Originally Posted by Skippymjp
Hey, maybe we actually do have a debatable point. The man was not charged with any kind of sexual offence, he was charged with disorderly conduct.
True and here is the Minnesota statute
defining disorderly conduct.
I don't care what your sexual preference is, I do not want to walk into a bathroom and hear you
. I don't want to hear the sounds you expect
to hear in a bathroom, let alone that and I don't need to see
you to know what's going on. The ruling that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy while they have sex in a closed stall isn't the first bad decision made by the Supreme Court and it needs to be reexamined. There is
such a thing as public decorum. I bet some of the people who think it's ok for people to have sex in the bathroom will complain about the rudeness of the person at the table next to them at the restaurant having a cell phone conversation. Baffles the mind. Personally I will never understand why anybody would want to have sex in such a filthy environment. Any self-respecting person wouldn't even consider it.