Dominos Pizza Owner Building His Own Little Theocracy

[Nbadan]

Is this a warning of what will happen if the religious right takes over? Thomas Monaghan, founder of Dominos Pizza, is building a city in southwest Florida which he intends to be governed by strict Roman Catholic principles. The town is being built around Ave Maria University, the first catholic university to be built in the United States in 40 years. Both the college, being built by Monaghan, as well as the city, are to open next year about 25 miles east of Naples, Florida. Monaghan says it is “God’s Will” that this be built.

Managhan says that stores won’t be allowed to sell pornographic magazines, pharmacies won’t be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills, and cable television won’t be allowed to carry X-rated channels. “I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I don’t want to be on the sidelines,” said Monaghan in a recent interview.

The ACLU says these restrictions are unconstitutional and plan lawsuits. They note that there are religiously homogenous communities across the country but none can “wield governmental power along the lines of religious principle.”


The Democratic Daily (http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2097)

Monohan should bann Dominos Pizza, that shit sucks.

:throwupsp

[smeagol]

People can decide if they want to live in Monohan's pornographic-less, profilactic-less city or not.

What's the big deal?

[Nbadan]

Can you say Branch Davidians?

[turambar85]

Because, Smeagol, if you allow one person to break the constitution and set up his own little town-ship, then you can't stop the next. Sure we can choose not to live there, but history lasts a long time, and so do precedents. If you let this one happen, who is to say that in 200 years we dont have 80-100 seperare colonies. All of which pitting themselves against each other. Makes for a good sci-fi. movie, but not an American reality.

[smeagol]

Can you say Branch Davidians?
:lol

Catholicism = Branch Davidians

The Pope = David Koresh

You are funny!

[smeagol]

Because, Smeagol, if you allow one person to break the constitution and set up his own little town-ship, then you can't stop the next. Sure we can choose not to live there, but history lasts a long time, and so do precedents. If you let this one happen, who is to say that in 200 years we dont have 80-100 seperare colonies. All of which pitting themselves against each other. Makes for a good sci-fi. movie, but not an American reality.
You are right and this idea probably will not fly.

I still think it's pretty harmless.

[Peter]

If his "city" does not enjoy the status of a municipality but rather, say, a Disney World who gives a shit? That is, if those who come to his "city" and its restrictions do so on their own and he doesn't wield the power to restrict those who don't, I don't see the problem. Frankly, those who support less government interference shouldn't have a problem with this because otherwise the state can intrude upon any organization at any time.

[Mr. Peabody]

Didn't Del Webb build cities in Arizona and Florida for retired people? I was reading that those cities don't allow children to be residents and they have other laws that a geared towards seniors.

I don't see a problem with it, as long as they don't start asking for state or federal funds.

[xrayzebra]

Because, Smeagol, if you allow one person to break the constitution and set up his own little town-ship, then you can't stop the next. Sure we can choose not to live there, but history lasts a long time, and so do precedents. If you let this one happen, who is to say that in 200 years we dont have 80-100 seperare colonies. All of which pitting themselves against each other. Makes for a good sci-fi. movie, but not an American reality.


Ever hear of HOA's? They got more rule than the law allows, but don't
see ACLU going after them. Like you don't go by the HOA (Home Owners
Associations) rules you can literally lose you house. Happened here in
San Antonio some years ago, about the color someone painted their house.
Yeah. But don't let anyone say religion's principles, cause that is wrong.

[101A]

Catholics generally aren't considered "mainstream" religious right.

Far less likely to be conservative than, say, Baptists, Methodists or Prebyterians.

[smeagol]

Catholics generally aren't considered "mainstream" religious right.

Far less likely to be conservative than, say, Baptists, Methodists or Prebyterians.
True.

[boutons_]

I think Catholics in USA were heavily weighted by Italian, Irish, Polish, south German, Greek immigrants (mostly poor and rural in Europe. If you are rich, you usually don't immigrate), who mostly settled in the NE and MW cities, where the close proximity and cosmopolitain (different nationalities, ethnic groups, races), urban population gave Catholics in America a more broad-minded, ecumenical perspective.

Much of the nastiest, close-minded, aggressive, outrigt racial conservative influence in American Protestantism is from the rural areas in the South and West where the Protestant and (white) rural rabble is constantly being rabble-roused by politicized, self-aggrandizing, money-grubbing "ministers" competing for membership (aka donations).

