Morality ban seems to lack any sense

If state Sen. Rick Jones has his way, there’d be no more fully nude entertainment at establishments serving alcohol.
Apr 18, 2014


Senate Bill 706, introduced by the Grand Ledge Republican, would restore the ban on fully nude entertainment at topless bars, or the display of explicit pornography at bars. If approved, it would reverse a decision made by a 2007 federal appeals court that ruled Michigan’s previous law banning fully nude performing at bars violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

No matter what your opinion is of topless bars and other establishments of adult entertainment, it shouldn’t be up to the government to act like morality police and legislate what we can or can’t do.

Not to mention the fact that a federal court already struck down a similar ban seven years ago.

If Sen. Jones and others don’t want to frequent an establishment that offers that type of entertainment, that should be their choice, and their choice alone.

While we all may not agree with the activity that occurs, or be a fan of strip clubs and topless bars, why should the government get in the way?

Let’s face the facts here: Children aren't allowed in these bars. There are age restrictions in place to make sure young eyes don’t go in these establishments.

Aren’t there pothole-filled roads to fix and other pressing issues that our legislators need to spend time on?

Our Views reflects the majority opinion of the members of the Grand Haven Tribune editorial board: Kevin Hook, Cheryl Welch, Matt DeYoung, Alex Doty and Fred VandenBrand. What do you think? E-mail us a letter to the editor to or log-in to our website and leave a comment below.


Robinson Reader

Exactly right. Why should the government set any type of standard when it comes to morality? Let's be done with it and just cater to the lowest common denominator. Why protect the children? It's just somebody's moral judgement that they shouldn't see naked people gyrating on stage. Why stop there? Why don't we just lower the drinking age to "none". After all alcohol in moderation never hurt anyone. Why not let 10 year olds go into bars, slam down a drink and watch naked people? It's just that pesky morality after all.

Let's just go full bore and remove all restraints. We'll all do whatever makes us feel good. Nobody has the right to tell another person what they can or can't do when it come right down to it. After all we're all just little mini-gods. We don't answer to nobody or nothing.

Yeah, how dare Rick Jones attempt to impose HIS view. We're just fine with someone else's imposed view that fully naked people gyrating on stage for money is just dandy.

deuce liti

I hate to break it to you Robinson Reader, but people do whatever makes them feel good anyway. Have you seen the internet, television, public school system, the U.S. government, parades, etcetera lately?

Keep in mind we live in a country where women fight for the right to abort their baby because, "it's their body and the government can't tell them what to do with it." Yet they stand mute when the same government tells them they can't have sex for money.


Hyperbole much?


Robinson Reader you are as dumb as Sen Rick Jones. He want to control what you do in your on time. As long as it is legal what should it matter. If you see a Nude Women dancing it is her choice. No one is forcing her to dance she walked in the place asking for a job. So to make it illegal will put her out of work and then she will collect food stamps out of our pocket. If you don't like nude dancing don't go there. No one is forcing you to go to a strip bar. So leave the business owners alone and let them earn a living also. People like to force their ideas on other people by passing laws because they don't like something that someone else likes. This is a free country so leave your nose out of other people affairs.

Robinson Reader

I'm pretty sure Rick Jones doesn't want to "control" anyone. Elected officials are supposed to represent the people. There are people who think that strip clubs, prostitution and pornography exploit women...they reduce women to mere sex objects. Most women who strip (besides the select few the media portrays as average women attempting to make a living) are drug addicted, alcoholics or have mental issues.

Now I completely understand that for the last few decades our society has turned away from Christ...who through the bible set an absolute standard for morality. As a result we have well meaning people like yourself advocating for the objectification and exploitation of women.

Politicians are always eager to get elected and the courts no longer consider the Almighty's laws when determining what is right and wrong. As a result we have what we have today...a society where our basest desires and sins can be satisfied in a multitude of ways. And we call this enslavement to sin "freedom".

