NYC/Adult business closed 12/16

[jack]

Some information is that a law was in place to automatically close last week all strip clubs, toppless bars, peep shows, porn theatres in NYC.

 

A judge changed the date to December 16 for a hearing.

 

Is this true, as in, good bye Splash and Gayiety, along with civil rigthts. How will the Escort business be effected. How will tourists business react. etc. Is it true????:-(

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Some information is that a law was in place to automatically

>close last week all strip clubs, toppless bars, peep shows,

>porn theatres in NYC.

>

>A judge changed the date to December 16 for a hearing.

>

>Is this true, as in, good bye Splash and Gayiety, along with

>civil rigthts.

 

Could you please explain to the class the nexus between strip clubs and civil RIGHTS?

 

Furthermore, what I read was that Scores was in danger of being closed because of the current cabaret rules. Last time I checked, a PEEP SHOW or a porn theatre wasn't considered a cabaret, old chum.

 

Novemberly yours,

 

FFF

[jack]

FFF, not to quibble, there is no connection between the two. Back to basics: Is NYC about to shut down Adult Businesses?

[jack]

. . . other than hyperbole . ..

[Guest in yer face]

This happens every year. It goes to court, and the first amendment always comes to front. The Gayety has so far been able to evade to rules because its considered a broadway performance, and nudity is not considered obscene in and of itself. Splash is just a club/bar and does not fit the bill here.

 

Hoever, what has been happening in Times Square is that the businesses are getting more and more brazen with their advertising, and its pissing off the business owners around them. This will most likely play out with a crackdown on the businesses not following the rules that were set forth with Guiliani.

[trilingual]

>Could you please explain to the class the nexus between strip clubs and civil RIGHTS?

 

Uh, sure. If you happen to believe in people's right to sexual self-expression (provided they're not harming others in the process) and that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation's consenting adults, then there's a complete nexus between strip clubs and civil rights.

 

I also assume you accept that one of the reasons the United States was founded was to allow individuals the "pursuit of happiness." Strip clubs may not be temples of high art (although some readers of this site would strongly debate that :7 ) but they obviously provide many people a way of pursuing happiness. So long as strip clubs or other sex businesses don't unreasonably intrude on others who aren't interested in them, the state has no grounds to ban them or make it so difficult for them to operate that they might as well be banned. I certainly wouldn't call the Gayety, Rounds, or the NY porn shops and other sex businesses with innocuous façades unreasonably intrusive, so they should have (or should have had) a right to continue in business and I should have a right to patronize them, if I wish. (This is not to say that such businesses should be free from all regulation, but any such regulation should only have to do with ordinary health and safety concerns, and requiring the businesses to be externally inoffensive to uninterested neighbors and passers-by.)

 

It's also a freedom of religion issue, or perhaps better put, a freedom FROM religion issue. Strip clubs and other non-coercive sex businesses don't offend my moral or religious beliefs. I don't want to be restricted from my enjoyment of them because of the imposition of the religious or moral beliefs of others. In the U.S., we're supposed to be free from religious coercion. (And if you're not aware that the Archdiocese of New York and certain influential ultra-Orthodox communities in Brooklyn, among others, have a big role in the efforts to wipe out sex businesses in NY, you need to take a trip to Starbucks and smell the coffee!)

 

Of course, there's a certain sad irony in the fact that all this interference in the rights of others to live their lives as they choose free from the heavy hand of the state happened under allegedly CONSERVATIVE administrations.

 

However, since it seems you'd PREFER living in an ultra-conservative place where the state does all of your moral and religious thinking for you, not to mention totally controls your life, I strongly encourage you to consider moving to one. You have a wide choice of real estate anywhere between Morocco and Iran. When should we come to the airport to see you off? ;-)

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Uh, sure. If you happen to believe in people's right to

>sexual self-expression (provided they're not harming others

>in the process) and that the state has no place in the

>bedrooms of the nation's consenting adults, then there's a

>complete nexus between strip clubs and civil rights.

 

You just destroyed your own argument. The state doesn't have any business in people's bedrooms, however, strip clubs aren't IN people's bedrooms.

 

Nice try.

 

 

>I also assume you accept that one of the reasons the United

>States was founded was to allow individuals the "pursuit of

>happiness." Strip clubs may not be temples of high art

>(although some readers of this site would strongly debate

>that :7 ) but they obviously provide many people a way of

>pursuing happiness.

 

I think it's safe to say that the founding fathers didn't have strip clubs and peep shows in mind when that was written. You think the country is uptight now, think about how it was back THEN!

 

 

>So long as strip clubs or other sex

>businesses don't unreasonably intrude on others who aren't

>interested in them, the state has no grounds to ban them or

>make it so difficult for them to operate that they might as

>well be banned.

 

Actually, the New York State Court of Appeals HAS ruled that the state DOES have the grounds to ban them in CERTAIN AREAS. Maybe you weren't reading the paper during the Guiliani administration.

 

 

>I certainly wouldn't call the Gayety,

>Rounds, or the NY porn shops and other sex businesses with

>innocuous façades unreasonably intrusive, so they should

>have (or should have had) a right to continue in business

>and I should have a right to patronize them, if I wish.

 

Rest easy, there were always be sex shops and hustler bars - maybe just not where they are now but you'll still be able to go to them.

 

 

>(This is not to say that such businesses should be free from

>all regulation, but any such regulation should only have to

>do with ordinary health and safety concerns, and requiring

>the businesses to be externally inoffensive to uninterested

>neighbors and passers-by.)

 

Something tells me you don't live next to one of them.

 

 

>It's also a freedom of religion issue, or perhaps better

>put, a freedom FROM religion issue. Strip clubs and other

>non-coercive sex businesses don't offend my moral or

>religious beliefs.

 

Guess what, it's not about YOU.

 

 

>I don't want to be restricted from my

>enjoyment of them because of the imposition of the religious

>or moral beliefs of others. In the U.S., we're supposed to

>be free from religious coercion. (And if you're not aware

>that the Archdiocese of New York and certain influential

>ultra-Orthodox communities in Brooklyn, among others, have a

>big role in the efforts to wipe out sex businesses in NY,

>you need to take a trip to Starbucks and smell the coffee!)

 

Are they the ones in the black helicopters?

 

 

 

 

>Of course, there's a certain sad irony in the fact that all

>this interference in the rights of others to live their

>lives as they choose free from the heavy hand of the state

>happened under allegedly CONSERVATIVE administrations.

 

And a liberal DEMOCRATICALLY controlled CITY COUNCIL. You forgot to mention that.

 

 

>However, since it seems you'd PREFER living in an

>ultra-conservative place where the state does all of your

>moral and religious thinking for you, not to mention totally

>controls your life,

 

Talk about hyperbole: "TOTALLY CONTROLS YOUR LIFE". When people say things like this, their credibility goes POOF!

 

 

This get so tiresome. Why do I even bother?

 

Exhaustedly yours,

 

FFF

[+ Lucky]

"This get so tiresome" So why not just skip this thread fF?

 

(Nice post, tri. Very succinct and to the point. And polite.)