[gtownspur]

Tax cuts=racism

School Vouchers=slavery

Taking down Roe vs Wade = Genocide


And people wonder why Poutons is never taken seriously.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Tax cuts=racism

School Vouchers=slavery

Taking down Roe vs Wade = Genocide


And people wonder why Poutons is never taken seriously.
:lmao look who is talking about not being taken seriously! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif too funny

[SA210]

^^ I was thinking the same thing :lmao

[xrayzebra]

No one wants to address the HOA issue, just the questions about having
a site established to observe religious beliefs is wrong. Don't you just
love it.

[Nbadan]

If his "city" does not enjoy the status of a municipality but rather, say, a Disney World who gives a shit?

Oh, so any group, polygamists in Utah, Aryans in Idaho, Wiccans in California, Branch Davidians in Texas should be allowed to set up their own city-state and circumvent freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution to those who wish to surrender those freedoms?

I suppose you also support Al-Sadr in Iraq?

[Peter]

Oh, so any group, polygamists in Utah, Aryans in Idaho, Wiccans in California, Branch Davidians in Texas should be allowed to set up their own city-state and circumvent freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution to those who wish to surrender those freedoms?


What's unconstitutional about it?

Furthermore, if someone wants to live in a vegan commune who the fuck cares? It seems as though the moment it's something that can be tied to a cause/individual with right of center ties it's sinister.




I suppose you also support Al-Sadr in Iraq?

Nope. I suppose you'd be happy with the government free to intrude upon any private association at any time.

As the thread turns...

[Nbadan]

What's unconstitutional about it?

Yeah, I suppose that Manohan is just going to take every word for it that they aren't concelling porn, or they aren't drinking the heathen alcohol.

:rolleyes

[Nbadan]

Nope. I suppose you'd be happy with the government free to intrude upon any private association at any time.

Only when they are undermining the foundations of our nation's Constitution.

[Peter]

Yeah, I suppose that Manohan is just going to take every word for it that they aren't concelling porn, or they aren't drinking the heathen alcohol.

:rolleyes


So then they get thrown out. Big deal. By your logic any social organization couldn't exclude a member who was engaged in an unwanted behavior. So what's the big deal if he wants to exclude porn in stores on private property? If that's not done through the imposition of law but rather some form of social agreement I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Peter]

Only when they are undermining the foundations of our nation's Constitution.


How so?

Again, what is unconstitutional about this proposition?

[Nbadan]

So then they get thrown out. Big deal. By your logic any social organization couldn't exclude a member who was engaged in an unwanted behavior. So what's the big deal if he wants to exclude porn in stores on private property? If that's not done through the imposition of law but rather some form of social agreement I'm not seeing the problem here.

Don't confuse porn with the real issue. Monohan's attempt to circumvent the first amendment by making everyone's private behavior a factor in which they can be excluded from their group. It would never survive a legal challenge.

[Peter]

Don't confuse porn with the real issue. Monohan's attempt to circumvent the first amendment by making everyone's private behavior a factor in which they can be excluded from their group. It would never survive a legal challenge.


Private organizations do that shit all the time. If Disney World wants to exclude porn from its stores is that unconstitutional? How about Sun City?

[Nbadan]

Private organizations do that shit all the time. If Disney World wants to exclude porn from its stores is that unconstitutional? How about Sun City?

Disney-world doesn't set laws that attempt to by-pass the Nation's constitution. It's their right under laws supported by the constitution not to sell porn.

[Peter]

Disney-world doesn't set laws that attempt to by-pass the Nation's constitution. It's their right under laws supported by the constitution not to sell porn.

Again, how would this concept be unconstitutional? That guy has a right to set up his Catholic World if he wants to.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Again, how would this concept be unconstitutional? That guy has a right to set up his Catholic World if he wants to.


but it sounds like he's trying to set up a public city, different rules apply

[Peter]

That's assuming it's open to the public. What if he only admits those he wants?

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's assuming it's open to the public. What if he only admits those he wants?

the story didn't say he was opening a theme park or a private resort. I'd say we need more facts to determine what he intends to do exactly, but I don't believe that financing a city (public) gives one the right to create rules that would be unconstitutional in any other city.

