In all honesty, what's the difference between the above? The one on the left is a pair of womens underwear and the one on the right is a bikini bottom bathing suit? With this legislation, will swimming pools be a thing of the past?
Here's my primary beef: Don't legislate morality. One man's, "Oh, my god!" can always be another man's, "No big deal." Attempting to legislate morality (keeping in mind, who's morals are we using as a base) has gotten society into trouble with regards to discrimination and turning people into classes. Justice should be based on the rights of the people and it should be completely blind to race, creed, religion, sexual preference, weight and wardrobe choice.
Speaking of wardrobe choice, that's all this is. And what does that mean? It means it's how someone is choosing to express themselves which is a freedom that is guaranteed to us by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Don't get me wrong, I work at a local college and a day doesn't go by where I don't want to cuff one by the neck and tell them to pull up their damned pants. If folks ever want to make something of themselves in a respected position that's going to allow them to support a family, they'll need to adjust to what people accept as 'normal'. Until the time comes when THEY make the choice to adjust, if they ever choose to, don't FORCE them to in the mean time.
The radio host, Allan Loudell, had made a comment that the manner in which these folks were dressing had some correlation to criminal activity -- I really would love to know where he found that statistic; however, to it I have two comments:
1) Does the Councilman really think that by changing the way people dress it's going to somehow curtail crime in Wilmington? Get serious.
2) This is a GOOD thing -- during the course of a police investigation, nothing helps speed things along more than someone wearing a sign that says, "I'M THE CRIMINAL", which, according to this correlation, is exactly what it's doing. So, why kill the home field advantage as it were?
