Nudity on Private Property

[MichaelJB]

This was from another thread that was closed but it brings up a good subject and I didnt get to answer it so I thought I would here.


People, and this includes private business owners, have, or should have, property rights and freedom. Businesses don't have to, nor should they have to, let anyone in who they don't want, for whatever reason or whim they have.


If the person patronizing a business is doing something illegal or disturbing the customer or interfering with them doing their shopping there then yes the owner should be able to ask them to leave and or take legal action. They should not be able to deny a person entry or their ability to partake of the services there just because they dont LIKE them or dont LIKE some way they look or are dressed. Thats discrimination. If these people are coming in there and are friendly and law abiding then the owner has a responsibility to give them the best service possible.


I don't have a right to walk into your house clothed, naked, or otherwise, and you don't have any right to someone else's property. A buisness owner can require anyone they let into their business to wear rabbit ears if they so want. And thats the way it should be.


Someone's home is different than a business, they fall under a different set of rules even though they are both considered private property. Besides them being private property you cant really bunch the two together. I would not want you walking into my home unannounced but if you came into a store I owned then I would give you the best service possible unless you were doing something to disturb my customers or were breaking the law.


Many people seem to think that government ought to be able to require anything of anyone if enough people want it. Thats called the tyranny of the majority, and its morally wrong.


The majority says nudity in public is offensive and bans it because of that, isnt that morally wrong?

[MJ_KC]

A business is typically issued a license to operate by whatever jurisdiction they are located in. They have to abide by whatever the local rules may be for who they have to let in and they can't discriminate against someone just because they want to. If they can't show a good reason why they are not letting certain people in, they could risk losing their license to operate their business.

[Agde]

If we can get the legal debate centered around whether or not a store owner can set a dress code, then we may already be very close to naturist goals. Such a debate assumes the fundamental principle that individual attire is a personal choice without legal consequences. The legal burden is thus not on the individual to prove why their personal choice was not inappropriate, but rather on private establishments to provide business, health or public safety reasons why a certain dress code is not illegal.

The legal difference between private home property and private commercial settings is really only that the former are considered by default closed to the public, whilst the latter are open. Premises owned by a membership, such as a church, may have open door policies at certain times but are essentially considered closed to non-members. Otherwise the same dress code principles could apply in all cases.

[Stu2630]

The majority says nudity in public is offensive and bans it because of that, isnt that morally wrong?

Private property is just that - private. If I own, or manage on behalf of the owner, a shopping centre, a café, a bowling alley or even a swimming pool, I make the rules. I can insist that people entering are nude, clothed or I can let them where as little or as much as I like.

I'm not sure why you bring morality into this. Nudity isn't a moral issue in its own right. To ensure that as many people as possible are as comfortable as possible, some nudist venues insist upon nudity, and I support their right to make such a requirement. But it cuts both ways. If the majority find nudity offensive then that's how they feel: their feelings should be respected and reflected in the way any premises, public or private, are managed and regulated.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Private property is just that - private. If I own, or manage on behalf of the owner, a shopping centre, a café, a bowling alley or even a swimming pool, I make the rules. I can insist that people entering are nude, clothed or I can let them where as little or as much as I like.

I'm not sure why you bring morality into this. Nudity isn't a moral issue in its own right. To ensure that as many people as possible are as comfortable as possible, some nudist venues insist upon nudity, and I support their right to make such a requirement. But it cuts both ways. If the majority find nudity offensive then that's how they feel: their feelings should be respected and reflected in the way any premises, public or private, are managed and regulated.

Stu

Stu,


Two issues stand out here. Laws still apply to what occurs on private property. For example, it is still illegal to serve minors alcoholic beverages in a private residence. Many lawsuits have been sucessfully prosecuted where the parents and homeowners were found liable for alcohol being served to minors at a private, at home party. The parents do not even have to be home to be liable and may be totally unaware that alcohol was even present until after the fact.

You mention that morality has nothing to do with nudity and yet so many religious people are adamently against nudism because the 'bible says so' or 'the preacher said so'. The issue is not always what is the obvious logical answer for many times we have to deal with those who are so closed minded that they will never consider another viewpoint no matter how much sense that it might make. Try to go against someone's religious beliefs no matter how wrong their belief is and how obvious that wrong is - forget it! Hence why we have so many so called religious people preaching hatred, intolerance, rejection, etc and why we have so many killing and wars - all in the name of GOD!

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Sorry, but I have to agree with you this time. ;)

Laws still apply to what occurs on private property.

Of course they do. It's no defence to a charge of murder to say that you committed the crime on private property. Nor would it provide a defence to any moderately serious crime. In spite of that, virtually all societies enshrine greater freedom of behaviour in private than in public. I can drive my car without a licence and even while drunk so long as I'm on my own property and not on a public highway.

You mention that morality has nothing to do with nudity and yet so many religious people are adamently against nudism because the 'bible says so' or 'the preacher said so'.

Yup. I agree with that too. Many people take their morality from religion and so they are unable to differentiate between religious doctrine and a more universal morality (if there is such a thing!). But you can't blame me for any of this because I am an atheist.

Stu

[usmc1]

This was from another thread that was closed but it brings up a good subject and I didnt get to answer it so I thought I would here.

If the person patronizing a business is doing something illegal or disturbing the customer or interfering with them doing their shopping there then yes the owner should be able to ask them to leave and or take legal action. They should not be able to deny a person entry or their ability to partake of the services there just because they dont LIKE them or dont LIKE some way they look or are dressed. Thats discrimination. If these people are coming in there and are friendly and law abiding then the owner has a responsibility to give them the best service possible.

Someone's home is different than a business, they fall under a different set of rules even though they are both considered private property. Besides them being private property you cant really bunch the two together. I would not want you walking into my home unannounced but if you came into a store I owned then I would give you the best service possible unless you were doing something to disturb my customers or were breaking the law.

The majority says nudity in public is offensive and bans it because of that, isnt that morally wrong?

I think that if one reflects one finds there is a considerable difference between rules and laws. Certainly a business owner/manager has the right and responsibility to establish certain rules of behavior and appearance for patrons or employees as long as those rules do not violate or infringe on laws or contractual restrictions or requirements. No shirt, no shoes no service! No smoking. You break it, you bought it! Do not touch. No entry-employees only. Turn off all cell phones and beepers. No radios. No credit cards--cash or check with valid ID. No Refunds!

Therefore, I should think that the owner of a business has the right to deny service to, or to serve only to nude people, or to clothed people, and let the buying public and patrons of that business decide its success as long as those rules reside within the law, and, other legal restrictions facing that business.

I also think that you will find that restricting nudity or partial nudity by a business does not meet the test of "discrimination" as established by current law. Nudity is a choice and a "condition" readily "remedied". Skin color, gender and national origin are innate "conditions" for which the only "remedies" lie in law.

By extension, doesn't this apply to anyone coming into one's place of business? "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". You can't bring the weight of the law to bear on someone who sells widgets who decides he doesn't want to sell widgets to beer-bellied, rednecks wearing John Deere gimme caps. Come into my store wearing a Support W button, and I'm inviting your *** to git! My store, I don't have to sell you anything if I don't want to! Not always smart business, but certainly well within the law.

(As an example. The owners of this site have chosen to install filtering software which bleeps out certain words, such as *** above. I find this to be a sillyass thing to do, but, it's their "business" and they get to establish the rules. Does it discriminate and limit those of us who prefer frank, expressive, colorful and unrestrained language and forces everyone into a bland as tapioca rhetoric ? Yep, but it's their option--I can chose not to post under those restrictions or live with them, and try to convince the administrators of the silliness of the restriction--maybe get some help from George Carlin)

For me there are some gray areas. What of the shopkeepers who have signs posted, Only Two Kids At a Time, in order to be able watch the brats to stop shoplifting? Is it discriminatory against an age group, or is it a "status" rule which is lawful and enforceable?

As to the tyranny of the majority. Well yeah! But, that is the reason for our rights to speak freely, to assemble, to seek redress, to petition, to vote and so forth. You don't like the way a business or governmental entity conducts its self; speak out, convince others, don't patronize, start your own competing business, run for office or give support to candidates who believe as you, and so forth.

[NCguy49]

Two issues stand out here. Laws still apply to what occurs on private property. For example, it is still illegal to serve minors alcoholic beverages in a private residence. Many lawsuits have been sucessfully prosecuted where the parents and homeowners were found liable for alcohol being served to minors at a private, at home party. The parents do not even have to be home to be liable and may be totally unaware that alcohol was even present until after the fact.

I experienced that first hand. I had an abandoned house I was renovating. Some kids broke in and found a bottle of booze in one of the boxes they were scrounging through in the basement. They were caught in there by the local police. The point is that the authorities were considering charges against me for supplying minors with alcohol! The charges were never filed so I don't know what would have happened.

[Agde]

Really excellent post USMC1!!!
What is it about nudity that has moved it from the realm of rules to law? Nudity does not meet the test of "discrimination" as established by current law, so it isn't a mutually guaranteed right in that sense. But it can't just be because it is a "condition" readily "remedied", otherwise I could demand certain women wash off their strong perfume. Neither nudity nor strong perfume meets the test of doing harm, however offensive the personal choice may be to innocent bystanders. As a businessperson, why can't I post a sign on the door of my widget store that says "clothing optional" without jeopardizing my business permit, whereas a sign that says "clients with strong perfume will not be served" would be ok? I don't see the logic in any of this.

[Bob S.]

Michael, what you are advocating is the reversal of all nudity-mandatory nudist resorts. Heck, what you are suggesting is that nudist parks cannot even state that bathing suits are forbidden in the pools and hot tubs. After all, if they cannot set up their own dress codes, they cannot enforce any dress-code rules.

Michael:"If these people are coming in there and are friendly and law abiding then the owner has a responsibility to give them the best service possible."

I don't know if you ever saw the "Soup Nazi" episode of Seinfeld, but it was where the owner of a restaurant (the soup Nazi) that sold soup had a specific routine for his patrons ordering. George did not follow his rules and the soup Nazi refused to serve him. While that was not quite how things work in reality, it would still be legal.

Stores have rules, either listed or unlisted. If a patron violates one, the store reserves the right to deny service. The only limitations being the discrimination policies that each state and the fed govts have listed that pertain to the business in question.

And while the best thing for business is to give all patrons the best service, it is not their responsibility. Their responsibility is to make money (their own responsibility) and to ensure that they are in compliance with all relevant laws and official regulations.

Bob S.

[MichaelJB]

Private property is just that - private. If I own, or manage on behalf of the owner, a shopping centre, a café, a bowling alley or even a swimming pool, I make the rules. I can insist that people entering are nude, clothed or I can let them where as little or as much as I like.


Like others have said just because its private property doesnt mean you make ALL of the rules!


I'm not sure why you bring morality into this. Nudity isn't a moral issue in its own right. To ensure that as many people as possible are as comfortable as possible, some nudist venues insist upon nudity, and I support their right to make such a requirement. But it cuts both ways. If the majority find nudity offensive then that's how they feel: their feelings should be respected and reflected in the way any premises, public or private, are managed and regulated.


I honestly think that places that allow nudity should be clothing optional so that people can chose weither or not to wear clothes because each extreme leaves someone out of luck, this way theres a compromise and nearly everyone is happy.


You mention that morality has nothing to do with nudity and yet so many religious people are adamently against nudism because the 'bible says so' or 'the preacher said so'.


These people basically impose their own morality on others even when those people dont share that morality. I dont want to be told to wear clothes just because someone's book or their creator tells me to.


Hence why we have so many so called religious people preaching hatred, intolerance, rejection, etc and why we have so many killing and wars - all in the name of GOD!


I think these people really need to try to make sure they follow their religion as best they can and stop worrying about changing the world.



I think that if one reflects one finds there is a considerable difference between rules and laws. Certainly a business owner/manager has the right and responsibility to establish certain rules of behavior and appearance for patrons or employees as long as those rules do not violate or infringe on laws or contractual restrictions or requirements.


When rules are made for health and saftey reasons or something practical like that its one thing when they do it simply out of prejudice or because they want to impose their morals/values on others thats something else.


Therefore, I should think that the owner of a business has the right to deny service to, or to serve only to nude people, or to clothed people, and let the buying public and patrons of that business decide its success as long as those rules reside within the law, and, other legal restrictions facing that business.


I dont think a business owner should be dictating an individuals dress unless it becomes necessary.


I also think that you will find that restricting nudity or partial nudity by a business does not meet the test of "discrimination" as established by current law. Nudity is a choice and a "condition" readily "remedied". Skin color, gender and national origin are innate "conditions" for which the only "remedies" lie in law.


Just because something is a choice and easily remedied doesnt mean it isnt discrimination.


By extension, doesn't this apply to anyone coming into one's place of business? "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". You can't bring the weight of the law to bear on someone who sells widgets who decides he doesn't want to sell widgets to beer-bellied, rednecks wearing John Deere gimme caps. Come into my store wearing a Support W button, and I'm inviting your *** to git! My store, I don't have to sell you anything if I don't want to! Not always smart business, but certainly well within the law.


No because these are law abiding customers minding their own business and they are in need of your services and theyve done nothing to justify you refusing them service or asking them to leave. You cant just deny a customer service because you dont like them. You have a responsibility and an obligation to them.


(As an example. The owners of this site have chosen to install filtering software which bleeps out certain words, such as *** above. I find this to be a sillyass thing to do, but, it's their "business" and they get to establish the rules. Does it discriminate and limit those of us who prefer frank, expressive, colorful and unrestrained language and forces everyone into a bland as tapioca rhetoric ? Yep, but it's their option--I can chose not to post under those restrictions or live with them, and try to convince the administrators of the silliness of the restriction--maybe get some help from George Carlin)


I beleive in self censorship, I think its the job of individuals to censor what they dont want to see or dont want their kids to see, not the government or individual businesses. I think if people are made aware that there is foul language here and come in anyways and dont make any attempt to stay away from the site dispite the fact that theres foul language there then they get whatever consequences are a result of that action. Its not this site's responsibility to make up for their poor choices. Theyre here to provide a service not tell people what is right and wrong. I dont think in an open minded and tolerant society that there is much need for censorship, people have brains and the capability to do it on their own.


For me there are some gray areas. What of the shopkeepers who have signs posted, Only Two Kids At a Time, in order to be able watch the brats to stop shoplifting? Is it discriminatory against an age group, or is it a "status" rule which is lawful and enforceable?


Its discriminatory if you have more than 2 kids with you and you must go inside and are all by yourself and must take all your kids inside with you. If the owner is vigilant enough and is looking out for shoplifters then it doesnt matter how many people are in the store.


As to the tyranny of the majority. Well yeah! But, that is the reason for our rights to speak freely, to assemble, to seek redress, to petition, to vote and so forth. You don't like the way a business or governmental entity conducts its self; speak out, convince others, don't patronize, start your own competing business, run for office or give support to candidates who believe as you, and so forth.


I think laws should be made based on facts and whats the right thing to do instead of what the angry mob thinks. Some of the worst things in history have resulted because of majority rule.


I experienced that first hand. I had an abandoned house I was renovating. Some kids broke in and found a bottle of booze in one of the boxes they were scrounging through in the basement. They were caught in there by the local police. The point is that the authorities were considering charges against me for supplying minors with alcohol! The charges were never filed so I don't know what would have happened.


If the house was abandoned and you had signs posted saying such and the kids broke into your home and found the alcohol then they are at fault because they had no business being in your house in the first place and if your house was abandoned you had no intention of giving kids booze to begin with. I doubt you wouldve been charged with anything.

[MichaelJB]

Michael, what you are advocating is the reversal of all nudity-mandatory nudist resorts. Heck, what you are suggesting is that nudist parks cannot even state that bathing suits are forbidden in the pools and hot tubs. After all, if they cannot set up their own dress codes, they cannot enforce any dress-code rules.


I dont like the idea of nudity being "required" anymore than I would like "clothes" being required. I think it would be better if these nudist resorts were "clothing optional" for those who are new to nudism and that the nudist resorts would simply "request" that people be nude in the pools and hot tubs. I think most people could decide to take their clothes off on their own.


I don't know if you ever saw the "Soup Nazi" episode of Seinfeld, but it was where the owner of a restaurant (the soup Nazi) that sold soup had a specific routine for his patrons ordering. George did not follow his rules and the soup Nazi refused to serve him. While that was not quite how things work in reality, it would still be legal.


I guess it would just depend on what was involved with his patrons ordering and what rules were expected to be followed.


Stores have rules, either listed or unlisted. If a patron violates one, the store reserves the right to deny service. The only limitations being the discrimination policies that each state and the fed govts have listed that pertain to the business in question.


There needs to be limits to how far these owners can go with their rules. They cant be allowed to have rules that let them deny service to someone just because they dont like the person or the person looked at them the wrong way or they had some personal issue against them.


And while the best thing for business is to give all patrons the best service, it is not their responsibility. Their responsibility is to make money (their own responsibility) and to ensure that they are in compliance with all relevant laws and official regulations.


I think that is a sort of unwritten rule. Our lawmakers are only interested in money and keeping their economy flowing, they really dont care about the personal feelings and sensibilities of the people who patronize these businesses. Thats what really annoys me. Money is not everything.

Mike

[usmc1]

Michael, you state your opinions as though they were applicable to all of us and to the world in general. They do not.

You do not like the fact that a business owner can single you out for denial of goods or services or establish the conditions under which you might be served or receive those goods. Too bad! While you might feel you have a right to those goods and services, that owner does have a right to establish the rules and conditions for the sale of goods or services.

If I'm running a nudist resort, I am going set conditions and establish rules that are in my best interest---not yours! If enough people find my park rules amenable to them, I will be successful. If not, my business will fail and people such as you will have gone elsewhere.

But, I do not have to run my business, as long as I abide by the law and contractual conditions, if they exist, according to every foible, personal desire, nervous tic, or frustrated wishes of each person meandering up to my gates.

Looks to me like you're confusing should and ought with must.

Here, an analogy for sake of simplification. I have a diner. I serve only scrambled eggs with toast. You come in and say I want poached eggs and and biscuits. I say no, scrambled eggs and toast, that's it. You say, I'm the customer, you should meet my requirements. I say tough, I ain't running that kind of place, eat scrambled eggs and toast or get out!

I haven't discriminated against you. I've set the conditions and rules of my business. Now, you come in and say, "Give me the scrambled eggs and toast", and I answer, "Hell no bozo, we don't serve people like you here", depending, you might have a case of discrimination--and maybe not.

Simpler? I have a nudist resort. I admit only naked people. You come along and say, you should be admitted with your shorts on so you can get a sense of what it's like. I say no, Nude people only! That is not discrimination. That is a rule/condition for admittance.

It may not be customer friendly, it may not be the world's best business model, and it may not be to your liking. It is not discrimination!

[MichaelJB]

Michael, you state your opinions as though they were applicable to all of us and to the world in general. They do not.


For the most part they could be applicable to all of us and its not just my opinion. As for the world in general most of the world is comfortable with nudity and I think its time for the US to get with the program weither they want to or not. We're supposed to set an example for the rest of the world not make the whole world resent us because our country has hangups about nudity it shouldve gotten over along time ago.


You do not like the fact that a business owner can single you out for denial of goods or services or establish the conditions under which you might be served or receive those goods. Too bad! While you might feel you have a right to those goods and services, that owner does have a right to establish the rules and conditions for the sale of goods or services.


I agree with that but I do think those rules must be reasonable and not be unfair to the customer.


If I'm running a nudist resort, I am going set conditions and establish rules that are in my best interest---not yours! If enough people find my park rules amenable to them, I will be successful. If not, my business will fail and people such as you will have gone elsewhere.


If you run a nudist resort and just think about yourself instead of your guests then most will go elsewhere and the only person who will get to enjoy your nudist resort is yourself.
If I run a business I wanna put my customer first. Thats what businesses always talk about but when it comes time to live up to their word they end up not doing it.


But, I do not have to run my business, as long as I abide by the law and contractual conditions, if they exist, according to every foible, personal desire, nervous tic, or frustrated wishes of each person meandering up to my gates.


No you cant please everyone but if there is some reasonable way to accomidate the customer without compromising your business then you really should do your best to indulge them.


Looks to me like you're confusing should and ought with must.


I dont confuse should/ought with must, its just that when people say a business "should" do something they dont because they dont take the person serious enough. When the customer insists they do it and make it known that its something they really want then the business takes their concern more seriously.


Here, an analogy for sake of simplification. I have a diner. I serve only scrambled eggs with toast. You come in and say I want poached eggs and and biscuits. I say no, scrambled eggs and toast, that's it. You say, I'm the customer, you should meet my requirements. I say tough, I ain't running that kind of place, eat scrambled eggs and toast or get out!


It seems like it would be reasonable to make the eggs any way the customer wants them if you have the materials and skill to do so. It would be better to make the eggs in many different ways instead of just one way and its not hard to have biscuits if you have toast too. I would want to accomidate the customer. Its a reasonable request.


I haven't discriminated against you. I've set the conditions and rules of my business. Now, you come in and say, "Give me the scrambled eggs and toast", and I answer, "Hell no bozo, we don't serve people like you here", depending, you might have a case of discrimination--and maybe not.


If you have the means to make the food that way and since the request isnt unreasonable then I dont see any reason why you couldnt give in and accomidate the customer, you might actually have a better chance of getting on their good side and getting them to come back again. Just because it doesnt list the food that way on the menu doesnt mean you cant cook it that way if someone asks.


Simpler? I have a nudist resort. I admit only naked people. You come along and say, you should be admitted with your shorts on so you can get a sense of what it's like. I say no, Nude people only! That is not discrimination. That is a rule/condition for admittance.


I think a good compromise would be to allow the person in wearing shorts for a limited time until they get a sense of what its like and then after that if they want to stay then they should be naked otherwise they should find someplace else to go. Thats fair.


It may not be customer friendly, it may not be the world's best business model, and it may not be to your liking. It is not discrimination!


The whole point is to be customer friendly and have a good business model and make things to the customer's likeing as much as you can as long as their request is reasonable. Nothing youve mentioned here is outside the realm of being reaosnable.

Mike

[Skinview]

Here, an analogy for sake of simplification. I have a diner. I serve only scrambled eggs with toast. You come in and say I want poached eggs and and biscuits. I say no, scrambled eggs and toast, that's it. You say, I'm the customer, you should meet my requirements. I say tough, I ain't running that kind of place, eat scrambled eggs and toast or get out!

It seems like it would be reasonable to make the eggs any way the customer wants them if you have the materials and skill to do so. It would be better to make the eggs in many different ways instead of just one way and its not hard to have biscuits if you have toast too. I would want to accomidate the customer. Its a reasonable request....
If you have the means to make the food that way and since the request isnt unreasonable then I dont see any reason why you couldnt give in and accomidate the customer, you might actually have a better chance of getting on their good side and getting them to come back again. Just because it doesnt list the food that way on the menu doesnt mean you cant cook it that way if someone asks.