[Peter]

Well, if it's open to the public, then what matters is if he owns those shops. Then he should be free to exclude what he can under law.

I'm not suggesting that he be allowed to set up some kind of entity which is regarded as a municipality under law.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, if it's open to the public, then what matters is if he owns those shops. Then he should be free to exclude what he can under law.

I'm not suggesting that he be allowed to set up some kind of entity which is regarded as a municipality under law.

I imagine that the only people that will move there will be those that agree with Mr. Domino to begin with on the porn issue, so I doubt that anyone (other than the ACLU) would bring legal challenges. However, he can't completely avoid the constititution (for example, by setting up a police force that can arrest and search citizens on a whim, or refusing residency based on race).

[Peter]

I imagine that the only people that will move there will be those that agree with Mr. Domino to begin with on the porn issue, so I doubt that anyone (other than the ACLU) would bring legal challenges. However, he can't completely avoid the constititution (for example, by setting up a police force that can arrest and search citizens on a whim, or refusing residency based on race).

Well, if it's a restricted access area and individuals agree to his rules with being subject to expulsion, then it looks like a private club. Otherwise he's just offering a part of town with a few religious bookstores and what not which his organization owns and other stores which prohibit whatever he can under the law. Surely the ACLU is not going to argue that he is not free to do that.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't know, the story says he's building a city.

[Peter]

I don't know, the story says he's building a city.


Well, he can call it a city but as long as it's private then I don't have a problem with it, just like I wouldn't have a problem if someone was setting up a Vegan World, Gay World, Animal Rights World, etc...As long as it doesn't have the legal status of a municipality then hey, it's a free country.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, he can call it a city but as long as it's private then I don't have a problem with it, just like I wouldn't have a problem if someone was setting up a Vegan World, Gay World, Animal Rights World, etc...As long as it doesn't have the legal status of a municipality then hey, it's a free country.


He may be attempting to push the issue. Sounds like he's on mission from God.

[Peter]

He may be attempting to push the issue. Sounds like he's on mission from God.


Well, if he wants municipal status under Florida law that's another story.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That is the story, however. Why are you trying to change the facts? If he builds a theme-park, he can exclude whatever he wishes. If he has a store, he can sell what he wants. Re-read the article, homeboy wants to build a CITY and prevent the sell of birth control, control the airwaves, and prevent the sell of material he deems pornographic. It's no good.

[gtownspur]

The worst terrorist in the world is Mr. Domino.

[xrayzebra]

Well, he can call it a city but as long as it's private then I don't have a problem with it, just like I wouldn't have a problem if someone was setting up a Vegan World, Gay World, Animal Rights World, etc...As long as it doesn't have the legal status of a municipality then hey, it's a free country.

Are you aware that Disney World in Fl has all the rights of a city? A law
unto themselves so to speak.

[Peter]

That is the story, however. Why are you trying to change the facts? If he builds a theme-park, he can exclude whatever he wishes. If he has a store, he can sell what he wants. Re-read the article, homeboy wants to build a CITY and prevent the sell of birth control, control the airwaves, and prevent the sell of material he deems pornographic. It's no good.


Well, the story from that blog doesn't offer much, save for the characterization by the author that it would be a "city". If he owns the stores, the university, etc...then he can exclude what he wants under law. I don't believe there's a law that requires stores you own to carry porn. Maybe it's not good for those who disagree with his religious beliefs, but if he's exercising them consistent with the law then perhaps the ACLU should get back to protecting individual constitutional rights.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, the story from that blog doesn't offer much, save for the characterization by the author that it would be a "city". If he owns the stores, the university, etc...then he can exclude what he wants under law. I don't believe there's a law that requires stores you own to carry porn. Maybe it's not good for those who disagree with his religious beliefs, but if he's exercising them consistent with the law then perhaps the ACLU should get back to protecting individual constitutional rights.

nothing says he would own the stores, only restrict what they sell. You're reading facts into the story.

[Peter]

Perhaps the author of that blog read their own facts into the story.



Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Monaghan wants town to live by Catholic rules

Pizza millionaire would ban sales of birth control and X-rated material in Florida community

Brian Skoloff / Associated Press

NAPLES, Fla. - If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in a quiet corner of southwest Florida will be governed by strict Roman Catholic principles, particularly when it comes to sex.

