>can any current or former masons out there say how common it is for a lodge to lend its temple out for a corporate meeting? sounds pretty unusual to me
Not a mason. But the masonic temple in major city near me, rents out for all sorts of occasions. Weddings. Concerts. Etc. They have many different rooms, and I'm sure would accommodate for a corporate meeting.
Oooooooooookay then. I'm just throwing this one up since we're moving slow. I guess from now on we're calling prostitutes "sex workers"?
>The lobbyists for sex workers got what they wanted, but I think it will be a very long time before sex workers themselves get what they want.
>They’ve made progress in the last year or two. Notice we are now calling them sex workers instead of prostitutes or hookers, but they’re still looked down on by many people and they’re still arrested whenever they’re noticed. And that’s what they’re aiming to change.
>They persuaded seven members of the New York Legislature to introduce bills in the Assembly and Senate to decriminalize sex work. Both bills already were referred to committees, but since the Legislature is adjourning for the summer, nothing will happen for a few months – except possibly some cops and clergymen having conniption fits.
>Here’s what the bills would do: Make sex between consenting adults legal in almost all situations, even when the activities are arranged by a third person.
>What the bills will not do: Permit sex with a minor – with penalties getting tougher as the age of a person decreases—or eliminate strict penalties for forced sex or trafficking.
>I was shocked when I read the 12-page bills and checked with several attorneys to be sure my interpretation was correct. I was even more shocked to learn it was.
>They repeal parts of the criminal procedure law, civil practice law, social services law, and administrative code of the City of New York, along with parts of the multiple dwelling law, public health law, real property law, and some vehicle and traffic laws.
>With all those gone, just about all current prohibitions against trading sex for money would be gone. There would be no restrictions on third parties arranging sexual transactions, meaning pimps and madams could become managers or agents. There’d be no restrictions on where such transactions could take place, meaning a house or apartment shared by several tenants could become a de facto brothel.
>And streetwalkers could stroll without problems. Maybe even advertise.
>Previous convictions for prostitution would be vacated.
>Adultery is still a crime in New York, and I don’t know how that would be changed by passage of the proposed legislation, but I’m certain it hasn’t been prosecuted in decades.
>The advocates of decriminalization believe government should not interfere in any way in sexual transactions between consenting adults, and those beliefs are reflected in S6419 and A8230, the New York proposals.
>Unlike Nevada, the only state in which prostitution is currently legal, no rules or regulations are proposed for New York. In Nevada sex trade can operate in only a few counties and is tightly regulated. Sex workers must show proof of good health and the places they work are inspected regularly.
>Several other states have considered making changes to their anti-prostitution statutes but none has actually done it. Sex workers argue they made a career choice, rely on their trade for sustenance, and are vulnerable to trafficking and other criminal activities because they must work without police protection. They say passage of laws like the one being considered in New York will uphold their rights as workers, reduce violence and trafficking, and increase labor protections.
https://www.nj.com/hudson/2019/06/first-marijuana-and-now-prostitution-will-ny-make-either-legal-quigley.html
It's lovely to see that my simple error has aged well. I needed a laugh this AM