Mike, you are entirely missing our point. We are not talking about what buisness practice would maximize profits, our what buisness practice would be the nicest. We are talking about what buisness owners have a right to do.

[Skinview]

If the person patronizing a business is doing something illegal or disturbing the customer or interfering with them doing their shopping there then yes the owner should be able to ask them to leave and or take legal action. They should not be able to deny a person entry or their ability to partake of the services there just because they dont LIKE them or dont LIKE some way they look or are dressed. Thats discrimination.

The word "discrimination" is often shorthand for actions taken to the detriment of members of a certain group, that people generally find to be objectionable, such as racial discrimination. The strict meaning of the word "discriminate" just means: to identify, or discern the difference between things. Unless you are color blind, you can discriminate between the color red and the color blue. If you are picking mushrooms to eat, it is vital that you be able to discriminate against poisonous mushrooms. If I am going to select someone to be a spokesperson for my buisness, I am going to discriminate against ugly, inarticulate persons. I am going to discriminate against stupid or inexperienced people when I hire my buisness manager. I am going to discriminate against lazy people when I hire workers. There is nothing wrong with discrimination, unless its racially bigoted, or something like that. If someone wearing a KKK hood and sheet comes into my buisness, I'm going to discriminate against him. I'm going to tell him to get the hell out, even if no one else there cares.

If these people are coming in there and are friendly and law abiding then the owner has a responsibility to give them the best service possible.A buisness owner doesn't owe anything to someone walking in his door.

Someone's home is different than a business, they fall under a different set of rules even though they are both considered private property. Besides them being private property you cant really bunch the two together.What rules? Private property is private property. The owner can do what he wants with it.

The majority says nudity in public is offensive and bans it because of that, isnt that morally wrong?Yes! Unfortunately, most people are not libertarians.

[MichaelJB]

Mike, you are entirely missing our point. We are not talking about what buisness practice would maximize profits, our what buisness practice would be the nicest. We are talking about what buisness owners have a right to do.


Why give them the right to mistreat customers?

[MichaelJB]

The word "discrimination" is often shorthand for actions taken to the detriment of members of a certain group, that people generally find to be objectionable, such as racial discrimination. The strict meaning of the word "discriminate" just means: to identify, or discern the difference between things.


You know what I mean, im talking about the type of discrimination when a business owner refuses service to a certain group of customers just because they dont like them or dont like how they look and have some personal prejudice against them. I want people to be treated fairly and I dont like it when business owners make their personal prejudice part of their business practice. If they want to take their anger or dislike out on someone they should do it on their own time. These business owners dont get paid to run a business just to refuse service to everyone they dont happen to like.


There is nothing wrong with discrimination, unless its racially bigoted, or something like that. If someone wearing a KKK hood and sheet comes into my buisness, I'm going to discriminate against him. I'm going to tell him to get the hell out, even if no one else there cares.


Honestly I think there is something wrong with discrimination if you refuse service to someone just because they come in wearing a KKK hood and sheet. Sure I dont agree with the KKK or necessarily like them but I still think they have a right to shop like everyone else and a right to speak their mind as long as they stay within the law and dont disturb anyone. If theyre just coming into a store to shop then you got no reason to deny them service, but if they cause a disturbance and break the law by going after people of certain races they dont like then yeah that would be a good reason to throw them out. Its best to show respect for customers unless they give you a reason not to.



A buisness owner doesn't owe anything to someone walking in his door.


Of course they do, they owe them respect and to give them the best service they can and be a cordial host. They deserve the same that they would expect anyone to give them coming into their store.


What rules? Private property is private property. The owner can do what he wants with it.


There are things you can do in your home that you couldnt do in private business.


Yes! Unfortunately, most people are not libertarians.


Doesnt mean we cant make nudity legal anyways.

[roaddog]

The majority says nudity in public is offensive and bans it because of that, isnt that morally wrong?

HI Michael,
Whatever gave you the idea that the law has anything to do with morality? The law is merely a system for controlling the actions of those that voted for them. The most difficult trick is getting shut of the ones that don't work.
Cheers
Mick
;-)

[usmc1]

The word that comes to mind for me and which really seems to apply is: OBTUSE!

[Bushnud2]

"Stu" should be removed from this thread and this Forum.

Bushnud

[krcNY]

"Stu" should be removed from this thread and this Forum.

Bushnud

He has NOT violated TOS. I may not agree with everything he says, but he also brings insight on how some non-nudists think.

If you do not like what he says then ignore his posts. If you click on his profile you have the option to "ignore" this user.

[nudeM]

Nudity should be permitted on private property at the owners discretion just as long as any 'laws' are not broken. It is the owners responsibility to see to it that the laws are adhered to and all precautions have been administered. Pure and simple. :smoking:

[Skinview]

The word that comes to mind for me and which really seems to apply is: OBTUSE!

Or SOCIALIST. They don't believe in property rights, but I think you may have the right word...

[usmc1]

Or SOCIALIST. They don't believe in property rights, but I think you may have the right word...

No, the word obtuse is fitting. And, for your edification, you are not correct that socialists do not believe in property rights. They do disagree with capitalists as to who holds those rights.

[MichaelJB]

HI Michael, Whatever gave you the idea that the law has anything to do with morality? The law is merely a system for controlling the actions of those that voted for them. The most difficult trick is getting shut of the ones that don't work.


There is morality in all law somewhere, religious people especially think there is and thats why they try to make their morality into law all the time without violating the whole church and state thing.

[walter05]

Obtuse is the perfect word.

[Baron Lake]

I seem to recall that, some time ago, MichaelJB was banned from this forum. Oh wait. that was MikeJb. Musta got em mixed up. Can't think why.

b.l.

[MichaelJB]

I seem to recall that, some time ago, MichaelJB was banned from this forum. Oh wait. that was MikeJb. Musta got em mixed up. Can't think why.