The pizza magnate, raised by nuns in orphanages, is bankrolling the town called Ave Maria with millions of dollars, calling its construction "God's will." Stores won't sell pornographic magazines, pharmacies won't carry condoms or birth control pills, and cable television will carry no X-rated channels, he said in a speech last year to the first annual Boston Catholic Men's Conference.

Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and they promise lawsuits.

The town is being constructed around the Monaghan-founded Ave Maria University, the first Catholic university to be built in the United States in four decades. Both are set to open next year about 25 miles east of Naples.

The community, developed through a partnership with the Barron Collier Co., an agricultural and real estate company, will be set on 5,000 acres with a European-inspired town center. It will encircle a massive church and what planners call the largest crucifix in the nation, standing nearly 65 feet tall.

Robert Falls, a spokesman for the project, said attorneys are still reviewing the legal issues of the proposed bans. He said Monaghan would not comment until the issue is resolved.

"If they attempt to do what he apparently wants to do, the people of Naples and Collier County, Fla., are in for a whole series of legal and constitutional problems and a lot of litigation indefinitely into the future," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

While Simon notes there are religiously homogenous communities across the country, from Hasidic Jewish to Mormon, none can "wield governmental power along the lines of religious principle."

Monaghan, of Ann Arbor, and Barron Collier will control all commercial real estate in the town and could include provisions in leases that restrict the sale of certain items. Homes will range from affordable to extravagant and will be purchased outright by prospective buyers.

Unlike some states, Florida pharmacies don't have to provide contraceptives.

"The law doesn't say exactly what a pharmacy has to stock or sell," said Thometta Cozart, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health.

Naples Community Hospital, which plans to open a clinic in the town, will not prescribe any birth control to students. The hospital has not decided whether it will prescribe to the general public.

"I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I don't want to be on the sidelines," Monaghan said in a recent Newsweek interview.

However, Simon points to a 1946 Supreme Court opinion that "ownership does not always mean absolute dominion."

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist said it will be up to the courts to decide the legalities of the plan.

"The community has the right to provide a wholesome environment," Crist said Tuesday. "If someone disagrees, they have the right to go to court and present facts before a judge."

A telephone message was left for Collier County officials seeking comment.

Gov. Jeb Bush, at the university's recent groundbreaking, lauded the development as a new kind of town, where faith and freedom will merge to create a community of like-minded citizens. Bush, a convert to Catholicism, did not speak specifically to the proposed restrictions.

"While the governor does not personally believe in abortion or pornography, the town, and any restrictions they may place on businesses choosing to locate there, must comply with the laws and constitution of the state and federal governments," Russell Schweiss, a spokesman for the governor, said Tuesday.

"This is country club Christianity," said Frances Kissling, president of the liberal Washington, D.C.-based Catholics for a Free Choice, which opposes the church's bans on abortion and birth control.

She likened the town's concept to Islamic fundamentalism and teaching intolerance.

"This is un-American," Kissling said. "I don't think in a democratic society you can have a legally organized township that will seek to have any kind of public service whatsoever and try to restrict the constitutional rights of citizens."


source (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/UPDATE/603010419)

So he "controls" the property (ie ownership).

[Oh, Gee!!]

So he "controls" the property (ie ownership).

Even still, he can't include unconstutional restrictions on the sale or lease of the property.

[Peter]

He can certainly decide who he opts to lease it to. If he wants to lease it to bookstores, clinics, etc...who follow his beliefs he's free to do so.

[Oh, Gee!!]

He can certainly decide who he opts to lease it to. If he wants to lease it to bookstores, clinics, etc...who follow his beliefs he's free to do so.


as a private individual probably, but the problem is the city would be the guiding force in determining what is appropriate. If he owned a handful of buildings around town, he could lease to people he prefers (up to a point). But he controls all of the buildings in town, hence creating a de facto city-wide (public) ban on constitutionally protected items.

[Peter]

And he has a constitutional right as an owner to use his property as he sees fit. No one is precluded from gaining ownership of their own property in this nation and using it as they saw fit. The "city" exists because he is developing it, not the other way around. If he wanted to ban something on property that he didn't own within a municipality I would be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands it looks like he'd simply be exercising his constitutional rights.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And he has a constitutional right as an owner to use his property as he sees fit. No one is precluded from gaining ownership of their own property in this nation and using it as they saw fit. The "city" exists because he is developing it, not the other way around. If he wanted to ban something on property that he didn't own within a municipality I would be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands it looks like he'd simply be exercising his constitutional rights.

