tickler
2009-02-24, 12:53 AM
Idiots! |catfight|
I'm still trying to digest their reasons, but I-D-I-O-T-S|banghead||club|
"We are being asked to invalidate a law in its entirety based on a worst-case scenario that, to our knowledge, has never occurred, that may never come to pass and that has not been shown to involve a materially significant number of people," Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote.
http://business.avn.com/articles/34501.html
The ruling(.pdf)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0063p-06.pdf
I'm liking this guy who has a more detailed post.
This is a classic sexphobic move: sexually unconventional people, because they transgress certain normative sexual boundaries, are assumed to have no boundaries whatsoever.
http://polyperversity.blogspot.com/
I'm still trying to digest their reasons, but I-D-I-O-T-S|banghead||club|
"We are being asked to invalidate a law in its entirety based on a worst-case scenario that, to our knowledge, has never occurred, that may never come to pass and that has not been shown to involve a materially significant number of people," Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote.
http://business.avn.com/articles/34501.html
The ruling(.pdf)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0063p-06.pdf
I'm liking this guy who has a more detailed post.
This is a classic sexphobic move: sexually unconventional people, because they transgress certain normative sexual boundaries, are assumed to have no boundaries whatsoever.
http://polyperversity.blogspot.com/