Breasts in the news

This is for encouragement, ideas, and support for people going through a faith transition no matter where you hope to end up. This is also the place to laugh, cry, and love together.
User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Jeffret » Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:00 am

My city is basically a good city. A bit progressive. City and citizens aren't afraid of spending a little money to make things a nice place to live. Generally tries to be inclusive and treat people equally and nicely, but not always successfully. I wasn't at all surprised that this ordinance was passed by the city council in 2015. It's just standard American biases that female breasts are somehow magically dangerous. I was a bit surprised that the courts ruled in favor of Free the Nipple, though it's clear the law has no real basis besides, "that's the way things are". Courts are often reluctant to change the status quo. Other courts around the country have ruled differently, on terms of public safety and decency. (There's little real evidence or justification of public safety concerns. Decency always seems to somehow favor those in power.)

But, the actions of West Valley City here are excessive and make no sense. They're trying to convict someone for private behavior. Behavior that is common for many, many people and families. How do they think they can enforce this? How can they possibly draw the lines in any way that makes sense? By Utah law, women can publicly breastfeed. Certainly they can breastfeed in their homes. Children, even young children may potentially see breasts then. The City can't even figure out exactly when the supposed offenses occurred or the conditions under which they did.

In one way of looking at it, the basic job of a legislature is to dictate morality. By passing laws they codify a public expression of how questions of morality are resolved. Whether those laws involve money, harmful acts, or fundamentally harmless acts like this, the laws express what a society determines is moral. But, in a constitutional republic like ours, normally there are limits to the laws a legislative body creates. They can no longer pass laws supporting the enslavement of anyone, no matter the color of their skin or the shape of their genitalia. They can't pass laws that discriminate against certain protected classes, including religion and sex, without a strong, singular justification. Just because these limits exist doesn't mean that legislatures have been completely prohibited from legislating morality. What it means is that this city attorney demands to be allowed to discriminate in ways the law doesn't allow.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

Spicy McHaggis
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Spicy McHaggis » Sun Nov 24, 2019 5:43 pm

Just This Guy wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:33 am
This disturbing part of that quote is that this prosecutor thinks it is the job of the legislature to dictate morality.
Boobs don't even have anything to do with morality. The Utah legislature just think they do.

Spicy McHaggis
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Spicy McHaggis » Sun Nov 24, 2019 5:48 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:00 am
My city is basically a good city. A bit progressive. City and citizens aren't afraid of spending a little money to make things a nice place to live. Generally tries to be inclusive and treat people equally and nicely, but not always successfully. I wasn't at all surprised that this ordinance was passed by the city council in 2015. It's just standard American biases that female breasts are somehow magically dangerous. I was a bit surprised that the courts ruled in favor of Free the Nipple, though it's clear the law has no real basis besides, "that's the way things are". Courts are often reluctant to change the status quo. Other courts around the country have ruled differently, on terms of public safety and decency. (There's little real evidence or justification of public safety concerns. Decency always seems to somehow favor those in power.)

But, the actions of West Valley City here are excessive and make no sense. They're trying to convict someone for private behavior. Behavior that is common for many, many people and families. How do they think they can enforce this? How can they possibly draw the lines in any way that makes sense? By Utah law, women can publicly breastfeed. Certainly they can breastfeed in their homes. Children, even young children may potentially see breasts then. The City can't even figure out exactly when the supposed offenses occurred or the conditions under which they did.

In one way of looking at it, the basic job of a legislature is to dictate morality. By passing laws they codify a public expression of how questions of morality are resolved. Whether those laws involve money, harmful acts, or fundamentally harmless acts like this, the laws express what a society determines is moral. But, in a constitutional republic like ours, normally there are limits to the laws a legislative body creates. They can no longer pass laws supporting the enslavement of anyone, no matter the color of their skin or the shape of their genitalia. They can't pass laws that discriminate against certain protected classes, including religion and sex, without a strong, singular justification. Just because these limits exist doesn't mean that legislatures have been completely prohibited from legislating morality. What it means is that this city attorney demands to be allowed to discriminate in ways the law doesn't allow.
I wonder if this case involves an angry ex-wife who called the po-po on the step mom for having her breasts out in her own home.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Jeffret » Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:19 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:32 pm
The quote from the West Valley City attorney, that there hasn’t been any past cases that have “completely undone the notion that the Legislature cannot legislate morality” is totally ludicrous. Where did he get his legal training?
According to a commenter on the SL Tribune article, the answer, unsurprisingly, is, "Ryan Robinson, West Valley City prosecutor, BYU BS ‘96, BYU JD ‘99".
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Random
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Random » Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:50 pm

So, if the woman is found innocent, and the attorney successfully sues the prosecutors, do you think that will lessen the stranglehold the Corp has on Utah government and Utah laws? And when can we say it has let go of the throats of the govt?

