[biblewonk]

Nice try, but no. In a legal sense, what's "public" and what's "private" is fairly well-defined, and it's nothing like you've estimated.

You are talking about the court of law now. Maybe the concern of the city is the morality of people all just getting naked together. This would be a classic case of imposing your morality on someone else but that is what all law is about.

[slhill]

Better make sure the local swimming pools have individual cubicles, then. Are you saying that a community should be able to boot people out of town if it doesn't like what they do in private, even if they haven't broken the law?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You are talking about the court of law now. Maybe the concern of the city is the morality of people all just getting naked together. This would be a classic case of imposing your morality on someone else but that is what all law is about.

Crazy me, here I was thinking our nation was run by a set of laws, not by individual or collective whim. Does due process mean anything to you? Seems to me if you're going to take away the right to assemble by imposing restrictions on it, you better have some legal due process to back you up. Judging from this article, the only justification the board gave was "cuz."

Especially where privacy rights are concerned. You read like the type of person who'd scream and kick to infinity if your precious right to worship God in the manner you see fit was taken away from you. Why is it so difficult for you to apply the same standards to those who worship differently than you do?