Ocean City, Maryland – (June 10, 2017): While the Worcester County States’ Attorney waits for an opinion from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, the Ocean City Council has passed local legislation after a woman expressed her desire to be bare-chested on Ocean City’s beach. The woman, an advocate to “normalize bare-chestedness,” believes it is her constitutional right under equal protection to be bare-chested in public.
Ocean City officials disagree. The Council met on Saturday, June 10, to pass an emergency ordinance that prohibits offenses involving public nudity or those in a state of nudity. The ordinance states “there is no constitutional right for an individual to appear in public nude or in a state of nudity. Whatever personal right one has to be nude or in a state of nudity that right becomes subject to government interest and regulation when one seeks to exercise it in public.”
Further, the ordinance reads, “equal protection clause does not demand that things that are different in fact be treated the same in law, nor that a government pretend there are no physiological differences between men and women.”
The council voted unanimously in favor of the emergency ordinance.
Source
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
I've seen men that should be banned from being topless in public. I've seen men with breasts that are larger than most women's breasts, and yet they are allowed to go topless legally!? Nearly everyone can agree that these men are just as "offensive" to the public, as any topless woman might be. The ordnance is gender discriminatory and is not based on any other qualification. It should not stand up to the constitution or the civil rights acts, as written.
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason the AG didn't render an opinion to OC, concerning their request. It is a gray area. Now OC has gone and made it black and white....and something that can be sued and taken to court on constitutional grounds. They didn't close any loopholes with the ordinance, rather they've opened the city up to a lawsuit without a single violation occurring. They aren't the brightest legal minds, over there.
ReplyDelete