Reply With Quote
but it sounds like he's trying to set up a public city, different rules apply
Again, how would this concept be uncons utional? 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
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 uncons utional in any other city.
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 en y 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 cons itution (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.
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.
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.
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.
The worst terrorist in the world is Mr. Domino.
Are you aware that Disney World in Fl has all the rights of a city? A law
unto themselves so to speak.
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 cons utional rights.
nothing says he would own the stores, only restrict what they sell. You're reading facts into the story.
Perhaps the author of that blog read their own facts into the story.
sourceWednesday, 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 uncons utional 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 cons utional 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 genous 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 cons ution 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 cons utional rights of citizens."
So he "controls" the property (ie ownership).
Even still, he can't include unconstutional restrictions on the sale or lease of the property.
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 cons utionally protected items.
And he has a cons utional 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 cons utional rights.
I disagree with this. What makes his actions uncons utional 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.
Last edited by Oh, Gee!!; 03-03-2006 at 01:52 PM.
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.
Last edited by Peter; 03-03-2006 at 02:25 PM. Reason: added 2nd paragraph
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"?
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 bas s!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions