Not kidding. Apparently any place that "a substantial group of the public has access to" is called "public" under Texas law.
How can you trial people for being naked in a bath house?
Because, and I cannot stress this enough, it's Texas. This is the state that, in 2003, fought for it's right to prosecute a man for giving a man a **** in his own house with the doors locked. All the way to the Supreme Court. This is the state that, just in the last few weeks, had the Governor point at his state's bigotry as a good thing and a reason to move there. This is a state that hates gay marriage so much it refuses to let two men divorce. This is the state where, just last year, they raided a gay bar on the anniversary of Stonewall.
Madness?
This!
IS!
TEXAS!
________
1So I got a detail wrong.
The strip club where my girlfriend used to work at
epicccc faiiiiillllllll
How can you trial people for being naked in a bath house?
Well, they were apparently engaging in sex acts - not just hangin' about ... er... hangin' about. The law states that the place they were at is sufficiently public enough for the charge to apply. Lame, but that's the way things seem to work there. I do wonder why the club didn't make membership actually exclusive, though. That's easy enough to say but handwave when it actually comes down to it. I mean, it can't be that difficult to make a private club actually private. Then again, I don't think they should need to worry about that in the first place.
Some were arrested for sexual acts, other for being naked. A guy says he was dressed, working out and he was cuffed.
To quote one of my favorite poster:
Lewdness carries with it an implication that the nekkidness was more than nekkidness. That's why it's called lewdness - to differentiate it from nekkidness. The cuffed guy was not arrested for anything. In any case, if we go by what we're told, the cops were in the right to arrest those they did (assuming the activities they're accused of were actually taking place) because that's how the law works there. This, of course, does not mean it's how things should work.
Some were arrested with only Indecent Exposure as charge. In other words, being naked... in a bath house. Unless I am mistaken.
You are, but I wasn't helping to clear anything up. From the article:
Public lewdness, defined as sexual intercourse or sexual contact in a public place, is a class-A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a maximum $4,000 fine.
... two were charged with indecent exposure, which is defined as exposing one’s genitals with the intent to arouse or gratify and in a manner that is “reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed ...
So yeah, the cops were in the right because the definition of public place is overly broad. And nobody was arrested for just being nekkid. Now, that's not to say that that's how it actually went down. For all we know some people were arrested for simply being nekkid and the cops chose to interpret that as something more. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to have been there. Which really sucks for the guys that got charged.
epicccc faiiiiillllllll
Take a moment and think about what you just did.
Now maybe you should think about not insulting my girlfriend.
It really is beneficial to your continued health.
Threats? Really?
Usually don't get excited, but this ass is running accost thin ice. Check out the other comments in the America to the rescue topic.
I am well aware of his comments. No matter how egregious his behaviour, the responsibility for issuing threats was yours and yours alone. I know how angry one can get when one's loved one's are insulted but threats are a blatant CoC violation, and not particularly cool.
There is an old saying coined by Sir Bernard Ingham: "cockup before conspiracy". A similar sentiment is the old epigram "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". The OP strikes me as being quite immature, both in his skill at communication as well as in years. The source of your anger is not, I think, and attempt to be insulting but simply a series of spectacularly unsuccessful attempts at humor.
In short, don't let it get to you. Don;t get yourself banned cos someone else makes a bunch of crap jokes.
Cheers.
This is where I call shenanigans. This police raid is clearly an attempt to intimidate the people who go to that sauna.
If the police use this sort of tactics, it wouldn't be below them to falsely charge innocent naked people with malicious intent for being naked. Just to bully the most people possible.
That's certainly possible but you are just making assumptions. I, however, won't go to bat for anyone involved with this event. Just don't know enough.
epicccc faiiiiillllllll
Except for maybe...
Did you see that cop?! Shes HAWT!!!!!!!!
... two were charged with indecent exposure, which is defined as exposing one’s genitals with the intent to arouse or gratify and in a manner that is “reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed ...
So yeah, the cops were in the right because the definition of public place is overly broad. And nobody was arrested for just being nekkid. Now, that's not to say that that's how it actually went down. For all we know some people were arrested for simply being nekkid and the cops chose to interpret that as something more. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to have been there. Which really sucks for the guys that got charged.
This is where I call shenanigans. This police raid is clearly an attempt to intimidate the people who go to that sauna.
If the police use this sort of tactics, it wouldn't be below them to falsely charge innocent naked people with malicious intent for being naked. Just to bully the most people possible.
Do you always spout off ridiculous stuff while not knowing all the facts?
You really need to work on that...
