Comments on: Is There A Constitutional Right To An Orgy?

By: @Maikeru48

@Maikeru48 — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:10:04 +0000

Seems to me that on one hand, you have a clear issue of freedom of assembly, which is explicitly protected in the Constitution. But on the other hand, you have a case where the way that these people are going about exercising their freedom of assembly is causing a public nuisance for their neighbors. I'm all for sexual freedom, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the grief the club organizers are experiencing is being motivated by the base desire of some with religious axes to grind to meddle in the private business of others. But at the same time, I can see how these folks' neighbors would be upset at having to deal with the problems that would inevitably be created by someone in their neighborhood having a private gathering with as many as 100 people in attendance, especially when it was more than an isolated one-time event. I support freedom of assembly, but no right is absolute – one person's right to swing their arms around ends where another person's nose begins (or however the saying goes).

By: Steff

Steff — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:48:19 +0000

re: cherry pit
In my opinion a person should have the right to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own home unless it is harming other innocent people. Consenting adults can do what they choose to do & should be able to without the interference of government or law so long as it doesn’t harm others.

By: CtDMoney

CtDMoney — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:06:17 +0000

I think a call to the IRS estimating parties @$50 ea, twice a week, with 100 in attendance would launch an investigation into tax evasion. This is the kind of free money that creates an undue burdon on the taxpayers that work and pay taxes. Screw being outraged about the free sex, pissing on lawns, and illegal parking — I'm pissed that their not paying taxes on half a million bucks.

By: ClintJCL

ClintJCL — Sun, 10 May 2009 20:32:54 +0000

You don't buy a right to an empty street free of cars when you buy your house. You only buy a right to not have cars in your own yard. Nice try, folks.

By: Dede

Dede — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:29:57 +0000

I would not want this type of activity next door to me. I am not against people expressing their sexual desires but I would not want to have the traffic flow which certainly is a part of this whole scenario. I am not an attorney but I feel this is the same thing as running a business out of a private residence.
If it were out in the country, it would not be an issue with me.

By: MadMarty

MadMarty — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:10:51 +0000

This reminds me of a famous cause celebre in Britain about 20 years ago when police investigating a crime (I think burglary) found photographic evidence of people torturing others, so they arrested and charged several people with inflicting “grevious bodily harm” on others.

Turned out it was a voluntary sado-masochistic sex club and the defence of the accused was that the “victims” were willing participants. Many of the “victims” indeed appeared as witnesses for the defence. It was not a business as no money changed hands.

I can’t remember the outcome, but I do remember the classic opening sentence in one of the newspaper reports.

“If a grown man wants to have his testicles sandpapered by an accomplice in the privacy of his own living room, is it any business of the police?”

Discuss

By: Should the Government Regulate Sex Among Friends? | Criminal Law Blog

Should the Government Regulate Sex Among Friends? | Criminal Law Blog — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:40:31 +0000

[...] Cuban, Esq. (the brother of Mark Cuban) wrote in his blog, The Cuban Revolution, Is There a Constitutional Right to An Orgy?, “What about gambling? Consenting adult[s] coming together to play poker or even chess for [...]

By: A. Nonymouse

A. Nonymouse — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:02:15 +0000

I know for a fact that the Cherry Pit never gets 100 people to its parties. Most venues of this type would normally average around 30-40 people, with maybe 80 or so at set-piece events like Halloween. The 100 number is a classic piece of “OhMiGod” exaggeration.
The “donation” concept is truly a donation. When I attended a venue recently and di not have enough cash, I offered them a smaller donation and they said Fine. If they start demanding the donation amount be paid, well, then that is probably not a donation…
The commenters who pointed out that there are laws to govern most of the alleged infractions have hit the nail on the head. If the Cherry Pit was a Bible Study group, you can bet they would be using other laws to address the alleged issues. But because There Is Sex Involved, all of the emotional prudishness is surfacing, and the local politicians have suffered an attack of “Something Must Be Done”.
I suspect that the city may yet find itself on the receiving end of one or more lawsuits, and may well end up on the losing end. The only pity is, that as the old lawyer saying goes, you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the bust…

By: Charlie

Charlie — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:53:16 +0000

From someone who has been to the Pit, allow me to address a few comments made here. The $50 is a suggested donation. Yes, you can get in without paying anything at all. While there may be 100 guests at a party, if they are all couples (most come as couples) it is $50 per couple, not per person. So your dollar totals can actually be cut almost in half to start.

The parking when a party got large was a problem initially. That has been taken care of. The way the house is laid out (WELL off the street and heavily wooded) you can’t even tell much about how many cars are there. There is now also off-site parking to take care of any “spillover”.

I have NEVER seen nor heard about any type of lewd public behavior outside the house. There are NOT people urinating in public or walking down the street drunk. The vast majority of those saying negative things about the Pit don’t know anything about what actually is the truth about the place.

Just my $.02…

The main problem was the traffic. Oh, and the morality some (not many) of the neighbors are trying to place on others.

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:18:53 +0000

People on both sides of the issue seem fixated on the sex. As I understand it, the primary issue is whether or not this private club qualifies as a business (sexually-oriented or otherwise), subjecting it to government regulation. The facts that they named their home The Cherry Pit (copyrighted?) and that they advertise are certainly detrimental, however I think more information is needed and that the current attempt will fail. Where do the owners of the house get most of their income? Is the name of their home copyrighted? Do people other than the owners “work” at this site? Just how much money has passed hands?

By: RC

RC — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:18:07 +0000

even if it were a business, which i agree it probably is, there is a matter of principle at stake. sex clubs are not the same as brothels, or the same as prostitution generally. no one is being paid to perform sexual acts. they are paying not for the sex, but for the privilege of being in a place with other people who will likely WANT to have sex. so under the wrong-headed statute, it’s illegal, sure. but that law shouldn’t exist in the first place. the next step would be to say dating and hookup sites are illegal because people pay the proprietors to meet up with semi-anonymous people and engage in a vigorous boink – say goodbye, craigslist.
but yeah, this should not be in a residentiaal neighborhood. it IS a business, after all.

By: Kobra

Kobra — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:00:58 +0000

As long as no unwilling or underage people are involved, fuck em; you can't stop people from having raunchy sex. Kobras last blog post..Stupid Idea of the Year Award: 2008

By: Hoosier

Hoosier — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:40:38 +0000

Zoning laws are set so that private business and clubs cannot be put in residential neighborhoods. They should not have the right to do this anymore than they have a right to tear down their house and put a gas station on the lot. Laws are laws, they could just move out into the countryside or into a different property zone.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:45:41 +0000

“100 guest @ $50 each, party every weekend without fail, that’s $5000 a week or $260,000 a year. That’s a hell of a lot of Doritos and Condoms.”-Frank

Im pretty sure they have more than just doritos and condoms. At a party like this I assuming they have tons of good food, plenty of alcohol and much more. You also can’t forget the cost of electricity, water and bed sheets. If you think about it, the total cost adds up pretty quickly! So I doubt they make any profit from these swinger parties.