Topless women have equal rights!

[ajcarey]

Germans and other Europeans did scapegoat the Jews previous to the Holocaust of WW2 and had done so for centuries. Biblical based slavery is just as immoral and abusive as non-biblical based slavery. Only men were freed and they lost their families if the owner owned them . Unless the man wanted his family then he was made permanently into a slave

Certainly not to the extent they did in Hitler's day (duh). And Hitler would have been the progress that any who did so before were looking for.

And then you call the slavery in the Bible which involved no kidnapping, and was a domestic agreement, as immoral as non-biblical based slavery. Wow, the gall before God to say a practice He permitted and wisely regulated was immoral at all and to contend with Him so! Edit: And did you not notice where it said that the man's family was to go out with him if they came in with him; and that he could choose to stay with them if his wife was given him by his master- and how it says nowhere that he had to take a wife offered by his master? Talk about eating from the wrong tree and crucifying the Son of God afresh! He gives scathing rebukes in His Word to those like you and all who think they know better than the judgments of His Law and the truths of his Word:

"20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! 22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: 23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel." (Isaiah 5:20-24)

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
(1 Timothy 6:1-5)

 

[Thera]

In the case of the Supreme Court ruling in Ontario some 25 years ago the basis of the decision was that a law cannot be framed that applies to one gender but not the other. That seems quite reasonable to me.

But men and women are different, and sometimes the differences have to be acknowledged in law. Men and women are worth the same, but have different roles and functions.

The failure to acknowledge this is probably a main reason the bill banning female genital mutilation was deemed unconstitutional.

Detroit's female genital mutilation case takes a big legal hit

It's good to treat men and women as of equal worth as far as possible, but failure to acknowledge important differences comes at a terrible price.

 

[Darkhorse]

But men and women are different, and sometimes the differences have to be acknowledged in law. Men and women are worth the same, but have different roles and functions.

The failure to acknowledge this is probably a main reason the bill banning female genital mutilation was deemed unconstitutional.

Detroit's female genital mutilation case takes a big legal hit

It's good to treat men and women as of equal worth as far as possible, but failure to acknowledge important differences comes at a terrible price.

At the risk of derailing this thread (which I don't want to do), it should be noted that female genital mutilation is NOT "female circumcision" but is much more radical. The entire [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is removed, not just its covering. The equivalent for men would be cutting off the end of the penis, not just its covering.

Of course, men and women have differences, but the legal equality of both being bare-chested should be a non-issue. The differences are minor and harmless.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Not sure what to make of this. You folks be the judge.

Topless women win big as Colorado city drops ban

Denver had snow last week. When I was stationed at Lowery AFB one July 4, we got 8 inches of snow. Those who lived there walked around with a winter coat tied around our waist for 10 Months of the Year. We also, kept a coat in our cars year round.

Pray for the NH case before the Supreme Court that common sense will rule.

 

[Cimorene]

Good. It was a silly double standard. Most women still are not going to want to be topless, I don't, but it's a choice we should have as much as men do.