Women want right to go topless in public, take case to state's Supreme Court

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States[5] that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.[6]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Next argument.

 

My point was that simply because it would be legally allowed, we would not suddenly be deluged with women walking down the street topless. An increase most certainly, especially at first, but nowhere near what the fears seem to be.

 

lol. capitalism Always works. i can't find any nice girls, for free under Any form of Capitalism.

 

Who fears the nipple? Certainly not I!

 

Obviously some do, as they are opposing women going topless.

 

Since when does anyone obey the law? Men get harsher sentences for the same crime thats sexist. Clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act but no one seems to give a half a s***

 

I'd say that it should be legal for non-overweight women ages 18-35 and illegal for everyone else.

 

Authoritarians seek to oppress others. Look at the gun banners for another example.

 

Women, just tell us to get used to it. Men do, in modern times.

 

That becomes more a problem with the application of the law verses what is written. Typically, when that happens, the laws allows for a range of penalty for the given crime, and then judges end up applying the harsher end towards men and the lighter end towards women. The law in and of itself is actually equal. It says men and women who commit this crime get a punishment in this range. There is also the issue of what crime each is charged with. It might not be necessarily that a woman gets a lighter sentence, but is charged with a lesser crime. Again, the law there still is equal, but application of the law is not. For the topic at hand, the law may or may not be equal depending on where we are talking about. It has been noted that in many places there actually is no law that prevents women from going topless. But it is in the places that do that the fight is occurring for equality of the law.

 

I'm sorry application of the law is the law theory is not the law it's the unattainable ideal

 

I support women's right to go topless, whenever they want.

 

Especially in Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

most people do not pay for dates, worse case check a online dating site if having issues dating

 

I think that you are using "application of law" in the scholarly context. I am using it more colloquially, or as the general public might do. Even should I have used the improper term, I spelled out what I was talking about quite clear enough, and you pretty much just sloughed it off. No real counter argument.

 

You need to learn your lessons better. Sodom and Gomorrah's problems were more about how they treated others, particularly strangers, than it was about any sexual activity or clothing options. Even during the Roman Empire era, the early adopter of Christian values, toplessness among women was not an unusual thing.

 

I'm not even going to ague with you about this. I just hope ignorant people don't come along and read it and believe your interpretations of historic events.

 

pot kettle achromatic.

 

no I'm using it in the Practical context directly how it's applied.

know what you're doing is speaking about theoretical stuff yes theoretically the law should treat everyone equally but it doesn't. It can be written it simply isn't applied that way.

You were talking about what the law says I was talking about what the law does and how it differs from what it says. I didn't shrug it off I accept it says what it says. My argument is that it doesn't do what it says that's what application is it's not scholarly it's Dog s*** simple.

 

you have a limited understanding of economics, that is all.

 

Except that it is doing what it says. If we make a law with a punishment range that is decidable by a judge or jury, then we can't say that the law isn't doing what it is supposed to. It is the people itself that will make it imbalanced or not. No doubt there are judges who will decide a case on it's actual merit and not be influenced by the gender of the defendant. But there still are plenty who are so influenced, and probably not consciously so. Right now, for the most part, we need to make sure the law doesn't show a bias. The rest will have to be a matter of time to weed out false preconceptions on gender differences. While gender based gaps still exist, they are shrinking and we will see them go away eventually. Whether that is in our lifetimes remains to be seen.

 

No it isn't. If it was there would be no uses for appellate courts.

Hence I was talking about application not theory.

As long as those biases exist the 14th amendment is not achievable.

It clearly does.

Im glad you admit this, that was my entire point.