A one-man anti-Chamber of Commerce
Posted on 09/15/2011 11:36:59 AM PDT by SmithL
A few more points on today's column on the Supe Scott Wiener's proposed ordinance to regulate naked people dining and sitting in public places -- by requiring them to put something between their seats on those on which they sit.
San Franciscans pride themselves in not particularly caring what happens between consenting adults. The problem: The City's nudists bare all without the consent of other adults -- many of whom are parents who want to enjoy the city with their children.
I do not understand why restaurant owners do not refuse to serve naked patrons. It goes to show how afraid people are to stand up for standards...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Problem is that it is always the wrong people who end up nude. It will be the wrinkly 60 year olds and not the hot 20 year old beauties.
Is this place really that twisted?
Anthony Weiner would probably get elected here and would be very popular.
It’s been about seven years since I was there but then, the only public nudity I saw were the street people defecating into storm drains, if that counts as nudity. Such a lovely city and the culture of license has produced so much of beauty.
At the Folsom Street Fair men can fellate one another ON THE STREET and IN FRONT OF COPS. And nothing will be done. They can also pee on each other.
I’m serious.
I don’t know why straight people might do that, but if they did, they’d get arrested, sure.
There is a different standard for homoz in SF.
That was a rhetorical question right?
God Almighty! I will NEVER go to that foul city.
Eventually it will become necessary to invade San Francisco to restore order and protect lives and property.
What about basic sanitation? Would anyone like to sit down on a chair that some nudist had just been on? Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I’m just not crazy about getting someone else’s anal excretions on my clothing.
I guess I won’t be visiting Frisco again any time soon. How gross!
“I do not understand why restaurant owners do not refuse to serve naked patrons.”
I heard last week that nudists had to wear clothing in restaurants. Is this an optional regulation?
I spent 22 months stationed at the Presidio of San Francisco, 6th army HQ (1961-63). This was in the pre-Haight/Ashbury hippie era. San Franciso was then a gem among cities. But it soon began to change.
Naked diners... living the dream.
And somehow enjoying it.
An argument that has constantly been used by the left-wing (and libertarians) in regards to ‘gay marriage’ and homosexuality is to demand an answer to the question ‘how is hurting you if two homosexuals get married?”.
Of course there is no direct harm that could be proven and then these left-wing activists would point out that it is just your morality that causes you to not accept homosexuality.
I have always argued that the same exact argument could be used in regards to public nudity. I would ask ‘how is it hurting you if people are having sex out on their front lawn?” or “if they walk around in a public area nude?” The fact is that there is no way to prove direct harm and that it is the same exact question of morality that causes people to object to such ‘nudists’ and ‘naturalists’ or whatever these perverts want to call themselves.
The fact is though…. If we lose our ‘right to representation’ in making law against homosexuality then the fact is that we endanger this right as well in regards to making any laws dealing with public decency, including laws against public nudity and sex acts in public.
“If you do not like then look away” will be the argument. “If you want to teach your children that it is bad then go ahead but don’t tell others what morality that they should have “ will also be the answer.
Either people fight for their ‘right to representation’ on ALL issues of how sexuality is dealt with in the public sphere or else we will be headed to leaving our children a legacy of complete moral corruption that will result in a complete loss of their freedom.
I seriously wonder.
I’ve only been to that city on a whirlwind “tour” in ‘93. I mean, basically 16 hours (part sleeping). I hear stories but I just can’t believe it - seems like Europe or something.
A few of my cousins (all siblings) have lived there for decades. I think they all loved it. But of course, half of them are probably flaming liberals (no homos, but “tolerant”, I wouldn’t doubt).
The irony seems to be the origin of “gay SanFran”. If my husband is anywhere correct, the Navy (in the good ol’days) was dumping off homos at San Francisco base. They had no where to go or way to get home and congregated.
So, maybe the old “no homos” rule ISN’T the way to go - they just congregated and got control of a nice place!
How about gay pride street festivals where the faggots openly give each other blow jobs? How's that for twisted.
San Fran used to be such a wonderful place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.