Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/17/2017 6:56:24 AM PST by deplorableindc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.

5 posted on 11/17/2017 7:00:11 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: deplorableindc

WWAKD?

(What Would Anthony Kennedy Do?)


9 posted on 11/17/2017 7:11:44 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.


11 posted on 11/17/2017 7:15:40 AM PST by cyberstoic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: deplorableindc

Rule of thumb: the only gals who WANT to go topless, are the very ones who should NEVER go topless.


17 posted on 11/17/2017 7:50:50 AM PST by Cyclops08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson