Comments on: ACLU: Sex in stalls of public bathroom is constitutionally protected; Update: Brief added

By: coed

coed — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:33:35 +0000

coed…

Is that a template? If not your a great designer!…

By: public toilet

public toilet — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:28:06 +0000

public toilet…

Thanks. I gave a link of this letter in my blog….

By: The Nose On Your Face » Blog Archive » ACLU Crosses Party Lines, Backs Craig

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:56:38 +0000

[...] American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a brief citing a ruling in Minnesota Supreme Court thirty-eight years ago, that found that individuals who have sex in public restroom stalls [...]

By: MSGTAS

MSGTAS — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:53:36 +0000

The ACLU also thinks it is free speech to write graffiti on the stall walls.

Therefore, it is time to out the ACLU. Find the telephone number of the nearest ACLU offices and the next time you are spending ‘private’ time in one of those protected environs, write the following:

FOR A GREAT TIME CALL xxx-xxxx, ALL COMMERS WELCOME.

By: limowilliam

limowilliam — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:57:46 +0000

Minnesota better watch out if the aclu is successful nambla will start to flock there. Geesh I just threw up thinking that.

By: Wade

Wade — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:14:09 +0000

When Bob Dole was running for president, some Coed asked him if he wore boxers or briefs. He replied, “~~Depends~~ Neither, I am a swinger.” davidk on January 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM

By: davidk

davidk — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:48:17 +0000

When Bob Dole was running for president, some Coed asked him if he wore boxers or briefs. He replied, “Depends.”

By: davidk

davidk — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:45:05 +0000

ACLU filed briefs?

Seems tome that somebody needs to keep his briefs on.

By: Tzetzes

Tzetzes — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:38:05 +0000

In a public bathroom, I expect privacy too. And freedom from people tapping my foot from the next stall.

By: Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:18:39 +0000

Dave Shay,

I’m struggling with the notion of privacy in a “public” restroom. The stalls aren’t exactly sound-proof…

Indeed. Stall walls most likely wouldn’t totally obscure the individuals engaging in sexual activity from view.

So you could possibly see these individuals and hear them without making much of an effort. Yet they should have the “expectation” of privacy?

I’m no Perry Mason, but that’s a pretty weak argument.

By: Drunk Report

Drunk Report — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:57:21 +0000

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting the undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

Even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, the ACLU argued, his actions would not be illegal.

By: Canadian Infidel

Canadian Infidel — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:53:10 +0000

This is all too complicated. If you want to have sex in a public place, sneak into ‘Redacted’ or ‘Stop-Loss’, somewhere you can be pretty sure you, and preferably a partner, can be alone.

By: OhEssYouCowboys

OhEssYouCowboys — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:10:53 +0000

It is understandable that a large department store would desire to eliminate a use of restrooms that would be revolting to most people who wished to use the facilities properly.

The above quote came from Bryant, supra. The America of today is only "revolted" by capitalism, the individual and the right to bear arms. The acts of homosexuals are no longer "revolting" to Americans. To be "revolted" by same would connote some form of morality. The collapse of America continues.

By: Beagle

Beagle — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:07:48 +0000

First of all, the right to privacy in a public restroom, you might note from the wording already, is not legally sensible. People who use public restrooms – but not as sleazy free hotel rooms – have rights too.

By: WTW: The ACLU Supports A Republican? — Pirate’s Cove

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:04:21 +0000

[...] covering the story: Stop The ACLU, Hot Air, AmeriPundit, Ace Of Spades, Macker’s [...]

By: km

km — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:58:09 +0000

Thanks for adding the briefs. Boxers would’ve been OK too.

By: inviolet

inviolet — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:20:23 +0000

Did we really HAVETA have that particular caption photo on the front page? *raises eyebrow*

Anyway, agree w/ those who say preventing stalls from intended use should be a strong argument in this case.

Not to mention that there is no denying that no matter how much one doesn’t want to be a voyeur, averting one’s eyes doesn’t help when panting and groaning and all manner of knocking up against stalls is going on in the next stall.
It’s public indecency, whether or not the stall is there. Public place.

And, just cause it’s true: ACLU is a scumbag organization (no puns allowed).

By: Dave Shay

Dave Shay — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:38:13 +0000

Every time the guy in the stall next to me starts chatting away on his cellphone, I feel tempted to reproduce the “baked beans scene” from Blazing Saddles.

But getting back to the issue at hand, I wonder: was there a Muslim footbath present in the bathroom in question? (It was an airport restroom, right?) I’d love to see CAIR sue the ACLU over that. I have to admit I’d have a real struggle deciding who to root for.

By: Stop The ACLU

Stop The ACLU — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:35:25 +0000

ACLU Defends Sex In a Public Restroom…

Update: Allahpundit tries his hand at legal anaylis.
In the seemingly never ending Larry Craig Debacle, fondly known behind the scenes here at Stop the ACLU as Water Closet Gate, the ACLU has filed a brief pointing out that a court ruling in Minnesota …

By: Dave Shay

Dave Shay — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:30:49 +0000

I’m struggling with the notion of privacy in a “public” restroom. The stalls aren’t exactly sound-proof…

…A fact that I wish cellphone users would remember.

By: tlynch001

tlynch001 — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:23:48 +0000

Really…who in their right mind thinks this is appropriate?

By: aunursa

aunursa — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:20:46 +0000

What about the public’s right to use the bathroom stalls for their intended purpose? If two people are using a stall for something else, then they’re preventing its use by someone who may actually really, REALLY need to use it. (This would particularly be the case for airplane lavatories, in which there may be one lavatory for each 100 passengers.)

By: Gerard

Gerard — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:11:26 +0000

S’cuse me, but gay seks is not reproduction.

Neither is abortion, but that doesn’t seem to bother justices on the SCOTUS much, now does it?

By: pilamaye

pilamaye — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:48:08 +0000

I get the impression that if they had been running around the landscape of someplace like Williamsburg on or about 1780, the ACLU would have defended the right to any couple wishing to engage in a “Colonial Quickie” in the middle of the street.

By: boomer

boomer — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:36:53 +0000

Cheating on your wife, lying to your friends and getting drunk in your home every night are not right either. That doesn’t mean it’s any of the government business. factoid on January 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Ya and in your home is what makes all the difference. We are talking about public restrooms, not private homes. People take their children in there to use those facilities and they DO NOT need to be subjected to that type of behavior.