These are forums where we post our opinions, this is not a court of law. I can say what I want
'Oh no! R_H is encroaching on my right to say ridiculous crap by pointing out that the ridiculous crap I'm saying is ridiculous crap! Help, help! I'm being oppressed!'
These are forums where we post our opinions, this is not a court of law. I can say what I want
'Oh no! R_H is encroaching on my right to say ridiculous crap by pointing out that the ridiculous crap I'm saying is ridiculous crap! Help, help! I'm being oppressed!'
Saying police abuse their powers against homosexual is ridiculus? It sure looks like it. With these kind of "crimes" I will not take the police's side. You do. We differ.
These are forums where we post our opinions, this is not a court of law. I can say what I want, like you can say that what I say is ridiculus.
It's not that you're saying something some of us can disagree with, but that what you say is actually just that.... ridiculous.
Saying police abuse their powers against homosexual is ridiculus? It sure looks like it. With these kind of "crimes" I will not take the police's side. You do. We differ.
These are forums where we post our opinions, this is not a court of law. I can say what I want, like you can say that what I say is ridiculus.
It's not that you're saying something some of us can disagree with, but that what you say is actually just that.... ridiculous.
Police selectively targetting ****s in Texas for morality laws? Yeah, that's not ridiculous. It's kinda historical fact.
That the men aren't actually guilty of what they're being accused of? Frankly, I don't have a whole lot of doubt that they were doing what the police said they were1, what I have trouble with is that the police are actually following up on a complaint about a bath house. I mean really... anyone that's stupid enough to go into a gay bath house, lie to the attendent to get in, and then gets offended when some guy makes a pass at them while he's naked? Yeah. That's like a vegetarian going to a slaughterhouse and then complaining that it offends their delicate sensibilities.
The only difference is that there's no way police are going to raid a slaughterhouse for cruelty to animals, but raiding a bath house for public indecency? Oh yeah, they can get away with that.
________
1I mean, they might not have been, and I don't have a whole lot of faith in the police being honest in cases like this, but it's not terribly unlikely that the men were actually screwing around with each other.
The police responded to a complaint.
They have to respond to complaints.
Be angry with the busy-body that complained, not at the police that are doing their job.
And I hardly doubt that the police drive around thinking "lets go find us some **** to mess with"...
not saying it hasn't happened, or doesn't happen, just that it is unlikely to happen that way.
But hey!
Did you see that police woman?
Shes HAWT!!!!!
EE, I think your anger is mis-placed.
The police responded to a complaint.
They have to respond to complaints.
Yep. What they don't have to do is, after sending in a plains-clothes officer to take a look-see, decide to raid the place. Which is what they did.
I just find it funny that they say a complaint was made bout the lewdness. How do you know it is happening if you never went inside?
Yeah, you never can tell what a business does without investigating personally. There's this place near me which is a "bowling alley" and another which is a "grocery store" that I need to stake out soon. I think one of 'em might be for bowling, but I'm not sure which.
Also, it's entirely possible that the complaint came from a member who was reporting actual illegal activity that he witnessed. That can happen.
... two were charged with indecent exposure, which is defined as exposing one’s genitals with the intent to arouse or gratify and in a manner that is “reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed ...
So yeah, the cops were in the right because the definition of public place is overly broad. And nobody was arrested for just being nekkid
The problem isn't the definition of "public place", it's about "and in a manner that is 'reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed'". Which sounds incredibly unlikely.
They [officers] were in there for a legitimate reason, and obviously there was illegal activity going on or that many arrests wouldn’t have been made.
-the liaison
So... she's saying that if nothing illegal had happened, less arrests would have been made?
You’ve got to realize if you take away our places to have our sexual releases, that means we have no choice but to return to the streets, so it’s not a smart move.
-Anonymous guy
Dude, who writes your dialogue? You sound like you're impersonating a certain cartoonist's depiction of a "homosexual". Why'd they quote this guy?
Edit: I'm living in Texas at the moment, just saying.
Usually don't get excited, but this ass is running accost thin ice. Check out the other comments in the America to the rescue topic.
I am well aware of his comments. No matter how egregious his behaviour, the responsibility for issuing threats was yours and yours alone. I know how angry one can get when one's loved one's are insulted but threats are a blatant CoC violation, and not particularly cool.
There is an old saying coined by Sir Bernard Ingham: "cockup before conspiracy". A similar sentiment is the old epigram "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". The OP strikes me as being quite immature, both in his skill at communication as well as in years. The source of your anger is not, I think, and attempt to be insulting but simply a series of spectacularly unsuccessful attempts at humor.
In short, don't let it get to you. Don;t get yourself banned cos someone else makes a bunch of crap jokes.
