To: deplorableindc
I’ve seen the fembots in the Austin Powers movies — so if not the First, does the Second Amendment come into play here?
2 posted on
11/17/2017 6:58:24 AM PST by
ClearCase_guy
(Benedict McCain is the worst traitor ever to wear the uniform of the US military.)
To: deplorableindc
Hmmm. I would comment but I'll use some discretion. B😬🍿🍻👯
3 posted on
11/17/2017 6:58:52 AM PST by
rktman
(Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?!)
To: deplorableindc
change a law that, on its face, treats women differently than men.”
The insanity is to proclaim that women are *not* different from men.
4 posted on
11/17/2017 7:00:03 AM PST by
marktwain
(President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
To: deplorableindc
a law that, on its face, treats women differently than men." How absurd. Everyone knows that women are EXACTLY the same as men.
To: deplorableindc
They’re not free speech
Then why do they walk around flashing their headlights, trying to communicate with us?
6 posted on
11/17/2017 7:00:18 AM PST by
Vendome
(I've Gotta Be Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-pk2vZG2M)
To: deplorableindc
But they say so much to me.
7 posted on
11/17/2017 7:03:35 AM PST by
bmwcyle
(People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
To: deplorableindc
WWAKD?
(What Would Anthony Kennedy Do?)
To: deplorableindc
The judges cite a 1991 Supreme Court case that justified public nudity prohibitions because they are "of ancient origin" and "exist in at least 47 States." Similarly, they added, the Chicago law has "existed in one form or another for decades" and its relationship to "promoting traditional moral norms and public order" is "self-evident and important." They didn't use similar reasoning in regard to same sex marriage.
10 posted on
11/17/2017 7:15:37 AM PST by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: deplorableindc
It is beyond doubt that there is a large difference between women’s and men’s breasts. It is easily provable. No one will pay to see men’s breasts.
To: deplorableindc
So all the judges agree except one. And that becomes the story. Always the exception, never the rule.
12 posted on
11/17/2017 7:17:22 AM PST by
IronJack
To: deplorableindc
I’m going to be monitoring this thread on this Happy Friday.
14 posted on
11/17/2017 7:22:44 AM PST by
DungeonMaster
(Goblins, Orcs and the Undead: Metaphors for the godless left.)
To: deplorableindc
Rule of thumb: the only gals who WANT to go topless, are the very ones who should NEVER go topless.
To: deplorableindc
So at least Franken won’t be accused of interfering with free speech.
18 posted on
11/17/2017 7:56:35 AM PST by
Dr. Sivana
(There is no salvation in politics.)
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
Thanks deplorableindc.
...the government has an important interest in preventing women from going topless, a federal appeals court has ruled. And the importance of keeping lady breasts out of public view overrules any First Amendment or equal protection issues that such a policy raises.
What's next? Hitting on women? Wait, what?
22 posted on
11/17/2017 8:31:11 AM PST by
SunkenCiv
(www.tapatalk.com/groups/godsgravesglyphs/, forum.darwincentral.org, www.gopbriefingroom.com)
To: deplorableindc
I can’t believe it. No this thread is useless without pics comments?
25 posted on
11/17/2017 9:20:03 AM PST by
jpsb
(Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. Otto von Bismark)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson