User:Lumenos/Protect massage parlors

From RationalWiki
< User:Lumenos
Revision as of 22:26, 4 July 2010 by Walabio (talk | contribs) (Grit around which hopefully a pearl will grow.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The deadline is 2010-07-14. The original article is:

Cotati considers massage parlor ordinance

I read in the Pressdemocrat that the City council plans to harass hard working mothers. ¿Are not their lives hard enough already? Also, it seems that you the council seems to use mendacity for making your case:

“Houts characterized the parlors as ’really ugly stuff,’ describing scenes of filthy hot tubs, condom-filled trash containers and ’scantily-clad’ women.”

¿Where are the pictures about filthy hot tubs? ¿Where are the pictures about condom-filthed trashcans? Excuse my French, but I smell la caca de los toros.

“The owner of a downtown business said she moved her location after 20 years because of a parlor that opened next door.”

“‘It was very uncomfortable and definitely led to my decision to leave the place,’ said The Hub Cyclery co-owner Claire Fetrow, who described men arriving at the neighboring parlor at all hours of the night, sometimes in limousines.”

Given that these businesses operate from 10 to 10, The Hub Cyclery co-owner Claire Fetrow cannot speak truly. Her allegation conflicts with reality.

“All of them are staffed by Asian women who either immigrated illegally or were forced into the trade under duress.”

——

Cotati Police Sgt. Dave Houts

I notice that Cotati Police Sgt. Dave Houts does not backup this claim. If it is true, Cotati Police Sgt. Dave Houts should go into these businesses arrest illegal immigrants and liberate slaves. ¿Why does not Cotati Police Sgt. Dave Houts do his job? ¿Does not Cotati Police Sgt. Dave Houts want to be known as the liberating emancipator? ¡Cotati Police Sgt. Dave Houts would be known for decades to come as a local hero! I may be wrong, but I believe that I know the answer:

Cotati Police Sgt. Dave Houts does not present evidence of illegal workers and slaves because they do not exist. It seems to me that Cotati Police Sgt. Dave Houts is not truthful.

Besides, even if these are houses of prostitution, ¿So what?:

We need to look at this from 3 angles:

  1. Ethical point of view
  2. Constitutionality
  3. Nuisance

Ethically, nothing is wrong with 2 consenting adults to engage in private sexual activity.

In Lawrence Versus Texas, the Supreme Court decriminalized private sexual activity between consenting adults. The supreme courts struct down all laws regulating private sexual activity between consenting adults including sadomy-laws and prostitution-laws. The Supreme Court decriminalized prostitution.

These businesses are very quiet. They are low traffic. They bother none except people who have imaginary limousines bothering them through the night.

¿Have you thought about the economic impact of this?:

Because Cotati allows quiet bawdyhouses to operate, patrons from all over the county come to Cotati, on each visit, they drop about 2 hundred dollars by buying candy, flowers, stuffed animals, “extraspecial massages”, coffee, et cetera. After the “extraspecial massages”, they often take the courtesan to a restaurant. Even if they do not, take the courtesan to a restaurant, the patrons probably eat at one themselves. The economy of Cotati probably gets about 10 million dollars annually into the Cotatian economy.

Crime and taxes:

The fact is that men have urges to reproduce and get lonely, while some women who need money and are willing to relieve the urges of men and give them companionship. If one closes bordellos, one creates streetwalking. Fighting the streetwalking will cost easily an extra million dollars for law-enforcement annually. Because of the aforementioned economic impact, The tax revenue will shrink by a million dollars annually. Between replacing lost revenue and increased law-enforcement, Cotati will need an extra 2 million dollars annually. ¿Do you want to explain to the taxpayers that taxes will increase 2 hundred dollars annually and streetwalkers will henceforth roam the city?

“The ordinance would prohibit locking massage room doors unless no other staff are on hand to assure privacy. Also prohibited would be waterbeds, beds, or floor mattresses on a massage business’s premises.”

You tell people to reduce their security. If people want locks on doors, that is okay. ¿Will you next tell hospitals that they cannot lock away radio-isitopes and narcotics?

“It also would make both the property owner and the owner of a business found to be operating as a brothel subject to criminal penalties.”

¡It is so nice to intimidate landlords into evicting their tenants!

If this new ordinance goes to trial, one will get plea-bargains, but if it goes to jury-trial, one will get only acquittals:

After citing Lawrence Versus Texas, the jury will realize that the law is unconstitutional and refuse to convict.

Even without Lawrence Versus Texas, the purpose of a jury is 2-fold:

  1. Determine whether a law is broken.
  2. Determine whether the law is just.

If determining whether a law is broken was all that is needed, we would not need juries, just judges. A jury refusing to convict for an unjust law is called jury-nullification. The most famous example in American History is juries refusing to convict captured fugitive slaves as being fugitive slaves, thus liberating them.

Someone accused under this ordinance at jury-trial should plead not guilty (which is the truth), explain that one did nothing wrong. The jury should conclude that none did anything wrong (no victim, no crime) and acquit.

This ordinance targets working mothers. These mothers do whatever it takes to support their children. ¡If mother is arrested, Protective Services might take away her children! ¿Why is the city-council antifamily?