We have previously discussed efforts of politicians to add costs or otherwise harass owners and customers of strip joints for moral, social, or political reasons. Both feminists and religious right advocates have targeted the businesses. The latest such effort is being spearheaded by Pennsylvania state Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga, who admits that he has introduced a new draconian measure to respond to faith-based groups. His bill would force strippers to register with the state, ban alcohol in strip joints and create a buffer zone between dancers and patrons (effectively barring “lap dances.”).
The bill is being justified as a way “to help combat sex trafficking, abuse and exploitation of women.” However, sex trafficking and sexual abuse are crimes that are already prosecuted under other laws. There is a question nexus between these prohibitions and those crimes. The law seems transparently designed to harass this business out of moral opposition from faith-based groups. As such it raises some difficult constitutional questions in the singling out of this industry. The law also raises serious privacy issues for this industry in forcing such registration — a requirement that is not imposed on the vast array of other businesses. Indeed, this is an area where adults want and expect that greatest level of privacy in exercising their individual lifestyle choices. Both dancers and customers are adults who are making lawful and consensual choices.
Under the proposed law, adult-orientated clubs would pay $300 to register with the state and would have to list business partners, as well as corporate officers and directors. It would also force disclosure of anybody with “an influential interest” in the establishment previously convicted of a crime.
Baker previously attracted national attention by using his Chairmanship of a key committee to block a bill that would legalize medical marijuana. His latest effort to impose restrictions on those working or going to strip joints has been pulled back for “more work.” The poorly written and ill-conceived law however is expected to be reintroduced.
Much ado about nothing.
Nick … once again the SCOTUS has defiled simple semantics with gibberish. I don’t want people to suffer loss of insurance, but I’d sure like to see a more affordable less obnoxious form of subsidized coverage. I’ve proposed another plan, one in place for 50+ years now, and the response has been deafening silence. Even John Kerry proposed my idea in 2004 and was promptly told to shut up. So we are stuck with the deal dear leader struck with grand pharma, the medical industry, but most of all the crony insurance industry…who cannot lose on this proposition. Yippee! They talk like a high deductible is no big deal (you can get insurance, right, never mind it may rob you of everything) …doesn’t everyone have an extra few grand to support this abomination? Help the poor and working classes…nope, stomp them is the meme.
I will never again accord the SCOTUS an ounce of respect. They are whores, and nothing more. At this point I’d favor electing SCOTUS justices, periodically, and not let idiots appoint them for life. A few 4 words are NOT a Scribner mistake, they said simply what the intent was…to coerce the states. Whoops. So let’s just rewrite, by judiciary, what Congress never wrote.
Nick, It is a just another sad day in the U.S. Like Scalia said, words have no meaning anymore.
Jim22 – smart money was that either Roberts or Kennedy was going to vote for the decision. Smart money was right this time.
The SCOTUS is has committed “High crimes and misdemeanors.”
The word “state” has new meaning.
That meaning is not knowable.
Anyone else see the Reno 911 where they had to distance the lapdancers from the customers. Very funny.
The registration aspects don’t seem so bad. The banning of lap dances, though… And alcohol…
Isaac can put a chip on his other shoulder now. His cult leader got a victory in SCOTUS w/ Obamacare. 6-3.
I did see Obama threw out a gay heckler yesterday from “my house.” The White House is of course the people’s house. He’s gotten quite territorial. I wonder if he’s marked it.
Isaac seems to be in bunker mentality mode.
I think our Obama cultist is feeling the heat and overcompensating. No one on this thread has referenced of even inferred Obama.
More and more groups are working to turn this nation into the same place from which the founders fled; a place which is socially and religiously narrow minded and intolerant.
There was a time when a well turned ankle produced hard wood. Is it any different today?
$100 the representative has the sickest porn on his home computer. Do as I say..
Freedom OF Religion should include Freedom FROM Religion.
Damm! that Obama.
If you want to register anyone then why the strippers? Their customers are the dirtbags.
Bailers, Bingo!
Ah, the Social Justice Warriors at work again, cleaning up the world.
If I were the owner I’d put “LESBIAN” on the sign.
Haters!
Neither the male customer nor the female worker are engaging in a true sex act. So it is not prostitution. If he wanted to outlaw prostitution then he would have to outlaw marriage because men in essence pay women for sex in the marriage deal. All it is really is flirting. In other blogs it is noted that this politician is gay. I am wondering where he goes in the late afternoon after work for his social hour.
The moral police and feminists working together is a pretty good sign that the bill should be tossed in the garbage.