Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."
Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."
"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The South will "rise" again!
"It may have been that Alabama banned the possession of sex toys and not just the sale."
I just see the reaction of a criminal court judge now as he/she reads the search warrant in search of sex toys.
No, it's not a different story. This is the idea of Federalism--South Carolina isn't enslaving anyone and they haven't put up guards at the border to keep people from leaving.
So tell me again, how is their freedom affected? You want to buy a dildo? Drive to North Carolina--they can start selling them at "On the Border" with those tacky concrete lawn decorations.
Ralph Davenport is a dork that has no business representing anyone.
Reminds me of Army WACs doing pushups in the cucumber patch.
So by your logic, all laws are restricting freedoms are valid as long as it doesn't involve slavery?
There are limits. Would you have a problem if South Carolina proposed nightly inspections to make sure that there were no illegal activities going on? Without the 14th amendment this would be perfectly legal. And without the 14th amendment, every state would eventually institute it.
No, I wouldn't have a problem with that. First off, I think incorporation is bogus--I don't buy that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the Bill of Rights--it's not in the legislative history and it simply wasn't the purpose to the amendment.
Again, if the people don't like it, they can vote at the ballot box or vote with their feet. There's no reason why, if the People of South Carolina didn't like the police doing nightly searches, they couldn't outlaw them.
When our nation was created, the Founders understood that states were the protectors of rights--and unfortunately, because of the incorporation doctrine, people have become lazy about protecting their rights; they just let judges try and do it for them. I think one could argue, forcefully, that the 14th Amendment has eroded liberty more than advanced it.
The states should be able to regulate the moral and legal tone that represents the will of the people in those states -- including regulation of abortion, legalization of marijuana, etc.
Ryan, does this mean you support State prohibitions on guns? Paulsen claims CA's 'assault weapon ban' is perfectly Constitutional.
Paulsen:
I feel exactly the same way. I'd also support the repeal of the 14th and 17th amendments, two amendments which have done more to destroy federalism than the Commerce Clause ever will.
Bobby, a states so-called 'right' to ignore our Constitution should be 'destroyed'.
That said, bear in mind that the Supremacy Clause does state that federal law trumps state law. If Congress chooses to constitutionally act on an issue, the states are bound by the U.S. Constitution to comply.
Yep, the states are bound by the U.S. Constitution [Article VI] to comply with the Bill of Rights, and all other Amendments, regardless of whether "-- Congress chooses to constitutionally act on an issue --".
If the legislature is merely enacting the will of the people ... I simply call [it] self-rule.
The "will of the people" [majority rule] that ignores our Constitution is called democratic tyranny.
Apparently Ms. Gillespie doesn't get out much...either that, or she has a really screwed up sense of of priorities.
I don't believe anybody is trying to install a Bible in your bedroom. The article says, "The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
So unless you're selling sexual stimulation devices from a business that you operate from your bedroom then I believe that your bedroom is safe.
we have survived the "back to the Confederacy" crowd
What the hell is that all about? Are you one of those liberals from Columbia?
And that has what to do with this article?
Even assuming incorporation, there's a right to own a dildo in the constitution?
Is that the same part of the constitution that protects gay marriage? Just curious...
Let's make a deal. You can have your freedom to live next door to crack houses with prostitutes walking the streets and an OTB parlor nearby, and I have the freedom to live in a community without those things.
Fair enough? Or are you saying that I cannot have that freedom? Who's restricting who?
61 paulsen
Guess what, bobbie? -- You have the freedom to live in a community without those things.
There are hundreds of planned communities all over the USA without crack houses, - prostitutes walking the streets and an OTB parlor nearby.
Feel free to buy a house in one.
-- And abandon your efforts to subvert our Constitution with prohibitions on life, liberty or property.
How about a city? A state? Can't the citizens of a state decide how they want to live? Can't the citizens of a state ban sex toys?
Are you serious? What do you think the purpose of stopping the sales is? Why do we go after drug dealers? The purpose is to prevent usage of these devices. I'm assuming folks use them in their bedrooms, but you may have evidence to the contrary. This is simply a bill designed to impose one person's religious convictions on everyone else.
What the hell is that all about? Are you one of those liberals from Columbia?
Well, in looking at your home page, I don't think I need to tell you what that is all about. The group pops up once in a while here. Those of us who prefer the Stars and Stripes generally take offense.
As a lifeline resident of the Upstate, I'm proud to live in the state of South Carolina. It's an adventure! Sometimes it's fun to just sit back and watch the - shall we say - "eccentricities" of our more colorful favorite sons.
I thought we already had laws against battery. :-)
Val wrote:
No, it's not a different story. This is the idea of Federalism -- South Carolina isn't enslaving anyone and they haven't put up guards at the border to keep people from leaving.
So tell me again, how is their freedom affected?
You want to own or buy an 'assault weapon'?
Don't Drive to California -- they can legally prohibit them according to a lot of so-called 'conservative' FReepers.
Are you one Val?
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.