Thursday, March 23, 2017

And the Benefit Is?

3/22/17 Coloradan:
Fort Collins plans to appeal a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt enforcement of the city’s ban on women appearing topless in public.
Attorneys representing the city on Tuesday notified the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver that they will appeal a preliminary injunction granted in February by U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson that blocks a section of the city’s public nudity law.
In granting the preliminary injunction, Brooke stated he would likely rule in favor of members of the group Free the Nipple who sued the city claiming the ordinance violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by discriminating against women.
I can understand how a literalist interpretation of the equal protection clause leads to this conclusion; any originalist interpretation makes hash out of their argument.  But more importantly, why is this important?  Are bikinis that uncomfortable?  Or are women not getting enough looks that require them to remind men to look half a foot higher when conversing?

2 comments:

Eskyman said...

This must be done, because women are exactly equal to men; whatever men can do, women can do better. All hail the god of equality!

So if it's OK for a man to have his shirt off, then it must be OK for a woman to have her shirt off; or hir shirt, or itz shirt (pick your appropriate pronoun for whichever of the 4,387 genders you happen to support.)

The pity of it all is, the hot women still won't go topless; but the Lena Dunham types will!

Jerry The Geek said...

I cannot understand a situation where women unilaterally decide to appear bare-breasted in public, and are then offended when men stare at their teats.

Well .. I can PERCEIVE the situation; but I cannot understand how they might be offended. It's their choice, and the results should have been expected.

Is this a working definition of the term "Double Standard"?

(Pun intended)