007, 09:42:22 AM
Now there is the entirely different issue of dealing with a self-righteous city code enforcement manager, an overzealous police chief, and a city council that has taken it upon itself to be the morality police beyond many legally allowed activities.
Of course, the above decision opens the city up to all kinds of liability for any number of stupid things in relation to the arrest and incarceration of the Chippendales. I'm certain, given the Chippendales worldwide populatrity and success, that they have to deal with this kind of ignorant crap all the time. I bet they have a bevy of attorneys just frothing at the mouth to take on our "enlightened" city leadership. As much as I hate to see if from a monetary standpoint (it's my taxes footing the bill!) this city needs a swift kick in the butt. This ain't the 1950's anymore. If we are going to survive and thrive as a regional economic center, we're going to have to adopt at least a few slightly less dated ideas in regards to the community and how it's managed.
Brad
Post by: Lee on February 24, 2007, 09:49:15 AM
Maybe they offer compensation by performing the Full Monty for charity.
Post by: tyme on February 24, 2007, 11:20:04 AM
Quote from: fistful
What's the difference between being paid to have sex on film and being paid to have sex in the privacy of a hotel room?
It's mostly, but not completely, arbitrary.
The idea is that a third party can pay whoever they want to have sex, on or off camera, as long as everyone involved is over 18. But if the person paying gets involved, that's sex for money and it's forbidden.
As I understand it, porn sites get around that by way of the corporate shield. It's the porn production company, not any individual, paying everyone who appears on screen. If someone attached to the company gets involved in the action, that's as an individual.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 24, 2007, 11:46:23 AM
Post by: Strings on February 24, 2007, 12:54:27 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 24, 2007, 01:01:41 PM
I'm a good thinker, horrible at actually following through.
Sort of an idea man. Say, did I ever show you my new invention?
O <- right there, ya know, for kids.
Post by: tyme on February 24, 2007, 01:35:12 PM
Bonus points if the studio has a "club" (the kind with heavy drug use) next door on one side, and a chapel hosting gay marriages on the other.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 24, 2007, 01:43:02 PM
Don't forget to make it a BDSM porn studio, and allow the "participants" to place side bets with each other about who will end up using their safewords.
On a serious note, from what I know about BDSM betting on that would ruin the whole experience.
Quote
Bonus points if the studio has a "club" (the kind with heavy drug use) next door on one side, and a chapel hosting gay marriages on the other.
Not sure if the gambit would work for "backdoor" legality for those two things.
Post by: roo_ster on February 24, 2007, 07:25:00 PM
Quote
Not sure if the gambit would work for "backdoor" legality for those two things.
carebear:Was that a pun, slip of the tongue, or freudian slip?