So when a politician attempts to represent people who think this is wrong he is attacked and demonized.

I'm not so dumb as to not understand what's going on around me. I completely understand that our society is going to get worse and worse when it comes to this...this will only change when Christ returns and takes over the world. I'm also very aware that I sin and that my smallest sin is horrible in the eyes of God. But that doesn't mean I can't point out right and wrong.

Barry Soetoro

Recall Rick Jones!!! Stop this madness!!


This is all good news as I often find myself naked on a bar stool after sitting in a drinking establishment for several hours. :o)


Senator Jones one likened a female PR executive to a hooker. Sure - I want Jones to decide what's moral.


Senator Jones one likened a female PR executive to a hooker. Sure - I want Jones to decide what's moral.


Though I disagree with Mr.Jones the federal government should not step on Michigan law.there seems to be know states rights in this country any more.

Robinson Reader

Great question. Of course not. That would mean that some states would hold different views of morality. In other words, people who think that certain things are wrong would be able to exercise political power. The federal government wants one standard..the one they set.


I don't see what the "question" is, but if you are arguing for each state to establish morality laws, rules, and regulation based on the views of that state, I agree. But wait! My neighbors are addicted to gambling - a big no-no to me, but they vote Republican. And then there are friends who live in town - they vote Republican, but one of them was convicted for embezzlement (I don't approve). And then there are those people in church who are opposed to immoral actions, but a few of them ended up having affairs with each other (you guessed it - they vote for "family values"). Oh, hey - there's also the other conservative Christian family (very anti-gay) whose son (the nicest guy in the world) has informed them he is gay and now lives with a partner. I don't have a problem with this, tho, but just think - I might some day!

What a conundrum! Maybe we should just mind our own beeswax and try to take control of our own individual weaknesses and sins, and quit with the self-righteous, judgmental declarations being shoved down our throats by some dude that has just joined the GHTrib Online six days and three hours ago.

Robinson Reader

Yah, who doesn't hate hypocrites? But sometimes hypocrisy is just plain old human weakness. For you to stand in judgment of THEM is just as bad for them to stand in judgment of you.

And excuse me, but I'm judging no one when it comes to salvation. I'm expressing an opinion that there IS a standard of right and wrong and that it's set forth and expounded on by God in the bible. I'm not saying I am a perfect person who doesn't sin. But pointing out standards of right and wrong is something even a sinner can do...even one who falls and stumbles from time to time.

And are you stalking me? :-) That's a pretty accurate timeline for when I signed up for this forum.


There's a big difference between recognizing that the weaknesses of others might violate our personal moral code, and attempting to pass state/federal regulation based on our personal moral code that may or may change, be hypocritical, or be based on a private, personal belief system. Where does it start or stop? As I pointed out, (clearly, I might add) that within states, communities, and neighborhoods, there are many degrees of hypocrisy, deviations, denial, and perversions.

Let's stay out of the dictator business, and stick with civil rights as enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, shall we?

HAH! No, I'm not stalking you, but I have been reading your comments, as time permits. Disclosure: If you click on a person's "name", it will tell you how long that person has been registered as an online commenter. :)

Barry Soetoro

I've only been wasting my time with comments for 7 months, 4 days. I hope you don't think any less of me.

Back on topic...please comment on how you feel about full nude stripping in bars. Inquiring minds want to know.


I try very hard to not discriminate against commenters based on their length of time being registered, but it is a daily struggle, and one in which, I confess, I often fail.

In order to make a judgement, I would need to know more details, such as gender of the stripper, anatomical descriptions, and if the bar serves Stagg and offers the purchase of cool t-shirts.

I must now go and clean out the garage.

Harry Kovaire

After reading many of your posts, I never thought I would say it but, I could not possibly agree with you more.

I don't know what's happening, maybe it's the planet alignment or that "blood moon" thing?


