"South Dakota's attorney general is defending a 2-year-old state law that a Sioux Falls man says is unconstitutional because it unfairly targets adult-oriented businesses.
David Eliason, who owns The Love Shack at 2208 W. 41st St., is involved in two cases - one in federal court, the other in state court - that could test a zoning law restricting adult-oriented businesses passed by the Legislature in 2008. The cases:
•In Sturgis, Eliason filed a constitutional challenge to the law after the city of Sturgis denied him an occupancy permit for a store called Dick and Jane's Naughty Spot within city limits.
•In Sioux Falls, Eliason claims the law threatens the business he opened last November. Minnehaha County Deputy State's Attorney Dustin DeBoer has filed a permanent injunction against the store because it shares a block with Jefferson Park, putting it in violation of the state's setback requirements.
Under the 2008 statute, businesses defined as 'adult-oriented' cannot be located within a quarter mile of a park, school, church or residence."
As I've said before, about the only social idea that gets across the board political support is leaving adults alone in their own bedrooms - that is, their intimate moments.
So why can't we have the corollary - "Keep your intimate moments in your bedroom - or at least some place out of public view"? I think that's what setback laws like South Dakota's are about. People can look up these businesses and go to them, but what's unreasonable about saying they should be away from the view of minors and the homes of folks who don't want your sexual business in their face?
When is comes to sex stuff, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim sexual expression as a public free speech right while asserting it as a privacy right in which you want to be left alone.
Along with that, isn't the sexuality of the pious, prudes, the bashful, the introverted or any number of other folks to be respected? What about their privacy? Or have we decided that sexuality is necessarily exhibitionistic and/or a financial transaction?
5 comments:
Well, the Washington National Cathedral is advertising a sex chat line. (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13376)
TEC has 'sanctified' abortion and homosex.
What's the big difference?
a financial transaction: that's exactly the objectification that grates me about Eliason. Good points, TLF!
Sibyl - the big difference is that most folks dabbling in porn are doing the basic thing humans do - seek to fill life with pleasures that turn out to be limited at best, destructive at worst, and always empty in the long run.
TEC, on the other hand, has the word of life and betrays it.
Cory - I noticed that you are not up paid up on your NPA subscriber fees. How can we have a free exchange of ideas without a financial incentive? I have increased your NPA Reader Credit Card interest rate to 30%, but with our special two cycle billing (reserved for our most loyal and preferred readers!) you'll be paying 60%.
My apologies, the WN Cathedral chat line was a typo and not intentional.
No worries, Sybil. I saw the Virtue story yesterday and my eyes popped out! I was relieved to find that it was all about a typo.
But it shows how far TEC has fallen that we would even assume it could be an actual program at a cathedral.
Post a Comment