Not to burst your bubble, but if you tried that you'd be sitting in the pokie for a while.
First, Lawrence v. Texas specifically says its holding does not apply to prostitution, and it is an equal protection/substantive due process case anyway. We all know the issue with hobbying isn't the "consensual adult private conduct", it's the paying for it. That's a Commerce Clause issue, and each and every Commerce Clause case you read will say basically the same thing: the Legislative branch can regulate just about any market they damn well please, even the pussy market. But feel free to do some more researching on that if you'd like (and take a gander at the Mann Act, too)....I'm always up for some interesting legal arguments/discussions
Originally Posted by bradjbeale
Yes sir. But I would pave the way for my fellow sex workers. I'm aware that it would be a long process. I'm a escort. So, I don't understand half of what you just said. But, I'm trying. I did post this to get a response from educated men, such as yourself to gather more information. I believe the Lawrence V. Texas case still represents a good argument. When I read of it I got happy inside.
Say, it did turn out to be relevant. I was vindicated by the Supreme Court. I wonder if I could sue the state that wrongfully imprisoned me?
I don't think I could. The law was not settled.
I guess I won't walk in to a sting operation just yet.