Oh-oh...looks like it IS contagious. Quick - go to the GH Trib office to pick up your free hazmat suit and don tout suite!! (j/k - don't all barge in Monday morning).

Barry Soetoro

I thought you were going out to clean the garage???


I came in for one brief moment to put shorts and a *t-shirt* on - sheesh it's hot out! - but then skidaddled right back out to continue performing my duties and obligations. Sheesh - nothing gets by the evil eye of Barry.

Robinson Reader

John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people".

Absent these thing our Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. The founding fathers presumed an underlying belief in God and the subsequent Godly morality that springs forth (or should spring forth) from that belief.

Without this shared morality, this shared faith, literally anything goes. The rich and powerful can manipulate and bend our system. Those with the loudest voice can bend the laws to their viewpoint. Our political process becomes a perverted sham where winners are determined on who can lie, cheat and manipulate most effectively...which are usually dictators.

And no, I don't think a religion based system would be much better. Our country as a people are too far gone for that. Many Christians are indistinguishable from non-Christians and as you point out, some are worse. Most major denominations are now apostate from the faith that Christ and his disciples formed.

No, there is no perfect government and won't be until Christ returns. But in the meantime it's a great start if we could all turn to Christ and look at how he lived his life and what he advocated and do the same. Not doing this is why we're in the mess we're in now. We're in a death spiral as a country and there's little or nothing we can do about it.

Tri-cities realist

Don't worry, we were all greenhorns here at some point. Some just like to use their length of stay here as some badge of honor.

Tri-cities realist

Lanny, you stated "I don't see what the "question" is, but if you are arguing for each state to establish morality laws, rules, and regulation based on the views of that state, I agree."

So, does that mean you disagree with the federal judge who has ruled that Michigan's CONSTITUTIONAL definition of marriage violates the US Constitution?


Totally written tongue-in-cheek, which would be readily recognized if you had read the whole comment. For the record, I don't agree at all that government should define marriage outside the boundaries of civil unions with civil benefits, and that the notion of every individual state defining marriage, whom one can love or marry, based on religious beliefs is stupid, redundant, unnecessarily confusing, and perverts, distorts, and detracts from both the spirit of the Constitution and democracy, and weakens the Union.

If, within your religious and moral belief system, you do not approve of SSM, fine. Just don't submit to SSM, and heaven help you if a family member or friend should announce they are planning a SSM.

Otherwise, mind your own beeswax and work on becoming a better person and citizen within your family, circle of friends, workplace, community, state, and country. Following my own advice, I know I have my work cut out for me.




Lanivan, just so you know, I've been reading comments on GH Tribune for years, and have been amused at times and irritated at times by things the regulars on here say. I just signed up as CherryFluff a couple days ago - but have been a witness of the debates for a couple years. Can't really judge someone's comments because they just signed up. Maybe they are like me and changed the name they used to post under. ;)


Welcome Cherryfluff (love your new name!). FYI, I generally don't check nor do I care how long someone has been a registered commenter....but in this case, I have found Robinson Reader rather annoying in this and other threads, having just come on the scene. I guess I'm just channeling LessThanAmused. Anyway, I look forward to reading your contributions.

(P.S. - give me a clue sometime as to who you used to be!)

Harry Kovaire

I morally support nude entertainment, just not financially.

Never gets me far with strippers.


LANIVAN: I admire Robinson Reader. Do you find him annoying because he states society is getting worse morally and for bringing the Bible into his comment? In all of my 79 years I've never seen the morals of this country so low and they aren't going to get any better until there's a moral revolution, of which I have my doubts. Also, what's with your comment "I try very hard to not discriminate against commenters based on their length of time being registered"? In other words in your humble opinion the longer you're a commentator the smarter you are? Are you supposed to be proof of that? After reading your comments I have my doubts!!

Barry Soetoro

What's it like being wound that tight after 79 years? Do yourself a favor and ease off the Lexapro.



Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.