Obviously, you have not read the actual charges. Go here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig6.html
Without any disputing, in a signed admission of guilt, he plead to the lesser of the two charges here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html
The problem it seems you are having is in thinking that the way Craig acted in the can while trying to pick up people was normal. If he had just said hi, how are you. My hotel room is...that would be another story. But that is not what he did. He kept peeping through the crack in the door again and again, sticking his foot and his hand under the stall wall. His degenerate behavior was disturbing the reasonable expectation of privacy that you have when you enter a bathroom. As I already mentioned, if he had acted the same way in the ladies' room, he would be having trouble now too.
So, there is the problem I am having with your inability to understand. Either you don't believe people should expect to have privacy while they are undressed and doing their business in a bathroom. Or you just don't know the predatory behavior of those who are on the troll.
"Elsewhere on campus there was a nearly constant effort to get women to consent to sex, and it was not limited to bars. It took place everywhere men and women were together. That didn’t make it right, but I doubt that there was any law against it."
FYI (remember the ERA wasn't ratified) - men and women don't get together in bathrooms.
The problem is in the behavior. Should predatory advances be allowed where innocent children and a expectation of privacy have traditionally been respected? I don't think there is any question as to what the answer should be. The public bathroom is for the public, not someone who has another purpose for it. If the behavior is disturbing the public use of the facility, the behavior must end. That is why the laws exist.
A latrine is not a pickup place and a bar is not a bathroom. Don't try to equate the two. Remember, dogs get their drinks out of the toilet, people don't. You want a date, don't look in the lou.
I'm still at a loss as to why this is so difficult for some to understand.
Please don't take my words personally, I don't know you and I wasn't making suggestions about you as an individual. I was however, making observations about the number of people I have engaged over the past few days who share that indefensible idea, and I was speculating as to how they could possibly come to think that way. It is so far from any reasonable understanding of what is acceptable, I find it hard to fathom the logic behind it.
Thank you for the additional information. It is clear that if Craig did what he is said to have done, he commtted at least the disorderly conduct under the statute. As I have said in this thread, Craig’s actions were sick and perverted, (I didn’t know about the looking into the stall, I had only heard about the footsie and reaching his hand under the stall, which seems a closer call to me. The peeping seals the deal for me.)