You’ve probably heard of the ‘Free the Nipple’ group of women in New Hampshire who are defying local ordinances and showing up at beaches around the state topless to garner attention for their ‘cause.’
I wrote about one of them yesterday, she believes it’s her Constitutional right to be topless wherever men can be topless but ZOMG, she wants gun control put into place.
Turns out, she isn’t the only one of the FTN crowd who believes in freeing the nipples but not freely practicing 2nd Amendment rights in the Granite State.
These women are now involved in a court case because they decided to push their political agenda onto a private town family beach.
Of course, it’s against the town ordinance to sunbath nude or for women to be topless. So 6-8 of these women showed up after protesting topless at Weirs Beach on September 6, 2015.
Turns out the families on Gilford Beach weren’t really down with the women being topless and several called the police.
The police arrived and told the women about the ordinance and said if they put their tops on, they wouldn’t get cited and could stay on the beach. All but two decided to comply, Heidi Lilley, the only actual resident of Gilford (you must be a resident to have access to the beach, the others were her ‘guests’). The other was Barbara Mackinnon who I’ve already introduced you to.
As soon as they were told they were being cited, they put their tops on. They served their purpose.
Rather than try to change the town ordinance at the town level because it’s clear they wouldn’t get support from the people in the town, they decided they wanted to make this into a court case and hope the government will mandate their agenda onto a town that clearly doesn’t agree with it in the name of ‘equality’ or something.
That would appear to be a noble cause to some but since these women are nothing but left wing feminists, it’s not. It’s not like they are for freedoms across the board for everyone because they are not.
Each of the women that testified in the hearing is for gun control. And that’s just scratching the surface.
You can watch the video here and listen to the testimony of the Gilford residents who called the police, the police and the left wing feminists who were on the scene and the two who were cited, Heidi Lilley and Barbara Mackinnon.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVJGEtcO_aU]
Three Gilford residents who called the police that day also testified. One was a Mother who is also a nurse. When asked if she was offended by the topless women, she said no because she sees bare chests all day. She was offended for the children who were visibly and clearly upset.
The social justice warriors’ attorney, Dan Hynes, then put the Mother on trial and asked if she believed in equality for her daughter. Apparently if you don’t believe in women walking around topless, you somehow don’t believe in equality for women. And so the left wing feminist bullying begins because that’s how they roll.
One of the women who testified is Laura Drumheller. She claimed she was doing it because of ‘slut shaming’ and the ‘rape culture.’ Of course, there IS no rape culture but left wing feminists have to persecute men for something all the time don’t they?
The woman is actually from Massachusetts. How do I know she’s a hypocrite who is for gun control? She decided to insert her left wing feminist foot into her mouth when commenting on my blog about Mackinnon:
Next up to testify was Heidi Lilley. The only woman who is actually a resident of Gilford.
Lilley made the same claims about ‘slut shaming’ and the ‘rape culture’ only she added ‘body shaming’ as well. Interesting she wants ‘equality in all forms, not just the body.’ Except of course when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights. She too believes in gun control:
You always know a gun control addict when they lie and claim they are for guns BUT. The but gives it away every time.
Another ironic Facebook post of hers is below:
She didn’t give the residents of the town of Gilford the choice of whether or not to change the rules of the beach. She infringed upon their freedom to not have to see her topless. She never tried to argue her case to the town as to why women should be allowed to go topless on the private town beach.
She’s using the courts in hopes they will make that choice FOR the people of the town, whether they like it or not.
Then there is our little social just warrior Barbara Mackinnon. This one is truly a case for mental health needs in the state.
She’s even more off-the-wall moonbat nuts than the other two. She claims she is not a man or a woman so that the ordinance shouldn’t be ‘inflicted upon her’ for being a woman because it’s inaccurate. The state’s attorney asked her if she was born with a vagina and indeed she had to admit she was assigned a female gender at birth. She’s chosen to be ‘non-binary.’ Another made up term by left wing loons as part of the neutralizing of gender in the country.
Their attorney made the claim that they couldn’t be discriminated against with the ordinance because they are women. He even compared their discrimination to the banning of ‘Asian people’ on the beach.
The state’s attorney said that the women were not being denied access to the beach. There were rules put into place at some point by the town for protecting ‘public sensibilities.’ While not everyone finds women being topless as offensive, it is still not socially palpable to many.
This is true if you look at the statements of the Gilford residents who were testified. While eventually this may indeed be ‘socially palpable,’ in the current environment, the families who use the beach aren’t all accepting of it. Whether you disagree or not isn’t the point.
The point is this is a private beach inhabited mostly by families. Families of children who have to follow rules of appropriate dress in school as pointed out by a witness.
But if you disagree with these women being topless on this private beach, you aren’t for women’s equality or something.
The bottom line is this: There is only one resident of Gilford (that we know of) who wants to women to be able to go topless on the private town beach. It appears the rest of the residents want to stick to the status quo.
Should an entire town be subject to the whim of one person?
Is this really about ‘rights’ or is it about pushing a left wing feminist agenda onto a little unsuspecting town in New Hampshire?
It certainly isn’t about freedom because people who are for freedom don’t limit the freedoms of others when they see fit. In the case of all three of these FTN Activists, they are indeed about limiting freedoms of others that are actual Constitutional rights.
Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing or in this case, lack of clothing.