Cheers.
I'm pretty sure Jesse is 14...at most.
I have no problem to say that I said ridiculus things, but jsut claiming I did is not enough proof. Arguments please. Saying something is ridiculus and considering is it an argument is just as ridiculus as my claims are supposed to be.
Not really, see, he isn't makingan argument in regards to what you said. He is dismissing you as an obviously loon and refusing to engage you in meaningful discussion as he deems you clearly incapable of participating in such.
I have no problem to say that I said ridiculus things, but jsut claiming I did is not enough proof. Arguments please. Saying something is ridiculus and considering is it an argument is just as ridiculus as my claims are supposed to be.
Not really, see, he isn't makingan argument in regards to what you said. He is dismissing you as an obviously loon and refusing to engage you in meaningful discussion as he deems you clearly incapable of participating in such.
If he really dismissed me he wouldn't engage me. I think he would like to, but does not have the capabilities. Not that he his dumb but debating calmely isn't his strong suit.
Nor is rationality yours. In my estimation, the very fact that you think a thing makes it less likely to be correct or even logical.
If you and your missus went down to a swingers gym & sauna that required membership to get past the bouncer and it was accepted and normal for you to have a "quicky on the treadmill Vic style", your analogy would be closer.
*shrug*
If that is the nature of the place, and such places are legal, then I do not understand why the cops would raid it. If a public sex club is legal it seems odd that they would conduct a public sex sting there. Seems like raiding a bar to arrest drunk people for public drunkenness.
In other words, either I'm missing something, or this whole thing is rather retarded.
I haven't read the article in question, but it sounds like people where having sex in some sort of gay sauna and people complained, causing the police to show up.I guess I'm not understanding why gay sex in a gay gym is more acceptable that non-gay sex in a non-gay gym. If me and the misses go down to the anytime fitness and have a quicky on the treadmill Vic style, I'm sure the cops will show up.
I believe the only person to use the word "sauna", prior to this post, was goldomark.
EE's title says "bathhouse", and the article uses that word right away, too. This is what a bathhouse is.
Unjustified prejudice [...]
Prejudice involves pre-judging. This is the regular kind of judging.
You've already said stuff, and he's reacting.
Either way, still over-reaching "public morality" laws, whether you believe it's Texas going after "the gays" again or not1.
________
1And really, it's Texas. I'm not sure why someone wouldn't be willing to believe that they're trying clear the ****s out again. It's like a sport in that state.
Seems like raiding a bar to arrest drunk people for public drunkenness.
...
Didn't I just recently read about a case where that totally happened?
Huh. In my naivety, I thought 'bathhouse' meant 'bathhouse' like, a natural spring or a series of hottubs/saunas and what not. A spa, basically. You people and your crazy euphemisms!
I don't think that type of public bathhouse has been terribly popular since the invention of running water.
Of course this type has a very niche clientele, so I guess it's not all that popular, either.
Huh. In my naivety, I thought 'bathhouse' meant 'bathhouse' like, a natural spring or a series of hottubs/saunas and what not. A spa, basically. You people and your crazy euphemisms!
I don't think that type of public bathhouse has been terribly popular since the invention of running water.
Of course this type has a very niche clientele, so I guess it's not all that popular, either.
You see them in Mafia movies from time to time, so they do still exist.
This is almost on par with raiding the showers at a gym for public nudity.
By virtue of Texas's overly broad definition of "public", it's not "legal" as they can hit people for public lewdness and indecent exposure charges. Because apparently requiring a membership and having a bouncer isn't private enough.
Either way, still over-reaching "public morality" laws, whether you believe it's Texas going after "the gays" again or not1.
________
1And really, it's Texas. I'm not sure why someone wouldn't be willing to believe that they're trying clear the ****s out again. It's like a sport in that state.
Using Texas law, and prior upholdings of the law, any urination of males in a Restaraunt, Gas Station, Rest Area, or other Publicly accessible location could be considered Indecent exposure. As holding their private parts in order to urinate could be considered Sexual self stimulation. So if the police raid in question targeted the members of this 'Bath house' then they should be holding sting operations in any public or semi-public bathroom, Failure to do so shows prejudice on their part against the Gay community. To contiune this point, Wouldn't this make any location or time where Same sex interaction of any kind for more than a predetermined amount of time be nothing more than an attempt to gain sexual favors from said person by trying to gain their attention?
In any event this is pretty screwed up, it definitely looks like (from what we know) this particular establishment is being singled out and attacked for what it is at its very core. If we want to claim to be the land of the free discrimination of this magnitude cannot, and should not be allowed.
