Reply With Quote
What % of the buildings CAN I own?
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?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he creating the "city"?
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.
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.
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 cons utionally protected rights?
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?
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 Cons ution.
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.
Sure I do. He's taking private action with his property. At what point are we through government action supposed to cir scribe 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.
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.
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 cons utional 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?
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 cons utional 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.
I do not.
(you said we got the last word - indian giver)
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.
wow, just wow
Why are people so willing to give up their cons utionally 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions