In response to:

What's Wrong with Public Nudity?

nawlins72 Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 5:51 PM
"From a secular-humanist point of view, there is no particular reason to ban public nudity. But the government was intended to reflect the morals of the people." Which is prone to abuse. The "morals" of the people accepted slavery, religious discrimination, racial discrimination, theft, etc. "Where does it say in the Constitution that the people of this land should be secular-humanists?" Nowhere. It says that there shall be no religious tests for office. Also, Washington's speech, while interesting, is not law.
If you want to understand Leftism -- and everyone needs to because it has been the most dynamic religion of the last one hundred years -- one good place to start is with San Francisco.

Or perhaps more precisely -- with nudity.

And even more precisely -- with public nudity.

Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted by the barest (pun not intended) margin -- 6 to 5 -- to ban public nudity. By public nudity, the law refers only to displaying one's genitals in public. San Francisco women are still free to walk around topless. But that is not unique...

Related Tags: San Francisco Nudity
Sunday, May 19 | 07:32 PM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 07:32 PM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 07:32 PM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 07:32 PM ET