"No Pants Subway Ride"

Bolwerk wrote:

> Speaking of which, I believe being topless is constitutionally protected
> in NYS, at least as long as men can be.

NYS restaurants do have "No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service" signs.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:34:04 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> Speaking of which, I believe being topless is constitutionally protected
>> in NYS, at least as long as men can be.
>
>NYS restaurants do have "No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service" signs.

Which are OK, so long as they apply equally to men and women.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

Bolwerk wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Bolwerk wrote:
> >
> >> Speaking of which, I believe being topless is constitutionally protected
> >> in NYS, at least as long as men can be.
> >
> > NYS restaurants do have "No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service" signs.
>
> They can have No Burqa, No Service policies I would imagine, as long as
> they are equal protection.

How do you reconcile "toplessness is constitutionally protected" with
"you can't be topless in this restaurant"?

Or does "topless" for some reason apply solely to women?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

personal@eunuchatanorgy.com wrote:
> I read about the people who got busted for the "No Pants Subway
> Ride" a day or two ago (off the wire services; I'm in Rochester and I
> don't mean the one in New York State). They got ticketed for
> "disorderly conduct". I hope they fight the charges in court instead of
> wimping out and meekly paying the fine.

Holding this event was incredibly selfish at a time when there are
plenty of people who weren't intentionally causing trouble who need to
have their rights defended.

-Apr