Im actually the same person but since they updated CFF they let me back on and im trying to become a better member here. The old me is gone, although im sure some would say otherwise.

[richinoregon]

There is morality in all law somewhere, religious people especially think there is and thats why they try to make their morality into law all the time without violating the whole church and state thing.

If you broadly define morals as a system of how one ought to behave then ALL laws are designed to impose someones morals on another. Think about it:

Speed limit: You ought not to go faster than x because you might endanger someone else and you ought not do that

Pollution control: You ought not to pollute because it might hurt someone else physically or economically

Truth in advertisement: You ought to tell the truth about what you advertise.

Worker safety: You ought to provide your workers with a safe environment.

Need I go on? Every single law and regulation we have is imposing someone's morality on another. I get very frustrated with those who say "You can't legislate morality." If that is so then we would have no laws against murder, stealing, and robbery. Also by that statement they are trying to impose their morality (you ought not to legislate morality) on me.

Since we impose a morality with every law we pass or repeal we really should be in the open and state which morality we wish to impose and why.

[MichaelJB]

If you broadly define morals as a system of how one ought to behave then ALL laws are designed to impose someones morals on another. Think about it:


I think morals define right and wrong, not all morals can or should be made into law though.


Speed limit: You ought not to go faster than x because you might endanger someone else and you ought not do that


There has to be a set speed limit for the road and freeway otherwise you risk getting yourself and other people into an accident.



Pollution control: You ought not to pollute because it might hurt someone else physically or economically


Its simply not a smart idea to pollute the planet because you destroy our natural resources especially when there are cleaner more economical ways to do things without all the pollution.


Truth in advertisement: You ought to tell the truth about what you advertise.


People need to know the facts about what they are buying so they dont waste their money or buy something that potentially harm them.


Worker safety: You ought to provide your workers with a safe environment.


Businesses have a duty to the people working for them to provide them with a safe working environment so they can continue to work there and be productive. Its not cost effective to keep injuring people and having to replace them.


Need I go on? Every single law and regulation we have is imposing someone's morality on another.


Most of those laws are just based on facts and need not be based on any single person's morality. Most people whatever their morality is think these things are the correct thing to do.


I get very frustrated with those who say "You can't legislate morality." If that is so then we would have no laws against murder, stealing, and robbery. Also by that statement they are trying to impose their morality (you ought not to legislate morality) on me.


You cant have a functional society where everone is killing and stealing from one another, chaos would reign and the society would destroy itself. Weither people beleive killing/stealing is right or wrong can at least agree on that.


Since we impose a morality with every law we pass or repeal we really should be in the open and state which morality we wish to impose and why.


Maybe we could just base these laws on the facts and keep all this morality stuff out of it.

[RichNH]

Wow, I was wondering where everyone went.... They all came here! :eek:

[GAR]

2 things 1st we all need to put in our 2 cents. 2nd If I don't like whats is being said then I just skip over it. and no hard feelings on eather side. I like to see what most people have to say.Not every one see things from my point of view. This way I am able to learn from others. Some times I am correct but some times I'm not. So I like to listen to other point of view.

[Agde]

The examples cited by richinoregon -- speed limit, pollution control, truth in advertisement, worker safety -- are all examples of rules to mitigate harm. His other examples -- murder, stealing, and robbery -- are examples of actual harm. Morality and morality-based codes can inform such rules ("thou shalt not kill") but morality is different and broader since it seeks to codify and regulate the way a person thinks about their own behavior or assesses that of others. Morality thus encompasses thoughts and attitudes as well as acts, while law essentially deals with acts and harmful consequences. This is one reason why "intent" is always problematic in law, why moral rules like "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" are not laws, and why "victimless crimes" in general are so controversial.

Nudity is unique as a "crime" in that it is both "victimless" and does not involve any of the usual array of "victimless crime" concerns -- self-harm, consensual sexuality, possession of weapons or dangerous substances, paperwork administrative violations, or misrepresentation. In essence, nudity laws are a pure case of majority imposition of a particular moral preconception.

[Pete Knight]

Morals are peoples perception of acceptable behaviour and are flexible enough to change with the people, laws are enshrined in government acts that take a long time to pass through numerous stages, therefore they are inflexible and often get left behind as people perceptions change.

In the Victorian era it was morally wrong to expose any part of a ladies leg, had this been enshrined in law it would have been left behind long ago, imagine the reaction of a Victorian couple if they were to travel in time the 21st century, all those bikini's would cause an attack of the vapours!!!

Morality is a mindset, laws are an enactment of the peoples representatives.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Nudity is unique as a "crime" in that it is both "victimless"

People can feel abused by the nudity of others - every bit as much as if they were subjected to a barrage of obscene language. You may not think that reaction is logical, but it's how people feel. As such, it is not always "victimless".

Stu

[MichaelJB]

Stu


People can feel abused by the nudity of others - every bit as much as if they were subjected to a barrage of obscene language. You may not think that reaction is logical, but it's how people feel. As such, it is not always "victimless".


They might "feel" abused but there is no harm or abuse being done. Just because something bothers you doesnt mean you should be able to get someone arrested for it. Nudity harms noone.

Mike

[atalanta]

The examples cited by richinoregon -- speed limit, pollution control, truth in advertisement, worker safety -- are all examples of rules to mitigate harm. His other examples -- murder, stealing, and robbery -- are examples of actual harm. Morality and morality-based codes can inform such rules ("thou shalt not kill") but morality is different and broader since it seeks to codify and regulate the way a person thinks about their own behavior or assesses that of others. Morality thus encompasses thoughts and attitudes as well as acts, while law essentially deals with acts and harmful consequences. This is one reason why "intent" is always problematic in law, why moral rules like "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" are not laws, and why "victimless crimes" in general are so controversial.

