A federal appeals court gave the go-ahead Thursday to activists seeking to overturn California's 145-year ban on commercial sex.

A three-judge panel of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the plaintiffs' legal challenge against the ban may proceed.

The plainitiffs say the current law violates the right to engage in consensual sex, as described in a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that revoked criminal laws against gay sexual acts, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

"I believe people in this country have the right to act this way and to make a living this way," attorney Louis Sirkin told a judicial panel, KTVU-TV reported.

California banned prostitution in 1872, defining “every common prostitute” as a “vagrant” subject to a $500 fine and six months in jail. The law slightly changed in the 1960s, the Chronicle reported, by branding prostitution or soliciting prostitution as disorderly conduct, punishable with a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.

The legal challenge was brought by three ex-prostitutes, a would-be client, and ESPLER (Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project).

They received good news Thursday after the 9th Circuit judges hinted that some scrutiny of the law was needed.

“Why should it be illegal to sell something that it’s legal to give away?” Judge Carlos Bea asked, as the Chronicle reported.

Judge Consuelo Callahan seconded, saying prostitution – like gay sex – had been “subject to moral disapproval.” Because the Supreme Court case dealt with “individual rights,” the right to prostitution could be “a natural extension of Supreme Court precedent,” she said.

Deputy Attorney General Sharon O’Grady fired back at the suggestion, saying the difference between the legalization of prostitution and gay sexual activity was “the commercial aspect ... the commodification of sex.”

“The state is not telling anyone who they can sleep with,” she said, but noted that banning prostitution was “an easy place to draw the line" to protect against violence, drug use and trafficking.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected the challenge last year, saying the 2003 Supreme Court ruling was concerning intimate personal relationship and did not apply to commercial sex, adding that California justified the law against prostitution as a deterrence to violence against women, sexually transmitted diseases and human trafficking, according to the Chronicle.

Quoted:
 Banning prostitution is one vice that nobody can make a decent argument for, without quoting scriptures.

Quoted:
 Banning prostitution is one vice that nobody can make a decent argument for, without quoting scriptures.

Quoted:

Banning stuff based on biblical principles is progressivism.  And progressivism is the cancer eating our country.
If you want to take the moral high ground, thats your decision as an individual.  Forcing everyone by law to abide by your morals is abhorent, aka progressivism.

Quoted:
Do it for womenz rights to spread their legs faster than butter on bread.

More seriously, prostitution is more of a health issue than a criminal justice issue.  It should be regulated via licensing and zoning, taxed (for health care) as well as having its workers inspected regularly for public health purposes.  It's a waste of law enforcement resources to go after 'hos.

Quoted:


Prostitution around the globe is wrought with forced sex slavery, most of them children. Impossible to fully regulated, STD and other health concerns, accelerated drug usage.

Quoted:
 Banning prostitution is one vice that nobody can make a decent argument for, without quoting scriptures.

Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/20/challenge-to-californias-prostitution-ban-may-proceed-judges-rule.html

Quoted:
 Banning prostitution is one vice that nobody can make a decent argument for, without quoting scriptures.

Quoted:
Nobody "wants" to be a prostitute.

Quoted:


Nobody "wants" to be a garbage man.

“Why should it be illegal to sell something that it’s legal to give away?” Judge Carlos Bea asked, as the Chronicle reported.

Quoted:

Rejection of Biblical principles and of the Christian pillar at the foundation of Western civilization is progressivism.  Progressivism, the "cancer" you speak of, completely rejects what you claim it stands for, and supports what you seem to be okay with.

Progressivism is also relativistic and materialistic.  Morals under progressivism is not what you seem to think it is.  You also seem to be completely unaware that all laws involve forcing people to live according to the moral principles of the legislator.  Why is theft prohibited?  Because there is a moral determination that it is bad sufficiently to warrant coercion against those who engage in the practice.  If you remove morality from the equation, even very indirect morality, then why have any laws at all?  Why prohibit theft?  When it comes down to it, the difference in the laws is the moral principles upon which they are based, and Christian ones are superior to those of the progressives, which of course wouldn't be possible if they were the same (which they are not).

Your statement couldn't be more wrong.

Quoted:


WTF? Union job, great benefits, easy hours, and job stability vs Standing on a corner wearing trashy cloths, hoping to god the next no name fellow who drives up doesn't kill you, or give you AIDS, and hopefully your "manager' will be pleased by what you bring him after a long shift...?

yeah, totally the same.

Quoted:


Dude that bs. In europe its legal regulated and clean. Its legal in canada to.  You really think the government should have a say who you give cash to fpr fucking?

Quoted:
Do it for womenz rights to spread their legs faster than butter on bread.

More seriously, prostitution is more of a health issue than a criminal justice issue.  It should be regulated via licensing and zoning, taxed (for health care) as well as having its workers inspected regularly for public health purposes.  It's a waste of law enforcement resources to go after 'hos.

Quoted:
Prostitution is a huge untaxed underground economy.  Perhaps even bigger than marijuana.

There is no federal prohibition on it.  So once CA legalizes it, there is no banking issue.  CA sees $$.

.

Quoted:
Do it for womenz rights to spread their legs faster than butter on bread.

More seriously, prostitution is more of a health issue than a criminal justice issue.  It should be regulated via licensing and zoning, taxed (for health care) as well as having its workers inspected regularly for public health purposes.  It's a waste of law enforcement resources to go after 'hos.

Quoted:
Nobody "wants" to be a prostitute.

Quoted:
Torn on this: On one hand, people should be able to choose to do what they want. Female has a commodity men want, there is a market, it’s being done anyway, prohibition doesn’t work. You’re paying for it one way or another.

On the other hand; Sex trafficking, abuse. STDs/STIs, even if there is mandatory testing, it still takes 4-6wks for some STDs to show up on a test.

Beats me what the right thing to do is. Seems to work out okay in other Western countries.

Quoted:
Screwing = OK
Screwing for money = Bad!
Screwing for money on camera = OK

Quoted:
Torn on this: On one hand, people should be able to choose to do what they want. Female has a commodity men want, there is a market, it’s being done anyway, prohibition doesn’t work. You’re paying for it one way or anothe

Quoted:
Its legal in canada to.