I disagree with this. What makes his actions unconstitutional is the fact that he owns practically all the buildings in the city and is imposing his moral restraints upon their use by others, thereby creating a city-wide ban on otherwise protected items. The chicken and the egg argument has no bearing on this. It doesn't matter if he creates the city, inherits it, buys it after it's been in existence for 1000 years. I have a feeling that we won't agree on anything beyond this point, so I'll drop it instead of repeating myself again.

[Peter]

All I'll add is that I'd have no problem if an individual was an ardent nudist in the same situation who wanted to enforce a no clothing policy on all the property he/she owned or if it was a vegan who wanted to ban meat from all of their properties. To me the government gains at the expense of individual liberty when we start setting boundaries on what one can do with their property. Where is the limit? Is it in terms of acreage? Property rights and freedom of association take a hit when the government is able to make more demands upon individuals and groups whose only offense is trying to live by their standards on their property.

edit-Maybe a way to think about is if the guy wanted to create a pagans-only "city" with a ban on any material related to other faiths on his properties. I'd also have no problem with that.

[101A]

I disagree with this. What makes his actions unconstitutional is the fact that he owns practically all the buildings in the city and is imposing his moral restraints upon their use by others, thereby creating a city-wide ban on otherwise protected items. The chicken and the egg argument has no bearing on this. It doesn't matter if he creates the city, inherits it, buys it after it's been in existence for 1000 years. I have a feeling that we won't agree on anything beyond this point, so I'll drop it instead of repeating myself again.



So it's a matter of scope to you? The size of the space?

Can I ban porn in my house?

What if my house is above a store I own? Can I ban it in my house and my store?

What if my store and house are in a mall I own. Can I ban it in those places?

What if the mall is on a piece of property I own which includes a health club and a California Pizza Kitchen?

Can I ban porn on my property, or only when I call my property "101ville"?

[101A]

BTW:

The discussion we are having is academic. I caught an interview with this guy on Today, and he said the restrictions would be voluntary, but encouraged, for the stores/vendors in the town.

GEEZ you liberals sure like to tell everybody else how to live, and are vehement about it!

ie: NO you may not create a town in another state which I don't want to live in - you intolerant bastards!

[Oh, Gee!!]

So it's a matter of scope to you? The size of the space?

Can I ban porn in my house?

What if my house is above a store I own? Can I ban it in my house and my store?

What if my store and house are in a mall I own. Can I ban it in those places?

What if the mall is on a piece of property I own which includes a health club and a California Pizza Kitchen?

Can I ban porn on my property, or only when I call my property "101ville"?


you can ban porn on your private property. Can't buy all the buildings in a city, and say it's my private property, hence I make the rules.

[101A]

you can ban porn on your private property. Can't buy all the buildings in a city, and say it's my private property, hence I make the rules.

What % of the buildings CAN I own?

[Peter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he creating the "city"?

[Oh, Gee!!]

What % of the buildings CAN I own?


unclear, that would be decided case by case. What is clear is that this guy owns all or nearly all the buildings and is placing bans on protected items (birth control, adult themed materials). He is essentially acting as the local government, and not a private citizen. Different rules apply.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he creating the "city"?


and the rules governing said city. That's why it's bad. Doesn't matter if he bank rolls the thing, moment he starts making rules like that, he's acting as the government and not just a private individual.

[101A]

unclear, that would be decided case by case. What is clear is that this guy owns all or nearly all the buildings and is placing bans on protected items (birth control, adult themed materials). He is essentially acting as the local government, and not a private citizen. Different rules apply.

So if I own a store, I can't elect to NOT sell birth control porn?

At what level of wealth and property ownership do you say I forfeit my otherwise constitutionally protected rights?

[Peter]

In certain communities groups organize to protest the sale of "inappropriate material" in certain chain retail stores. IIRC, Wal-Mart is one such chain which has had pressure exerted on it to stop selling albums with explicit lyrics, for example. Must we now say that since Wal-Mart controls a rather large number of properties in the US that it cannot choose to sell what it wishes?

[Peter]

and the rules governing said city. That's why it's bad. Doesn't matter if he bank rolls the thing, moment he starts making rules like that, he's acting as the government and not just a private individual.