Nudity is unique as a "crime" in that it is both "victimless" and does not involve any of the usual array of "victimless crime" concerns -- self-harm, consensual sexuality, possession of weapons or dangerous substances, paperwork administrative violations, or misrepresentation. In essence, nudity laws are a pure case of majority imposition of a particular moral preconception.

Very well expressed Agde. Thank you

[Agde]

People can feel abused by the nudity of others - every bit as much as if they were subjected to a barrage of obscene language.
By using the term "feeling abused" and considering yourself a victim, you are indicating that there is something more to nudity than mere "offense." People can be offended by all sorts of things, from ugliness to bad taste. That's not enough. Criminal law needs a justification of mitigation of harm. This is partly why "blue laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law)" fail before courts. Amusingly apropos this topic, the 1656 Blue Laws of Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Laws)provided that "No food or lodging shall be afforded to a Quaker, Adamite, or other Heretic.".

There is another class of crimes that is probably more to your liking. Public order crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_order_crime) involve acts that interfere with the operations of society. They are against society in general rather than specific victims. Your example of offensive language is probably quite apt in this context since it is equally shaky in law. There are not only free speech issues, but profanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity) is layered. Certain words may be more offensive and disruptive in certain social groups than others. A BBC commissioned survey (http://www.asa.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1EAEACA7-8322-4C86-AAC2-4261551F57FE/0/ASA_Delete_Expletives_Dec_2000.pdf#search=%22%22de lete%20expletives%22%22) in 2000, for instance, found that 10% of respondents regarded the word "crap" as a "very severe" expletive. It would be unlikely to get such a high rating in inner-city America. So who sets the norm for a law?

Nudity laws suffer from a similar sliding rule of public perception. But they stir together ingredients of offense, public order, etc -- none of which can stand legally on their own. There is simply no harm except to Stu's taboo.

Can you think of any other human activity or state of being that gets similar treatment under the law?

[Stu2630]

Agde

You are referring to American laws and American jurisprudence - something which is entirely alien to me, so I can't really comment from a position of knowledge.

People can be offended by all sorts of things, from ugliness to bad taste.

Ugliness and simple bad taste are issues of aesthetics and, as such, are not generally considered to have the power to cause what we would call "offence". To prove that, we need something more substantial, such as behaviour or state which gives rise to fear, distress or revulsion. If a person is in a public place in such a stinking state that other people are repulsed by them, they will be liable, just as they would if they were staggering drunk, or shouting obscene language. Such behaviour would be regarded as antisocial. The same can be said for public sex and, yes, inappropriate nudity. None of these things causes actual physical harm, but they transgress beyond the aesthetic realm: they give rise to strong emotions such as fear, distress or revulsion. So they fall under the umbrella of public order crimes.

Here in the UK, there is a tacit expectation that people will be on their best behaviour when using public places so as to minimise negative emotions of others. Certain things are preserved - albeit within limits - as individual rights. These include freedom of speech, but that doesn't extend to obscenities or to slandering others or inciting hatred of racial groups. It also includes freedom of dress, but that wouldn't extend to wearing clothing bearing obscene imagery or exposing the genitals. The harm principle applies in that, by behaving in a way you are causing negative emotions (like fear, distress or revulsion) and, as such, making that public place less benign. Our law does not address the question as to whether such negative emotions are logical; it is enough that they are expectable.

Stu

[Agde]

Stu -- I really appreciate your thoughtful clear argument. I think we have pretty well clarified the basic differences of viewpoint. You would argue that to be on my best behaviour, I should be careful never to be nude in situations where it might cause fear, distress or revulsion in others. I would argue that, always being on my best behaviour when nude, I would never give any cause for fear, distress or revulsion in others.

In one sense, we both agree on being thoughtful and considerate of others. We disagree on your oft-stated principle of a unitary obligation "to minimise negative emotions of others" since I believe that otherwise neighbourly approach (considering what other people may be feeling) is mere oppression unless coupled with an equal obligation "to maximize understanding, respect and tolerance of others" (paying attention to what we are thinking about others) when personal differences present no danger of harm.

Public order crimes are something different even under UK law. To have legal traction, they have to be acts with identifiably disruptive consequences that in some way harm a class of victims or secondary victims. "Minimizing negative emotions" wouldn't be sufficient.

[Pete Knight]

I still fail to understand how one can be any more distressed or offended by nudity (phobia's aside.) than swearing or spitting in the street, both of which cause me upset as they are disgusting and unnecessary.

This may sound rather silly but its a real concern for me, let me explain:

When I was a child (5ish) I used to wear a round neck pullover which just about went over my head, in my haste to remove it once I pulled it inside out as I tried to pull it off, it became stuck on my head covering my face at which point panic set in, ever since I have a sort of phobic reaction to tight clothes, even 45 years later I feel panic rising on a hot day and an overwhelming desire to remove my clothes, but society in general and Stu in particular won't allow me to feel comfortable in the way that I desire.

Stu
I'm willing to bet that for every person that (Like you.) has an irrational fear of nudity a person can be found that (Like me.) craves the comfort of nudity, why should your preference go before mine?

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Agde

I would never give any cause for fear, distress or revulsion in others.

Your nakedness in unexpectable circumstances can give rise to such feelings, whether you intend that or not. I do think we all have obligations to respect cultural norms and taboos - to use your word, it's neighbourly. In Thailand, it is considered offensive to expose the sole of your feet at others and if you do so regardless of the feelings of others, you could find yourself in difficulties. It is legitimate to question whether the law should intervene and my view is that it should - but only as a last resort.

To have legal traction, they have to be acts with identifiably disruptive consequences that in some way harm a class of victims or secondary victims. "Minimizing negative emotions" wouldn't be sufficient.

