There could be an interesting constitutional case brewing in the Big Easy. As some know on the blog, I spent a few years in Louisiana and lived in New Orleans while teaching at Tulane Law School. The city has changed a bit after Katrina, but some of the biggest changes are social. The French Quarter always had a certain raunchy edge with strip clubs and seedy bars. Now, it is packed with tee-shirt shops and . . . tee shirt shops. Politicians have taken particular effort in cracking down on strip clubs and a new measure would likely cut the current 23 clubs to 7. That raises a serious question of the disparate treatment given adult entertainment business, a subject that we have previously discussed.
Exotic dancers have protested the measure that would effectively cap the number of strip clubs. This follows a state law limiting dancers to women over the age of 21. The dancers and owners charge that the laws are little more than morality legislation disguised as public policy.
The new measures are the outgrowth of a study by Planning Commission staff that proposed capping the number of Bourbon Street strip clubs at 14 and instituting new spacing requirements designed to break up clusters of clubs in single blocks. The study supports claims that strip clubs are linked to human trafficking, prostitution and illegal drugs in and near the French Quarter. However, those are problems that can be addressed through the enforcement of current laws. There has long been an interesting alliance between the religious right and feminists in seeking to shutdown these clubs in the name of public health.
City and state laws already forbid sexual activity at the clubs. It is also illegal for customers to touch dancers. Moreover, that is a ban on performances offstage partially by nude dancers.
The reduction of these clubs to just seven establishments could give rise to claims of the violation of due process, equal protection, and even bills of attainder. My libertarian tendencies tend to activate at moments like this. I have no interest and have never gone into one of these clubs. However, the effort to remove businesses that are legal and obviously popular raises concerns over the public enforcement of a de facto morality code.
What do you think?
54 thoughts on “New Orleans Moves to Slash the Number of Strip Clubs”
I know, that is why I put that link to The Gift documentary above. It’s sick. In the movie, even some of the old homos are calling the younger homos stupid for getting HIV.
Gays present themselves as a “community”, so I treat them like that. Gay men, as a community, engage in filthy and promiscuous sexual practices, stupidly risky behaviors, and murderous sexually predatory behaviors. If they weren’t, then there would not be a 20% HIV rate, and higher. Why do you think old queens like Elton John make those statements about how lucky they are to be alive? Because they engaged in filthy and dangerous pastimes, too.
I suggest you remove the blinders of political correctness and start calling stuff what it is. And, as a side note, you know why something is “politically correct” in the first place??? It is because it is “factually incorrect.” If something were factually correct, there would be no need to control the speech about it. You would simply say that something is true, or not true.
Notice how that argument seldom occurs. Most politically incorrect speech is challenged on the basis that “one simply isn’t supposed to say stuff like that!”— and not, “gee, you are wrong in your characterization.” Think about it.
No, if gay men are having unprotected sex with other men, then they are not as intelligent as me. Not by a long shot. In fact, the bottoms are downright stupid, and the tops are downright murderous. You are a lawyer, so tell us about “intent.” Don’t you think sodomizing someone without a condom when you have HIV is basically just negligent homicide? Can a person even legally consent to being negligently killed???
How about if you are in a class of persons who have a 20% rate of infection, and refuse to regularly tested? Isn’t that “reckless” behavior, at a minimum? Jesus H. Christ, dude, 32,000 of these dolts are getting infected each year. Gay men without condoms kill more Americans each year than black gang members, and more than drunk drivers. I think you are more interested in the politically correct aspects of this issue, instead of the lives of these people, as stupid as they are.
Unfortunately, Girl Reporter, your previous offensive statement wasn’t about persons with HIV sodomizing others without a condom, it was a sweeping generalization of gays in general. And, for that, you need your mouth washed out with soap, like all children should from time to time.
Steve and Squeeky – there is a segment of the male gay community who are NOT H.I.V. positive who feel left-out and want to be full-fledged members of the group. So, the continue to have unprotected sex with H.I.V. partners until they are infected.
Paul writes: “Steve – unless people are somehow impaired mentally, there is no reason to leave them alone. They don’t need you as a white knight.”
I’m sure that’s what bullies in buckles, breeches, tails, and wigs told Madison when the latter advocated for a Bill of Rights including due process.
Where’d the horse and carriage leave you behind?
Let people alone.
Steve – actually several of the states would not sign the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. It wasn’t just Madison. And then no sooner do they have a Bill of Rights then they pass the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was like they hadn’t read the Bill of Rights.
I can’t leave people alone, they, like you, don’t leave me alone.
Gore Vidal??? Wasn’t he that old guy who didn’t think there was any such thing as homosexuals??? Only homosexual acts??? Or was that Andre Gide???