Well, it's his property. If he enacts a ban on what others can do with their property then I'd agree with you. If he's merely enforcing his beliefs on his own property, well, that's his prerogative per the Constitution.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You and 101A obviously don't understand the difference between private actions and those of the government. in this case, the private individual is also serving in a governmental capacity. I'll leave it that.

[Peter]

Sure I do. He's taking private action with his property. At what point are we through government action supposed to circumscribe his right to do so?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Sure I do. He's taking private action with his property. At what point are we suppose to circumscribe his right to do so?

when he's acting in a governmental capacity. for example, creating the rules of the game for the entire city by placing city-wide bans on otherwise protected items. I'll let you two geniuses have the last word.

[Peter]

I have a feeling if this guy wanted to do anything other than enforce some beliefs grounded in the Catholic faith on his own personal property that we'd be in agreement.

[Peter]

when he's acting in a governmental capacity. for example, creating the rules of the game for the entire city by placing city-wide bans on otherwise protected items. I'll let you two geniuses have the last word.


Right, it's somehow ridiculous to expect that an individual should be free to do as they see fit with their own property. Obviously our constitutional rights don't mean jack anymore when applied to protect religious belief.

[101A]

Right, it's somehow ridiculous to expect that an individual should be free to do as they see fit with their own property. Obviously our constitutional rights don't mean jack anymore when applied to protect religious belief.

Irony.

Why again did they sail to the new world in the first place?

[Peter]

Irony.

Why again did they sail to the new world in the first place?


By this logic, a committed atheist who acquired a substantial amount of property in one locale would be forced to give up his rights and allow a church to operate on his property when he did not want it there, for he could not prohibit that since his constitutional rights were not paramount or he was deemed by someone else to be 'acting like a government'.

[Oh, Gee!!]

By this logic, a committed atheist who acquired a substantial amount of property in one locale would be forced to give up his rights and allow a church to operate on his property when he did not want it there, for he could not prohibit that since his constitutional rights were not paramount or he was deemed by someone else to be 'acting like a government'.

The equivalent of Mr. Domino's plan would be atheist saying "since I'm funding construction of the entire city and all the buildings therein, I place a city-wide ban on any religious activity in public buildings, religious materials being sold in stores, and the 700 Club from being shown on cable" I hope you see a problem with this scenario.

[101A]

The equivalent of Mr. Domino's plan would be atheist saying "since I'm funding construction of the entire city and all the buildings therein, I place a city-wide ban on any religious activity in public buildings, religious materials being sold in stores, and the 700 Club from being shown on cable" I hope you see a problem with this scenario.

I do not.

(you said we got the last word - indian giver)

[Peter]

If he has a personal ban on those activities on his properties, I don't. For then it's a slippery slope from just requiring those few who can acquire a significant number of the properties in a locale to behave in a certain way to policies which restrict us all.

Now if we move to property others control and their right to, say, put up a satellite dish and watch whatever they want, that's different. Then they are master of their domain.

As for public property, there was scant mention of it in either of the two articles in this thread. If there are public places, then he shouldn't have control of those.

[Oh, Gee!!]

wow, just wow

[Peter]

Why are people so willing to give up their constitutionally protected property rights? We've already seen a weakening in these rights in recent times, with the SC ruling that a local government can take property for development projects which are supposedly in the public's interest at the expense of the individual. To me that's a greater concern than whether someone opts to ban porn, religious expression, etc on their own property.

[Mr. Peabody]

BTW:

The discussion we are having is academic. I caught an interview with this guy on Today, and he said the restrictions would be voluntary, but encouraged, for the stores/vendors in the town.

GEEZ you liberals sure like to tell everybody else how to live, and are vehement about it!

ie: NO you may not create a town in another state which I don't want to live in - you intolerant bastards!

Essentially, he has said that he would encourage the property owners to put deed restrictions on the property, prohibiting certain activities (e.g. selling porn, subscribing to Cinemax, etc.).

The question is, do these deed restrictions go too far? I know you can't put in a deed restriction prohibiting the sell of property to minorities, but I don't know if these other "rights" can be restricted.

[Peter]

Deed restrictions inhibit the ability of rightful owners to do as they see fit with their properties, so I would have a problem with that.