I mean, I think changing the liquor laws loosened it a bit, and perhaps other things have as well (for example, doesn't SLC have a gay/lesbian mayor?). I look forward to the day when the Corp has no power over what laws are and are not made in the state.
There are 2 Gods. One who created us. The other you created. The God you made up is just like you-thrives on flattery-makes you live in fear.

Believe in the God who created us. And the God you created should be abolished.
PK

User avatar
FiveFingerMnemonic
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by FiveFingerMnemonic » Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:09 pm

Random wrote:So, if the woman is found innocent, and the attorney successfully sues the prosecutors, do you think that will lessen the stranglehold the Corp has on Utah government and Utah laws? And when can we say it has let go of the throats of the govt?

I mean, I think changing the liquor laws loosened it a bit, and perhaps other things have as well (for example, doesn't SLC have a gay/lesbian mayor?). I look forward to the day when the Corp has no power over what laws are and are not made in the state.
I think if Jon Hunstman Jr gets elected governor over Spencer Cox, that will help things as well. Jon is not a blind follower of the corp.

User avatar
Random
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Random » Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:32 pm

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:09 pm
Jon is not a blind follower of the corp.
That's good to know.
There are 2 Gods. One who created us. The other you created. The God you made up is just like you-thrives on flattery-makes you live in fear.

Believe in the God who created us. And the God you created should be abolished.
PK

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by slavereeno » Sat Dec 07, 2019 7:44 pm

This may be crossing the threads a little but IF the ERA was in effect, wouldn't this sort of thing be unconstitutional? Or they have to prosecute the man as well?

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Jeffret » Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:22 pm

slavereeno wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 7:44 pm
This may be crossing the threads a little but IF the ERA was in effect, wouldn't this sort of thing be unconstitutional? Or they have to prosecute the man as well?
Basically.

Utah is in the 10th Circuit, which has already ruled this sort of thing is basically unconstitutional. The scope of the 10th Circuit ruling isn't entirely clear but the ERA would make it a lot clearer. If the issue ends up getting appealed to SCOTUS with their current makeup it's hard to believe they would rule for equality. It's hard to believe the right wing (primarily composed of men) on the court would rule for equality, even though the 10th Circuit's reasoning was very sound. If the ERA were in place, though, the court would be bound by the amendment.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by slavereeno » Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:53 am

Jeffret wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:22 pm
slavereeno wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 7:44 pm
This may be crossing the threads a little but IF the ERA was in effect, wouldn't this sort of thing be unconstitutional? Or they have to prosecute the man as well?
Basically.

Utah is in the 10th Circuit, which has already ruled this sort of thing is basically unconstitutional. The scope of the 10th Circuit ruling isn't entirely clear but the ERA would make it a lot clearer. If the issue ends up getting appealed to SCOTUS with their current makeup it's hard to believe they would rule for equality. It's hard to believe the right wing (primarily composed of men) on the court would rule for equality, even though the 10th Circuit's reasoning was very sound. If the ERA were in place, though, the court would be bound by the amendment.
I thought I read (maybe here) that Utah already had a ERA type amendment in their state constitution. Was the woman acquitted? I hope she sues the people responsible for the arrest/charges in the first place and wins. I can't imagine this has nothing to do with the children's birth mother since this woman was a "step" mom. I would imagine she is the only one that would have known and been upset enough to want charges brought? (I am making wild assumptions here)

Kishkumen
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:39 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Kishkumen » Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:16 am

I'll need to see the evidence before forming my opinion.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Breasts in the news

Post by Jeffret » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:33 am

There was recently a vaguely related court development. Three New Hampshire women involved in a Free the Nipple organization were arrested and fined a few years back for going topless at a lake. They appealed the inequality of the law, which was supported based on “the traditional understanding of what constitutes nudity.” (Tradition gets blamed for a lot of bad, unequal decisions.) The case was appealed through the New Hampshire Supreme Court to SCOTUS. The latter refused to accept the case (refused to grant cert). The New Hampshire Supreme Court standing that men and women need to be treated differently stands.

But, so does the 10th Circuit ruling that men and women cannot be treated differently. My state, Colorado, is in the 10th Circuit as is Utah. Binding precedent inside the 10th Circuit prohibits unequal treatment.

But New Hampshire allows it. And for comparison, New York has allowed topless women for years.

People always caution against reading anything into a denial of cert. The Court may have just not had any interest in the case. Often they just want to wait and allow ideas and legal arguments to develop. They tend to step in when there is a circuit court split -- when there are incompatible rulings from different circuit courts. But, in this case the suit filed in Fort Collins, CO went through federal court and a circuit appellate court and the NH one went through state courts.

Local article about how the SCOTUS action for NH doesn't impact Fort Collins

More background on the NH case
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests