Posted on 01/16/2008 5:05:44 AM PST by IronKros
Maybe they should pass an law that colons are "Exit Only" devices in all public restrooms.
Remember when degenerates were simply called degenerates?
Here is the crux of the ACLU’s argument:
“..sexual intimacy [that] would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom.”
And it’s just plain wrong. If you were in the next stall doing what the public toilet was designed for, you couldn’t help but know what was going on. Not to mention waiting for an open stall and wondering what was taking so long.
No doubt, our big-government liberaltarian friends will be along any minute to tell us why the ACLU is right here.
You won’t find it in either a public restroom or an ACLU meeting.
“Expectation of privacy” for perversion, in a public place!!!???
What they SHOULD worry about is the expectation of grievous bodily harm.
Make a pass at me or worse yet, one of my grandsons, PRIVACY will be the LAST thing on their perverted minds.
I guess I should have said there was no evidence that he was planning on having sex in the stalls. I certainly have no idea if he really was signalling for sex, or that if he was where he thought that would occur.
In my 39 years on this planet I have never, and I repeat NEVER, walked into a public restroom found to be occupied by men having sex.
Is it conceivable that gay men go into stalls, tap their feet and then exchange contact information with the purpose of meeting later at a more private location?
This is the key issue. We're not talking about peeking through the cracks nor cameras in the stalls nor any of that big brother stuff.
We're talking about common decency to allow public facilities to be used for the purpose which they are designed.
Some homeless wino is not allowed to set up housekeeping in a public restroom. Nor can I pitch a tent and overnight in a highway rest area. Why should the perverts have the right to change an intended purpose of the public facility?
you’ve never been to the University of Minnesota...
This is no surprise. They choose one side to win an argument one moment and, after that, choose the other side to win an argument.
how about a reasonable expectation of an ass kicking?
where does that come in?
can I initiate an ass kicking after being forced to see these pervs or would that then be a hate crime?
A judge in MA (where else) ruled that sex, out in the open mind you, at Rest Stops along MA highways was part of Gay Culture and ordered the State Police to stop harassing them.
So we own public toilet stalls while we’re in them?
Do we own ACLU offices if we eneter those?
This is because so many of their membership engage in it!
ACLU = Aberrational Coital Lavatory Usage
The ACLU also gets the added bonus of running a republican through the mud... This story is all but dead so now the ACLU will try to breath new life into it..
You are absolutely correct, no argument there. If someone is disturbing the general population by what they are doing in a stall then they should be held accountable.
BUT, There is surely a basic expectation of privacy when you enter a stall. 99% of the nation don't want to poop in public and expect to not be disturbed, spied on, or photographed while doing what they have to do. Ergo - "an expectation of privacy".
That expectation evaporates when they start doing something that attracts other's attention, such as two people in a stall, or making some kind of commotion, etc.
In Craig's case he was reaching under the partition into the next stall - ZAP! There goes his "expectation of privacy" and he is violating that of his neighbor
ACLU has taken a wide stance on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.