Not worth looking up.
Not everyone is like you, though they may be just as intelligent as you. Let them alone.
Steve – unless people are somehow impaired mentally, there is no reason to leave them alone. They don’t need you as a white knight. 😉
Probably not. The sex-obsessed idiots would just head for the nearest public restroom, city park, or YMCA. Gay men are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. To have sex with an anonymous stranger from a population that has a 20% positive HIV rate is pretty stupid to begin with. To allow it without a condom is downright retarded. Yet, they do it in droves.
Closing the bathhouses, and chasing the filthy freaks into less physically safe scenarios might make them think twice, and would maybe force then to confront their own stupidity. Probably not, because they are the slowest learners on the planet. So who knows how much closing them down in the day of Grindr would accomplish? They are like suicide bombers and they seem bent on their own self destruction. Here, watch this if you don’t believe me:
Girl Reporter writes, “Gay men are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.” I’m sure Gore Vidal would have disagreed with you.
Dont go into bathouses then. Is there some law forcing you to go to one that I am not aware of?
Would closing them suddenly stop gay people from meeting or would they find other venues?
Gays are quite busy banning themselves from New Orleans. The city is in the top 3 for new HIV infections. Brothers on the down low are even passing the bug to the sisters down there.
The idiot who wrote the article at the link foolishly assumes that if gay men know they are HIV positive, they will be careful not to infect others. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a maroon! That bunch of murderous sodomites could care less who they infect, as long as they can have their little org*sm they way they want it, which is usually sans preservatif’.
I agree with Squeeky. I would ban Muslims and Gays from New Orleans.
I can not believe that Steve and Darren do not understand the role of the bathhouses in wantonly encouraging the spread of HIV. Just. Speechless.
My goodness, but these are filthy, nasty places where gay men engage in promiscuous anonymous sex. I guess some people imagine the high rates of HIV among gay men are spread by mosquitoes or something. Nope, it is by promiscuous sodomy without condoms.
This might wake you up:
If a person disapproves of a Bath House, the best course of action is to not patronize one. This isn’t a difficult endeavor. In fact, doing nothing will by default remedy the situation without the risk of being affronted.
Don de Drain — You will find it further down.
As we watch New Orleans become boring, owners/operators trying to adjust to additional, New Orleans will become Baltimore, Detroit, and all of CA trying to keep businesses afloat while law after law after law results in more and more laws adding ridiculous rules. If a woman is willing to display her tits so men can buy drinks and enjoy the view, who is hurt? Nobody! Except for businesses that have to shut down. Men have loved seeing naked tits probably first when Adam got a look. If this wasn’t enjoyable men would not buy drinks and enjoy the view. Our population could decline. So now we’re trying to write laws putting those beautiful boobs behind jackets. Does this hurt anyone? There are so many problems in this country, let’s not waste time on this nonsense.
That’s the easy answer, same as what was in Wikipedia, selectively edited by me. I thought you were asking about the “other” context.
Tough crowd here today. Paul, I’ve never had to research this one, even as an adjunct professor at the law school, so I’m going to defer indefinitely answering that question……or in other words: “Tat’s All, Folks.”
Don de Drain – this was not hard. Merriam-Webster etymology.
Origin and Etymology of tit for tat
alteration of earlier tip for tap, from tip (blow) + for + tap
You had to ask. Per Wikipedia:
“Tit for tat is an English saying dating to 1556 …….meaning “blow for blow,”””
Don de Drain – in that context, what is a tit and what is a tat?
The boyz over at the Pelican Tomato comp ny will still carry on in the spirit of Carlos. The jukeboxes and vending machines will just be moved to new locations.
Skater, Minnesota also doesn’t allow booze in titty bars. So, across the Mississippi River in Wisconsin are a bunch of gentleman’s clubs!
I agree with whoever suggested closing two churches in retaliation for every strip bar that is closed. Classic case of “tit for tat.”
“Classic case of “tit for tat.””
OK, now I am confused. What’s a tat?
San Francisco encourages and endorses the passing of HIV in its bath houses. They also celebrate “diversity” in their pompous and outrageous homosexual parades (see “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence”). But hetero sex for money is illegal. Go figure.
Oh, and that war on drugs is certainly working out well, no?
Joseph Jones writes, “San Francisco encourages and endorses the passing of HIV in its bath houses.”
Joseph, there are no words that I can use to describe the utter contempt I have for you. I haven’t seen a comment so ignorant since the HIV crisis back in the late ’80s when Christians were condemning gays for sinning and arguing they’re getting what they deserve.
Comments are closed.