[Yonivore]

Deed restrictions inhibit the ability of rightful owners to do as they see fit with their properties, so I would have a problem with that.
So don't move there.

With zoning ordinances and deed restrictions, he could ban sex if he wanted to. Moving to the city -- with ordinances in place -- is purely voluntary. It's only ex post facto crap that would get him in trouble.

[Yonivore]

Why are people so willing to give up their constitutionally protected property rights? We've already seen a weakening in these rights in recent times, with the SC ruling that a local government can take property for development projects which are supposedly in the public's interest at the expense of the individual. To me that's a greater concern than whether someone opts to ban porn, religious expression, etc on their own property.
Maybe they'd like to live in a community free of smut and baby-killing.

I don't see you people ragging on the Amish.

I agree on your point about the SC ruling. However, that appears to have been a good thing in hindsight. States, 28 at last count, are finally writing state legislation to ban such eminent domain abuses.

[xrayzebra]

when he's acting in a governmental capacity. for example, creating the rules of the game for the entire city by placing city-wide bans on otherwise protected items. I'll let you two geniuses have the last word.

OG, why cant he have these rules written into the deeds such as a
HOA, which make up their own rules. Like fences, house color, only one
family to a home, garbage can placement.....so on and so forth. Rules for
their private parks. I posted earlier about HOA's and you ignored them then
but it seems to me that if it is possible for Disney to get a law passed in
Florida, such as Disney did, then he could do the same. Right or wrong?

[Peter]

Yonivore obviously read the entire thread before posting.

[ChumpDumper]

I think opening a liquor and porn shop just outside the city limits is the just and proper thing to do.

[Yonivore]

I think opening a liquor and porn shop just outside the city limits is the just and proper thing to do.
And, I think that's a stupid business decision if you consider this community was designed in advance to attract people who probably won't patronize such establishments.

[Trainwreck2100]

And, I think that's a stupid business decision if you consider this community was designed in advance to attract people who probably won't patronize such establishments.


And if they did, they would go FAR out of town, so as to not be recognised

[ChumpDumper]

You'd be surprised.

Mr. Domino did all kinds of backtracking in his latest press conference anyway, so you'll have to start your own theocracy somewhere else.

[Yonivore]

You'd be surprised.

Mr. Domino did all kinds of backtracking in his latest press conference anyway, so you'll have to start your own theocracy somewhere else.
I never said I'd live there.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And, I think that's a stupid business decision if you consider this community was designed in advance to attract people who probably won't patronize such establishments.

those are precisely the kind of people that sneak away to find porn and liquor

[Yonivore]

those are precisely the kind of people that sneak away to find porn and liquor
Well, they aren't going to "sneak" to the edge of town.

[Oh, Gee!!]

**cough**jimmy swaggart**cough**

[Yonivore]

**cough**jimmy swaggart**cough**
I doubt Jimmy Swaggart would move to such a community.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I doubt Jimmy Swaggart would move to such a community.

you're mean :cry

http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/images_80/1988_swaggart.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Well, they aren't going to "sneak" to the edge of town.Works in Lubbock.

[Melmart1]

Even if the adults didn't "sneak" to the edge of town, I would bet money that their kids would.

[jochhejaam]

Even if the adults didn't "sneak" to the edge of town, I would bet money that their kids would.
Most kids want nothing to do with liquor or porn.

[Yonivore]

Works in Lubbock.
That's Lubbock -- where not everyone moved there under the guise of joining a community free from pornography and abortion.

[101A]

Most kids want nothing to do with liquor or porn.

What the he!! is this world coming to? :depressed

[ChumpDumper]

That's Lubbock -- where not everyone moved there under the guise of joining a community free from pornography and abortion.They won't here either. Drinking the Kool-Aid is not a requirement.

[Yonivore]

They won't here either. Drinking the Kool-Aid is not a requirement.
You're absolutely right. But, Lubbock wasn't established as a porn-free, abortion-free city.

Besides, why would anyone move there if they're fans of porn or abortion? Aren't there several thousand other cities in which to live around this great nation? More importantly, who, besides you, has the money or time to open a business just to make a political statement?

[Melmart1]

Most kids want nothing to do with liquor or porn.

On what planet?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Most kids want nothing to do with liquor or porn.


gay

[jochhejaam]

On what planet?
Lovetron (discovered by Dr. Darryl Dawkins).