100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Nore of the War on Women | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
A Georgia woman has sued her town over an ordinance requiring a doctor’s prescription to buy a sex toy.
Melissa Davenport, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, told WFTV-TV that sexual devices saved her 24-year marriage. “The nerve pathways interfered (with) going to my intimate areas, to the point where I had no feeling,” said the 44-year-old Davenport. She filed the lawsuit against the city of Sandy Springs because she doesn’t think the government should regulate the private lives of its citizens. “(Some people) have this dirty mind about how people are going to use it,” Davenport said. “People really do need devices because they need it for health reasons and to have a healthy intimate life with their spouse.” The ordinance prohibits the sale of sexual devices without a legitimate medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose. Legal experts have interpreted the law to mean that potential customers would need a doctor’s prescription or some other proof they intend to use the device for one of the permitted purposes. “The ordinance basically says the government can stick its nose in your bedroom and say you can use this but not that,” said Davenport’s attorney, Gerry Weber. He said the ordinance violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides a right to privacy. “People have the right to decide for themselves whether these devices help their intimate life, and the government has no business being the bedroom and second guessing that decision,” Weber said. The city is expected to file a response next month to the lawsuit, which seeks only a finding that the ordinance is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Georgia woman has sued her town over an ordinance requiring a doctor’s prescription to buy a sex toy. Melissa Davenport, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, told WFTV-TV that sexual devices saved her 24-year marriage. “The nerve pathways interfered (with) going to my intimate areas, to the point where I had no feeling,” said the 44-year-old Davenport. She filed the lawsuit against the city of Sandy Springs because she doesn’t think the government should regulate the private lives of its citizens. “(Some people) have this dirty mind about how people are going to use it,” Davenport said. “People really do need devices because they need it for health reasons and to have a healthy intimate life with their spouse.” The ordinance prohibits the sale of sexual devices without a legitimate medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose. Legal experts have interpreted the law to mean that potential customers would need a doctor’s prescription or some other proof they intend to use the device for one of the permitted purposes. “The ordinance basically says the government can stick its nose in your bedroom and say you can use this but not that,” said Davenport’s attorney, Gerry Weber. He said the ordinance violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides a right to privacy. “People have the right to decide for themselves whether these devices help their intimate life, and the government has no business being the bedroom and second guessing that decision,” Weber said. The city is expected to file a response next month to the lawsuit, which seeks only a finding that the ordinance is unconstitutional. So conveniently left out is that there is also a man that is part of this lawsuit and it is not her husband.. Nice try.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? Like the social worker disapproving of a welfare mother, who bought some Victoria Secret underwear; it is a non-sequitor/non-starter, the overall point remains
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Argo
on
Fri 05/16/14 06:22 PM
|
|
the government needs to park its big nosy azz..
outside ' we the peoples' closed doors... i guess i can spell it this way...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's taking it to the extreme!
I agree with Argo that the government has no business in our bedroom, or living room, or rec room, or countertops, or coffee table, or .... (Sorry, I got carried away!) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? Like the social worker disapproving of a welfare mother, who bought some Victoria Secret underwear; it is a non-sequitor/non-starter, the overall point remains Exclusionary detailing... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Georgia woman has sued her town over an ordinance requiring a doctor’s prescription to buy a sex toy. Melissa Davenport, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, told WFTV-TV that sexual devices saved her 24-year marriage. “The nerve pathways interfered (with) going to my intimate areas, to the point where I had no feeling,” said the 44-year-old Davenport. She filed the lawsuit against the city of Sandy Springs because she doesn’t think the government should regulate the private lives of its citizens. “(Some people) have this dirty mind about how people are going to use it,” Davenport said. “People really do need devices because they need it for health reasons and to have a healthy intimate life with their spouse.” The ordinance prohibits the sale of sexual devices without a legitimate medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose. Legal experts have interpreted the law to mean that potential customers would need a doctor’s prescription or some other proof they intend to use the device for one of the permitted purposes. “The ordinance basically says the government can stick its nose in your bedroom and say you can use this but not that,” said Davenport’s attorney, Gerry Weber. He said the ordinance violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides a right to privacy. “People have the right to decide for themselves whether these devices help their intimate life, and the government has no business being the bedroom and second guessing that decision,” Weber said. The city is expected to file a response next month to the lawsuit, which seeks only a finding that the ordinance is unconstitutional. Must be lawyers involved. Suing a town is just plain stupendous, so stupendous only a lawyer and our corrupt legal system would even contemplate it. First, a town is a piece of paper, a charter. It is incapable of doing anything except being a fire hazard. And if she wins what then? Does the taxpayers that had nothing to do with it get gigged with a penalty outside paying another bunch of lawyers to defend the suit? Of course they do, it just one big scam, the lawyer get rich, the people are slaves and the "leaders" move on to the next scheme. First, file a writ against the town to disband the charter for rights violations, bye bye town, hello county, one set of bureaucrats out of the way and a county commission that is on notice. Second, file suits against each and every town council member that voted for the removal of your rights, in their individual person, not as a function of office because one they violated their oath of office they were imposters in that office. Imposters have no immunity and any recovery receive must come from their own pockets, not the taxpayers. Also because of fraud upon the office, they are disqualified from holding any government or public position of trust, forever. People, this is what is needed to restore the country. Lawyers can't do it because to become a member of the BAR, they swear an oath as officers of the court, one big scam. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So conveniently left out is that there is also a man that is part of this lawsuit and it is not her husband.. Nice try.. Who cares, what does that have to do with it? She could have wanted it to entertain the whole neighborhood, not really anybodies business. a person's body is their private property and they may do with it as they wish. No one else has any right to impede them in any manner whatsoever so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? Like the social worker disapproving of a welfare mother, who bought some Victoria Secret underwear; it is a non-sequitor/non-starter, the overall point remains Yeah, the mother should have disapproved of the social worker. The mother should put up a sign at the property boundary that states: "Any Social Worker trespassing on this property without the accompaniment of a sheriff with a valid search warrant will be tied to a stake and flogged in the front yard". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the government needs to park its big nosy azz.. outside ' we the peoples' closed doors... i guess i can spell it this way... Why stop at closed doors. The problem is that the people of this country have been so dumbed down they little understand rights. The effect of this ignorance is a total misconception of authority. First, no man has authority over another man without that man's consent, like a supervisor at work. By accepting a job you have consented to accept another's authority over your activities for a compensation. But even that consent is limited. Now if one has no right to authority over another, just how can one delegate that authority to another, well they can't. Therefore the government cannot have an authority from the people when the people have no authority themselves. You cannot grant what you do not have. That is why government people are called public servants, they serve, we command. The problem stated with the term government, govern is to control. The correct term should be administration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's taking it to the extreme! I agree with Argo that the government has no business in our bedroom, or living room, or rec room, or countertops, or coffee table, or .... (Sorry, I got carried away!) Not carried away at all, really stopped way too soon or you could have summed it up nicely with; the government has no authority, period. But we the people let them move from public servants to officials to authorities, all without correcting them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the government needs to park its big nosy azz.. outside ' we the peoples' closed doors... i guess i can spell it this way... Why stop at closed doors. The problem is that the people of this country have been so dumbed down they little understand rights. The effect of this ignorance is a total misconception of authority. First, no man has authority over another man without that man's consent, like a supervisor at work. By accepting a job you have consented to accept another's authority over your activities for a compensation. But even that consent is limited. Now if one has no right to authority over another, just how can one delegate that authority to another, well they can't. Therefore the government cannot have an authority from the people when the people have no authority themselves. You cannot grant what you do not have. That is why government people are called public servants, they serve, we command. The problem stated with the term government, govern is to control. The correct term should be administration. yep,that way they can do all the governing they feel like doing! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? Like the social worker disapproving of a welfare mother, who bought some Victoria Secret underwear; it is a non-sequitor/non-starter, the overall point remains Exclusionary detailing... BS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? Like the social worker disapproving of a welfare mother, who bought some Victoria Secret underwear; it is a non-sequitor/non-starter, the overall point remains Exclusionary detailing... BS Purposely leaving out a fact because it doesn't fit the propaganda narrative is exclusionary detailing.. So you know what you can do with your BS.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? Like the social worker disapproving of a welfare mother, who bought some Victoria Secret underwear; it is a non-sequitor/non-starter, the overall point remains Exclusionary detailing... BS Purposely leaving out a fact because it doesn't fit the propaganda narrative is exclusionary detailing.. So you know what you can do with your BS.. Yes I do, continue. And the fact that it's omission is still immaterial. She could be doing the whole neighborhood, still immaterial. To those that want to maintain a position of ignorance on the rights of individuals, then this would be declared a propaganda narrative. So my original conclusion stands, BS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? Like the social worker disapproving of a welfare mother, who bought some Victoria Secret underwear; it is a non-sequitor/non-starter, the overall point remains Exclusionary detailing... BS Purposely leaving out a fact because it doesn't fit the propaganda narrative is exclusionary detailing.. So you know what you can do with your BS.. Yes I do, continue. And the fact that it's omission is still immaterial. She could be doing the whole neighborhood, still immaterial. To those that want to maintain a position of ignorance on the rights of individuals, then this would be declared a propaganda narrative. So my original conclusion stands, BS. Only your copy of the Declaration of Independence has "life, liberty, lying and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights. I suppose I should not be surprised that a conspiracy theorist endorses purposeful omission of fact to twist the narrative in support of their agenda.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with anything? Like the social worker disapproving of a welfare mother, who bought some Victoria Secret underwear; it is a non-sequitor/non-starter, the overall point remains Exclusionary detailing... BS Purposely leaving out a fact because it doesn't fit the propaganda narrative is exclusionary detailing.. So you know what you can do with your BS.. Yes I do, continue. And the fact that it's omission is still immaterial. She could be doing the whole neighborhood, still immaterial. To those that want to maintain a position of ignorance on the rights of individuals, then this would be declared a propaganda narrative. So my original conclusion stands, BS. Only your copy of the Declaration of Independence has "life, liberty, lying and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights. I suppose I should not be surprised that a conspiracy theorist endorses purposeful omission of fact to twist the narrative in support of their agenda.. Consciousness and the brain consciousness is the ability of a being to recognize patterns and meaning with respect to events taking place, both within oneself and in the realm in which the self exists and operates, the ability to accurately perceive truth. Since human beings, as a species, do not already have the things they say they want, it follows logically that the knowledge of the requirement to obtaining the things they say they want either must be absent, or if present, that knowledge must willfully be ignored. AS long as this knowledge continues to remain unknown or ignored, the manifestation of the desired conditions will be impossible. I would suggest that perhaps understanding rights would clarify that knowledge that seems to be so wantonly ignored. Then maybe you can understand this most profound statement: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Ignorance is the root of all evil. Since only knowledge eradicates ignorance, it is our duty and moral obligation to educate ourselves, as well as the masses around us. But then some just don't have the time not to be ignorant, preferring the life of slavery. And when it comes to the truth or untruth, I believe it would be yourself sir that is trying to cloud the truth of the situation by, let's see how did you put it, "Exclusionary detailing". That little lady has the right to purchase every ***** or other sex toy her little heart desire so long as she has the wherewithal to pay for them. She can even put them around her neck, turn them on and dance up and down the street in front of city hall if see likes. |
|
|
|
|
