Well, Free Speech works both ways you know…
I am old enough to remember when they were called “strippers”
I have to honestly say that I don’t think I’d feel too comfortable attending services there.
Hmm… six strippers. I wonder how many church members protested?
The democratic thing to do would be to tear down the establishment that had the larger and more frequent demonstrations.
True, but I wouldn’t call public nudity outside a venue where children are present to be merely free speech. That is crossing the line.
What’s sad is they really don’t see a moral wrong with the business. Comments below the article show people who honestly believe the church was in the wrong and should mind their own business. As Christians, we are called to evangelize and I see nothing wrong with a truly peaceful protest. However, legally the strip club can protest as well. When it involves some people’s income, you have to expect some backlash.
I have to wonder if women being topless in public is legal. Here are a couple excerpts from the Ohio law against public nudity:
2907.09 Public indecency.
(A) No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under circumstances in which the person’s conduct is likely to be viewed by and affront others who are in the person’s physical proximity and who are not members of the person’s household:
(1) Expose the person’s private parts;
(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of public indecency and shall be punished as provided in divisions ©(2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in division ©(2) of this section, a violation of division (A)(1) of this section is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one violation of this section, a violation of division (A)(1) of this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree or, if any person who was likely to view and be affronted by the offender’s conduct was a minor, a misdemeanor of the second degree.
Of course, breastfeeding is legal in Ohio, so perhaps bare female breasts (even when not feeding) are considered okay for public display. Another consideration would be whether topless males would be considered in violation, if women were held to such a standard.
Thank you for keeping us abreast of this.
Obviously this needs to be covered further.
Right. I figured most places have laws against public nudity. How the locale applies the law in this case is anyone’s guess. Since the story does not mention any arrests, I’m guessing there was no action taken.
I wonder if one of the readings that day was from Isaiah 66:11 ?
Do they have a legal definition of “private parts”?
Point is what is either side accomplishing? Also i bet more than half the men at church have visited the club and or have porn all over their computer. Take the plank out of your eyr before worrying about the speck in your brothers
But they are not the ones protesting . . .
I would think we need a legal definition of “private parts” about as much as we need the Book of Genesis to spell out what parts of their bodies Adam & Eve covered with fig leaves.
Under Ohio Law, topless is all good.
:rolleyes: Oh dear…
Did Eve cover her upper half too? Or just her bottom half? And are we talking just the front or front and back?
And was there a minimum size for a fig leaf? (Ooops! I don’t want to turn this into a Modesty thread. )
I suspect the Church’s picketing of the Strip Club hurts their business. I suspect having topless women hang around in the Church’s parking lot helps their business…