Federal judge temporarily blocks Tennessee's anti-drag law

a reply to: TheRedneck

Compensation can be interpreted to mean monetary consideration.

The word isn't in the law. I was confused earlier when you said "All that says is someone can't use the loophole of "I didn't do it for money." Now I know it's because you confused the consideration for compensation.

What it says, is that someone can't say I wasn't trying to sexually excite that stranger over there while I was talking with my friends over here about my date last night.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I already acknowledged the wording. Move on.

What it says, is that someone can't say I wasn't trying to sexually excite that stranger over there while I was talking with my friends over here.

That is patently ridiculous. Again, "prurient intent." No one could reasonably say that talking to friends in public was encouraging anything prurient.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There has been no determination of Constitutionality yet.

Nevertheless, the judge opined as such.

Judge Thomas Parker cited constitutional protections of freedom of speech in issuing a temporary restraining order.

“If Tennessee wishes to exercise its police power in restricting speech it considers obscene, it must do so within the constraints and framework of the United States Constitution,” Parker wrote.

“The Court finds that, as it stands, the record here suggests that when the legislature passed this Statute, it missed the mark,” he wrote.

www.nbcnews.com...

I said an "adult cabaret" is anywhere that a prurient performance is occurring.

So, on your TV during A Carl's Jr commercial break from watching a prurient dance performance on American's Got Talent? At a Hooters Restaurant?

a reply to: TheRedneck

That is patently ridiculous. Again, "prurient intent."

The word "intent" isn't in the bill.

"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration

No one could reasonably say that talking to friends in public was encouraging anything prurient.

"Reasonably", another word NOT in the bill.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The judge temporarily blocked the law's enforcement because the law is too broad, making it unconstitutional.

Imagine.....this account lecturing anyone on the Constitution.

Do you still believe "well regulated" means government regulation and that only a "militia" can keep and bear arms........?

I never said any such thing. I said "well-regulated" phrase in the 2nd Amendment is what give states the power to require back-ground checks on gun sales.

No it doesn't. Well regulated militia never meant you must ask permission from the government to exercise a right that shall not be infringed.

This is very basic stuff and I know you are smart enough to know that, which means you only care about the constitution if it aligns with your world view

a reply to: Cymatic

Oh yeah?

Tell that to the states that require background checks to purchase a gun. Also, tell that to the felons who are barred from gun ownership, and while you've got that bull horn, tell it to the people in prison for buying and/or selling guns illegally.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Background checks are federal.....

Through the FBI NICS system.

At the behest of the ATF and through licensed dealers.

Shine on with that blinding ignorance.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nevertheless, the judge opined as such.

Without hearing all the arguments.

Passing a judgement, whether by opine or judgement, without hearing the evidence in its entirety is even more reason for this judge to be removed.

So, on your TV during A Carl's Jr commercial break from watching a prurient dance performance on American's Got Talent? At a Hooters Restaurant?

There are restrictions on TV; those are regulated by the FCC and FTC regulate all television broadcasts including commercials.

I looked up whether children are allowed in Hooter's, and was actually surprised to see they are. The explanation is that the girls may look and be dressed attractively, but they are also required to be professional at all times. That means they do not "flirt" and do not try to present themselves sexually except for the outfits.

Those outfits are form-fitting and attractive, but there is a huge difference between a Hooter's waitress serving a meal and some cross-dressing fanatic trying to convince children that wearing clothes that emphasize body parts one does not have in the first place is acceptable and normal. So while I was surprised, I can also see the logic in Hooter's policies.

I would probably not take my children to Hooter's. But then again, I can see more at a beach than I can at Hooter's.

You seem unable to understand the difference between someone simply dressing attractively and someone trying to use their dress to promote an agenda that can damage children. I must say, the thought keeps crossing my mind: you are continually against any restriction whatsoever on abortion, and you are completely in favor of anything it seems that could damage children mentally. I have to assume you simply have some deep, inherent hatred of children. Were you honest, I believe you would simply come out and say "I hate children," but my long history debating you has shown that you are anything but honest in a debate... which would indicate that you are simply a dishonest person who hates children and tries to lie about it.

The word "intent" isn't in the bill.

"[W]ho provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" implies intent.

"Reasonably", another word NOT in the bill.

It doesn't have to be in the bill. All legal definitions unless specified are based on what a reasonable person would think. That's the very basis of law.

You want to twist the meaning of any words in the actual law and then restrict any other explanations because they may use a word not in the law. That is just another example of your inherent dishonesty.

