Sign up for our daily newsletter

Culture

Final from Frisco: Keep your clothes on, except when …

Michael F. Haverluck   (OneNewsNow.com) Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Naked protesters storm final vote banning "nudity" in public areas, but public events, topless women OK?

If you're caught on city streets, sidewalks, plazas or a number of other public areas without your clothes on in the streets of San Francisco, you can expect a $100 fine, starting February 1, 2013. Pro-family advocates consider this a step in the right direction, but they acknowledge that there is still a long way to go to restore decency to a city that has been infamous for decades as a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Numerous exceptions to the prohibition continue to exist, such as street fairs, parades and other permitted public events -- all of which are still open game to exhibitionists. Children under the age of five are also not affected by the ban. In addition, the so-called ban does not apply to topless women.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a ban on nudity one final time by passing a city ordinance by a vote of 6-5 Tuesday -- the same margin of victory as the original vote cast two weeks ago on November 20. Once San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee signs it into law on the first of February, a substantial decrease in the amount of public spectacles roaming the streets of San Francisco is anticipated.

However, the passage was met with resistance, as several men and women disrobed and bared it all Tuesday afternoon, yelling at the supervisors who approved the ban after the first vote. With City Hall still being considered a safe haven from indecent exposure, sheriff's deputies removed the naked protesters from the board chambers after covering them with blankets. Only one of the violators was taken into custody -- for resisting arrest.

The ordinance was also met with legal resistance, as it is reported that a group of nudists has already sued the city, alleging that the ban violates their constitutional right to free speech.

Board members voting against the ban insist that the ordinance is not only unnecessary, but that it flies in the face of San Francisco "values" and will create a potential safety hazard by taking police officers away from dealing with crime.

Once again, the main political force behind the push to tolerate the lewd conduct is the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community. Its constant push to sexualize society by forwarding the homosexual agenda has been more forcefully pushed in recent years within schools, the entertainment industry, mainstream media and the Obama administration.

Public pornographic displays okay?

Known for its racy and downright perverse public displays, the City by the Bay is still holding on to events that have celebrated behaviors and lifestyles that are condemned in the Bible as immoral and detestable.

Thomasson, Randy (SaveCalifornia.com)SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson is by no means content with an ordinance that still permits public nudity, grotesque demonstrations of sadomasochism and other degrading behavior during various city events, including the LGBT Pride Parade and the notorious Folsom Street Fair, both of which welcome children to join the "celebration of diversity" and "sexual freedom."

"Female public nudity is dangerous to women and girls because it portrays them as sex objects and stimulates potential rapists," Thomasson warns.

Men who expose themselves are viewed as behaving "like animals, dehumanizing themselves," contends the pro-family activist. "They see themselves only as flesh, not spirit."

And just what brought about the need for the latest public nudity ban?

The ordinance was introduced by Scott Wiener, the city supervisor representing San Francisco's Castro district -- the city's homosexual hotbed known for its militant and flamboyant displays of LGBT activism. It is reported that there has been an escalation of complaints of public nudity in the area by residents and business owners alike, as the burgeoning number of nudists on the streets is responsible for the disturbing trend.

Once the new ordinance kicks in after a couple months, nude violators will face an initial fine of up to $100, followed by a fine not to exceed $200 for a repeated offense. A third-time offender will be faced with up to a year imprisonment and a misdemeanor or a fine that can reach $500.

Even though Wiener acknowledges that his district is for the most part a rules-free zone, he notes that its inhabitants have gone too far and encroached on others' freedom

"The Castro district and San Francisco in general is a place of freedom, expression, and acceptance," Wiener contends. "But freedom, expression, and acceptance does not mean anything goes under any circumstances."

The city supervisor contends that unlimited expression does not trump the need for human decency.

"Our public spaces are for everyone, and as a result, it's appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior," argues Wiener. "I don't agree that having yellow hair is the same as exposing your ----- at a busy street corner for hours and hours for everybody to watch as they go by."

But sexual libertines on the board, such as City Supervisor John Avalos, attempted to turn the indecency issue into one of civil liberties, using a biblical analogy in an attempt to appear as if he and the nudists were taking a moral stand.

"I'm concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about changing San Francisco's style and how we are as a city," Avalos expressed. "I cannot and will not bite this apple and I refuse to put on this fig leaf."

Thomasson sees this ongoing fight as one where not many are standing up to fight for the protection of San Francisco's children.

"Our culture is losing the war on indecency because there isn't a battle against it," Thomasson declares. "There needs to be tough and broad prohibitions of public nudity in state laws, and where the state won't do it, local laws [will]."

The homosexual agenda's battle for kids rages on

Just a hundred miles to the northeast in Sacramento, where Thomasson's pro-family group is headquartered, another piece of pro-homosexual legislation could prove detrimental to the proper moral and spiritual development of children.

According to Thomasson, SB 1172 "bans parents from seeking counseling for their child who thinks they are 'homosexual.' It also penalizes licensed counselors who care enough to help gender-confused children, who have often been molested or raped."

The pro-family leader insists that Californians should do everything in their power to make sure that this law, which was signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, is struck down.

"This unconstitutional statute violates the speech and religious freedom of all parents of gender-confused children and the professional counselors who want to help them," Thomasson asserts.

In the state capital of California on Monday, an initial ruling by U.S. District Judge William Shubb, who as nominated by President George Bush in 1990, somewhat blocked the passage of SB 1172.

However, on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2010, refused to block the bill.

Thomasson insists that this latest attempt to remove protections from children is not only a moral issue; it's a matter of upholding the U.S. Constitution.

"It should be struck down for the protection of these precious constitutional freedoms for the benefit of all who seek professional counseling to overcome gender confusion," Thomasson argues. "Judge Shubb and judges who hear this case on appeal should decisively and thoroughly rule on the merits to strike down this intolerant statute of the Democrats and the 'LGBT' groups, which severely infringes upon the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights."


We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. (More on this policy)
comments powered by Disqus