In the UK, while the term "minimizing negative emotions" isn't mentioned in our law, many public order laws are designed with a principle similar to that in mind. The idea is to create public spaces, many of which the public is compelled both to pay for and to use, which are as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible. In the US, many local administrations actually specify which parts of the body must not be exposed. Here, our laws are framed far more vaguely, which means it is left up to the courts to determine whether the exposure is "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" - in other words, are there likely to be people present who are likely to experience a significant negative emotion. Dislike is not enough - but offence or revulsion certainly would be. I am happy with this: I believe it is reasonable and proportionate and makes my society a nicer place to live in.

Pete

I still fail to understand how one can be any more distressed or offended by nudity (phobia's aside.) than swearing or spitting in the street

Audibly swearing and spitting in the street are every bit as antisocial as nudity in the street, and there are sanctions available to discourage all these activities.

even 45 years later I feel panic rising on a hot day and an overwhelming desire to remove my clothes, but society in general and Stu in particular won't allow me to feel comfortable in the way that I desire.

Pete, you can remove the vast majority of your clothing on a hot day - I do! If you want to remove the very last item - which may be no more than a very brief pair of shorts - there are places where you can do that. You are asked to make a very small compromise for the sake of the comfort of others.

I'm willing to bet that for every person that (Like you.) has an irrational fear of nudity a person can be found that (Like me.) craves the comfort of nudity...

I'm not disputing that. But I am aware that my aversion is far greater than the average. Many more people have a lesser aversion to nudity - people who are accepting of nudity in specific contexts. These people may, for example, have once skinny-dipped in their youth, or they may have chuckled at the glimpse of a streaker, but they would never dream of going to nudist, or even c/o beaches, are less than comfortable at being around naked people and would strongly object if a naked man were to go anywhere near any of their kids.

I would estimate that a good majority of people have some limitations on their acceptance of nudity - far more than the number of people who would want the right to be naked anywhere they please.


Stu

[Pete Knight]

Audibly swearing and spitting in the street are every bit as antisocial as nudity in the street, and there are sanctions available to discourage all these activities.
The comparison is that if I walk naked down the street a dozen police officers would be on my case within minutes, yet disgusting habits are perpetrated without comment or censure on a daily basis.

Pete, you can remove the vast majority of your clothing on a hot day - I do! If you want to remove the very last item - which may be no more than a very brief pair of shorts - there are places where you can do that. You are asked to make a very small compromise for the sake of the comfort of others.
I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between total nudity and wearing shorts, but to me there is a vast gulf, the total freedom and comfort is immeasurable.


I'm not disputing that. But I am aware that my aversion is far greater than the average. Many more people have a lesser aversion to nudity - people who are accepting of nudity in specific contexts. These people may, for example, have once skinny-dipped in their youth, or they may have chuckled at the glimpse of a streaker, but they would never dream of going to nudist, or even c/o beaches, are less than comfortable at being around naked people and would strongly object if a naked man were to go anywhere near any of their kids.
An aversion to nudity is completely different to not wishing to try nudism, most objections are from people who aren't bothered about nudity themselves but they think that it is illegal and therefore call the police, and lets not forget the nudity = sex line of thought, if he is nude he's up to something, lets tell the police.

I would estimate that a good majority of people have some limitations on their acceptance of nudity - far more than the number of people who would want the right to be naked anywhere they please. Well in my estimation there are a greater majority of people, who if they knew the law, wouldn't be at all bothered by nudity, whilst the numbers of people who have a real aversion to nudity, as opposed to social conditioning, is less than you allege. Most people are socially conditioned to believe that nudity is somehow wrong, be it the 'nudity = sex' line of thought, the 'what about that old lady or children next door' line of thought, or the 'I thought it was illegal' line of thought.

Why was it that I had to wait 7 hours for a police officer to attend the forced entry to, and theft from my car, but if I stood on the street by the car naked a van load of officers would have been there in minutes, where is the reasoning there?

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Pete

Well in my estimation there are a greater majority of people, who if they knew the law, wouldn't be at all bothered by nudity,

Our perceptions are very different, then.

whilst the numbers of people who have a real aversion to nudity, as opposed to social conditioning, is less than you allege. Most people are socially conditioned to believe that nudity is somehow wrong, be it the 'nudity = sex' line of thought, the 'what about that old lady or children next door' line of thought, or the 'I thought it was illegal' line of thought.

You're differentiating between a what you call a "real aversion" and "social conditioning". I'm not sure there is a difference. Any aversion to nudity is socially conditioned - the only issue is the degree of that aversion - and everyone's different.

Why was it that I had to wait 7 hours for a police officer to attend the forced entry to, and theft from my car, but if I stood on the street by the car naked a van load of officers would have been there in minutes, where is the reasoning there?

I don't think anyone should ever have to wait 7-hours to see a policeman. However, the break-in to your car has happened - it is an event in the past which can not be undone. Standing around naked is happening in the present - it is something the police can do something about immediately by stopping you or carting you off to the cells, so I can see some logic in the different response times.

Stu

[Agde]

Note to self: if victim of auto-theft in UK, take off clothes immediately to assure prompt police response. :)

[MichaelJB]

Stu


I don't think anyone should ever have to wait 7-hours to see a policeman. However, the break-in to your car has happened - it is an event in the past which can not be undone. Standing around naked is happening in the present - it is something the police can do something about immediately by stopping you or carting you off to the cells, so I can see some logic in the different response times.


I think Pete was just pointing out how the priorities of the police are skewed where they seem to take nudity more seriously than car theft. I would think that police should respond immediately to the car theft and wait 7 hrs to arrest the nude person AFTER the car theft issue is taken care of. Its like the mentality of a cop going after a kid for robbing a candy store while across the street the bank is being robbed at gun point. They need to prioritize and go after the serious crimes first.

Mike

[MichaelJB]

Note to self: if victim of auto-theft in UK, take off clothes immediately to assure prompt police response.


That would ensure swift response by the police but theyd probably end up throwing you in jail right along with the car theif and then youd be punished for a crime when at first it was only the other guy's fault.

Mike