http://www.policymic.com/articles/60435/arkansas-passes-a-bill-that-cracks-down-on-people-with-tattoos-piercings-and-body-art
for a party that throws around freedoms like the right wing does and claim this admin proposes regulations that interfere with their freedoms they sure have a big list of do's and don't's, hypocrisy?
Last March, the Arkansas State Senate voted 26 to 4 in favor of SB 387, a bill limiting tattoos, piercings, and other forms of body art that it deemed "untraditional."After making several modifications, the State's House of Representatives has started to coalesce behind a compromise measure (which can be seen here) that could, plausibly, be sent to the governor's desk to be signed into law. Because of its vague wording, it's difficult to construe exactly which procedures would be "limited" or outright banned, to say nothing of how the state would go about enforcing its edict.
they have gone from main street to your job and into your bedroom for women their Vagina's now they are going after skin for both men and women, aren't you feeling that hmmmmm kicking in and realizing everything you have heard them say of a negative nature that this admin is trying to do they already are doing it, leading by example?
Where does one even begin?Let's start with the obvious: This measure is flagrantly unconstitutional. Not only does our founding document say nothing about allowing the state to control what its citizens do with its bodies, but the First Amendment clearly prohibits government efforts at "abridging the freedom of speech," which our courts have repeatedly found includes forms of artistic expression like corporal modification. Indeed, the two main arguments used to support this ban — i.e., that it's immoral and/or unhealthy — can be neatly rebutted with a particularly fitting observation from Thomas Jefferson:"The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."Beneath these fundamental questions involving the protection of our basic freedoms, however, there is another great issue at play — namely, the social stigma that continues to be associated to non-traditional lifestyles.
let me point out that any "traditional lifestyles" were at their beginning, not traditional so how do you use that which contradicts itself in definition as that defining point of prejudice, or should i say the provebial reaching for that straw?
they seem to gotten over those previous non traditional so what te fuss?