Semantics is the last resort of a losing argument.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JinMI

Background checks are federal.....

She knows that. It just doesn't match with her argument today in favor of all things progressive.

Tomorrow she might think something different. Depends on her argument du'jour.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It just clicked for me.

Progressive isnt a worldview, its a modus operandi.

Everything from hypocrisy and double standards up to and including outright lies are perfectly acceptible.

a reply to: JinMI

Background checks are federal.....

The FBI's data base is.

Background Check Laws by State

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Background checks are federal.....

The FBI's data base is.

Background Check Laws by State

Did you just link me an employment bqckground check site?

Everytime i think weve reached the depths of your ignorance, you somehow find a way to lower the bar....

a reply to: TheRedneck

That means they do not "flirt" and do not try to present themselves sexually except for the outfits.

LOL. Right...
They work for tips. compensation! Keep making excuses for your own double standards.

You want to twist the meaning of any words in the actual law and then restrict any other explanations because they may use a word not in the law. That is just another example of your inherent dishonesty.

Semantics is the last resort of a losing argument.

LOL. Dude! The words aren't in the law.
Not "compensation", not "intent" and not "reasonably".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They work for tips.

So now waitresses should serve people for free?

Is that going to be the next CNN story?
"Waitresses receiving tips is harmful to LGBT interests, ATS poster says"

I'll keep my eyes open for your thread.

LOL. Dude! The words aren't in the law.
Not "compensation", not "intent" and not "reasonably".

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Semantics is the last resort of a losing argument.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JinMI

HERE

Do Gun Background Checks Differ By State?
Thirty states, five districts, and D.C. all rely solely on the NICS for gun background checks. The following 13 states use their own full point of contact (POC) data system for gun background checks and do not use the FBI’s system:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Nevada
New Jersey
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
Some states, namely Maryland, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wisconsin, use NICS for long guns, but a state program for background checks on handguns. Iowa, Nebraska, and North Carolina use NICS, but have a partial POC for background checks in relation to handgun permits.

Many of these states have added their own provisions to their background checks, on top of what federal law mandates. In most cases, they also include looking at state and local records to determine if the person in question should or should not be allowed to own a firearm.

Some states have implemented universal background checks via an FFL, even during a private gun sale. While Maryland and Pennsylvania require background checks for all handgun transfers, regardless of retail or private sale, the following states require a background check for all firearm transfers:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

Don't tell me that states don't have authority to enact their own gun background check laws.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So now waitresses should serve people for free?

LOL Cute how you think that Hooters waitress don't flirt to get tips! Flirting is currency at a Hooters.

Nevertheless, the law as written doesn't require a trans person to flirt with anyone to be breaking it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Both of your sources are garbage.

California DOJ participates in the federal National Instant Check System (NICS) which is run by the FBI. California is full Point of Contact state for NICS, meaning the state, rather than the gun store, actually contacts the FBI to run the actual background check. What the gun store does is contact Sacramento, who then contacts the FBI, where a human runs a computer search. In other states, gun stores contact the FBI NICS unit directly.

Link

Keep it up. Making a fool out of you is quickly becoming my favorite activity.

a reply to: JinMI

What is your point? I mean 2nd Amendment wise?
Something about background checks and a well regulated militia?

...Now that it seems you guy's can't keep justifying violating the Constitution to punish trans people for the gal to appear publicly in drag.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What is your point? I mean 2nd Amendment wise?
Something about background checks and a well regulated militia?

Point has always been the same. No doubt you missed it.

Well regulated doesnt mean government regulation. Much in the same vein, militia isnt exclusive of "the people."

...Now that it seems you guy's can't keep justifying violating the Constitution to punish trans people for the gal to appear publicly in drag.

Trans people punish themselves. With their massive suicide rate and the propencity to sexualize children. Which you are prolifically in favor of.

Not all trans people are that way, just the noisy ones and their useful tools......

a reply to: JinMI

Well regulated doesnt mean government regulation.

Again, tell that to the felons who are barred by the state from owning a gun, the people in jail for illegally buying and selling guns and all the people who have to go through background checks before they can buy a gun.

Not all trans people are that way, just the noisy ones and their useful tools......

This bill doesn't make that distinction and punishes them all.

originally posted by: Turquosie
but I have an underlying feeling that this is overblown anti-trans hysteria.

Is that feeling like the back of the hairs on your neck standing up? Maybe look more into it if you cared and then make a more educated opinion.