The problem isn't the definition of "public place", it's about "and in a manner that is 'reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed'". Which sounds incredibly unlikely.
Actually, the reason the cops can even use that 'and in a manner ...' stuff to arrest people in the bathhouse is because of the overly broad definition of what a public space is. 'Public' is required for the rest to matter. It is, of course, incredibly unlikely that someone there would be 'offended or alarmed' but according to the report someone was (whether that's actually what happend or not is not something we can know). Now if that person were in a private club that fell outside the bounds of 'public place', then I'm not so sure the cops could have arrested anyone for the charges brought against these men.
This is also exactly the same thing that the cops used to arrest drunk people inside of bars however long ago that was. The definition of public place is, IMO, the greatest issue here and it certainly seems that law enforcement in Texas likes to use it to harass.
Anyhoo, I'm not tryin' to argue - jus' tryin' to clarify where it is I'm comin' from on this particular part of the topic. Both of us are pointing fingers at a problem. The only difference is where we're pointin' 'em at. That we both see the problem is, to me, what's actually important. This is the kind of thing that shouldn't happen regardless of which loophole in interpretation was chosen as an excuse for it.
Do you always spout off ridiculous stuff while not knowing all the facts?
You really need to work on that...
I ♥ irony.
[link]
Not kidding. Apparently any place that "a substantial group of the public has access to" is called "public" under Texas law.
This may actually turn out to be a good thing in that it allows those arrested at the bathhouse to challenge the laws that govern what is considered a public place in Texas. Depending on how far it goes and what the outcome of any lawsuits, the end results can actually limit where police can go and who they can charge with public lewdness.
[link]
Not kidding. Apparently any place that "a substantial group of the public has access to" is called "public" under Texas law.
This may actually turn out to be a good thing in that it allows those arrested at the bathhouse to challenge the laws that govern what is considered a public place in Texas. Depending on how far it goes and what the outcome of any lawsuits, the end results can actually limit where police can go and who they can charge with public lewdness.
Yeah, but that cost ridiculus amounts of money and years. Not sure a guy who was caught in a gay bathhouse wants to be in the public eye for years.
It is hard to get justice.
There is always the ACLU. Besides, it's worth fighting for your rights.
[link]
Not kidding. Apparently any place that "a substantial group of the public has access to" is called "public" under Texas law.
This may actually turn out to be a good thing in that it allows those arrested at the bathhouse to challenge the laws that govern what is considered a public place in Texas. Depending on how far it goes and what the outcome of any lawsuits, the end results can actually limit where police can go and who they can charge with public lewdness.
Yeah, but that cost ridiculus amounts of money and years. Not sure a guy who was caught in a gay bathhouse wants to be in the public eye for years.
It is hard to get justice.
There is always the ACLU. Besides, it's worth fighting for your rights.
And gay groups could gather money and offer legal support. And fighting for your rights is always a the best thing to do, but it takes strong people to do that.
Having this legal battle for 5-10 years of your life, making speaches at ralies, being in the public eye, being attacked by homophobes, and just coming out of the closet if you were not. You would have to be strong indeed.
Besides the obvious, what's your point?
Besides the obvious, what's your point?
That what you said:This may actually turn out to be a good thing in that it allows those arrested at the bathhouse to challenge the laws that govern what is considered a public place in Texas. Depending on how far it goes and what the outcome of any lawsuits, the end results can actually limit where police can go and who they can charge with public lewdness.
probably will not happen.
Well, if people aren't willing to stand up and fight for their rights then they probably deserve the discomfort.
Bah. It is like saying that the jews got what they deserve from the Nazis because they didn't fight back.
Other people who aren't directly involve in the cause can fight for the rights of their neighbor. Supporting a politician who isn't homophobic might be a start.
But I do say foolish and stupid things.
1st, bringing up Nazis... come on... you can do better than that.
2nd, you're assuming that Jews did not resist the Nazis... they did... look it up.
Bah. It is like saying that the jews got what they deserve from the Nazis because they didn't fight back.
Other people who aren't directly involve in the cause can fight for the rights of their neighbor. Supporting a politician who isn't homophobic might be a start.
But I do say foolish and stupid things.
Aaaand Godwin'd.
Apart from running and hiding or fooling the Nazis, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, anyone?
Not that not fighting back justifies abusing anyone.
Is it
A) An establishment for sexual gratification
or
B) Akin to taking a piss in a resturant bathroom
You can't really have it both ways. Either they where doing something sexual in a place designed for doing sexual things, or they where not doing anything sexual. If the former, then comparing it to a public restroom is kind of absurd.