!!!
In good old Marietta, Georgia is it not ok to watch naked or half naked people dance and have a drink. Is that not utter BS???
If the conservatives don’t like it, they can stay out of the place. Who the hell are they to decide what I can and can’t do? I am not infringing on their rights, THEY are infringing on mine . . .
I do need to move but sadly, I just can’t afford it right now. So I am left to bitch and moan instead . . .
:mad:
But that’s not nearly as amusing as Kennesaw’s law that every household has to own a gun.
And now that I hear the whole County is embroiled in a creationist uprising of sorts, I am beginning to think I left at the right time.
Rossarian,
Kennesaw’s law IS amusing. Could I sue the city then if my child killed himself with the handgun I was required to have in my home?
There are so many silly, stupid laws that it is not even funny anymore. But what irks me the most are the laws that infringe on MY rights.
Another thing that irks me is how I seem to forget to proofread my posts before I post them. Can we make snatchoff an official word?
Argh!!!
Does the law still force bars to decide between alcohol and nudity? I remember when that one passed, and a lot of the big clubs on 41 found themselves in the red shortly thereafter.
Well, IMHO all laws infringe on someones rights. That’s the cost of democracy. :rolleyes:
But then, I may be wrong. 
[Total Hijack]
I just finished watch Greta Van Cistern take apart the mayor of Santa Cruz CA. I consider Greta the female Geraldo Rivera, but she really did a job on that mayor. Poor guy couldn’t even remember his name or town at the end of the interview. 
[/Total Hijack]
Return to your regularly scheduled rant.
Hey PhiloVance, Greta is actually pretty good when she sticks to legal issues. That’s what she covered at her old cable news network, that was always a pretty accurate and informative show. FoxNews likes to blur the lines alot, having Cavuto spout off about all sorts of non-business topics for instance. Still, I think she’s done a good job. I always found that thing with her mouth distracting, though.
Well, actually, I’m betting that it is still OK. You just can’t have a business dedicated to it. If you can convince naked or half-naked people to dance in front of you while you have a drink, then I think you are still welcome to do so.
Hey, if you want to look at naked people while half-drunk, peep in windows like the rest of us.
Perhaps. But I hope the lawyer you engage is better versed in the statute than you appear to be.
First, it’s not a handgun you’re required to own—it’s simply a firearm of any type. Second, not everyone is required to own a firearm. Exceptions are made for various reasons, among them religious beliefs and conscientious objectors, as well as convicted felons and the mentally disabled. The law has been challenged by the ACLU and upheld in federal court. This law cannot compel you to own a firearm.
I would also note that this law says nothing about maintaining that firearm in a loaded state and readily accessible. You are still responsible for the safe storage of that weapon. I suspect the if your child shot himself and negligence on your part could be proved, you’d find yourself on the defendant’s side of the aisle in the courtroom—much like any other where in the U.S.
This law in no way infringes on your rights. Please try another allegory.
ummmm…cite?
Hey, I’ve got family in Marietta. None of them drink at all, much less look at naked people. I’m so glad my dad moved away from there at his earliest opportunity!
**
Attention: There is no inherent right in the Consitution, to watch naked or half naked people dance. Likewise, there is no right to have a drink. Therefore, the community, in passing these laws, is not violating your rights. If I’m wrong, and such a right is guaranteed to you under the Constitution, please show it to me.
If you don’t like it, then take action. Write your city councilperson. If they won’t change matters, then find a candidate who will and get that person elected.
Zev Steinhardt
Zev, you obviously have not seen the original Constitution, in the Federal Hall in Philadelphia. I quote"
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and watch naked or half-naked people dance and have a drink, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Hmm, such a pity that Schoolhouse Rock left that bit out.
Excuse me, but I think you have it backwards. There’s no inherent ban on such things either.
As far as having a drink…Prohibition was repealed, so yes, you do have a right to drink.
Uncle Beer wrote:
Then what’s the point of the law?
Zev wrote:
Such is the ethical quagmire when people believe that their rights come from scribbles in ancient documents. By what reasonable principle ought peaceful honest people to be prohibited from pursuing their own happiness in their own way?
Just because it isn’t mentioned in the constitution doesn’t mean it isn’t a right. Morally you have a right to do whatever the hell you want so long as you don’t harm anyone.
Forcing others to live by your moral code is immoral, it has nothing to do with the law.
No, you don’t.
The Constitution does not stand for the proposition that “everything not expressly disallowed is therefore allowed.” It stands for the proposition that certain rights, inalienable and inherent, may not be infringed by the government. That does not include the right to have a drink. Drinking is subject myriad restrictions – no open container, no service of drinks even in drinking establishments after 2 a.m., no service to anyone under 21 – and indeed can be regulated right out of legal existence, as was the national policy during Prohibition and as indeed remains the regional policy in various “dry counties” throughout the South and West.
Even the rights that we do have, including freedom of speech, religion, and association, may validly be limited by reasonable restrictions on time place and manner, or when the government has a sufficient legitimate reason (be that a “rational basis” or “compelling state interest”) for the restriction.
There is no inherent “right” to have a drink while watching naked or half-naked people dance. If the government (national, state, or local) can produce a sufficient legitimate reason for the regulation, that the regulation is okay.
GRENDEL –
But, of course, “moral” and “immoral” is a matter of opinion, and not everyone posting necessarily will share yours of what actions are or are not moral.
Even if one generally agrees with your definition – which, as it happens, I do – that simply takes us into the morass of what constitues “cause” and what constitutes “harm.”
Assuming that one can argue – not even prove, but simply persuasively argue – that a strip club serves to lower the property values; encourage the exploitation of women; enable alcoholism and/or drug use; and invite “undesirable” people into the community – i.e., the criminal or the indigent – then one has posited a “harm” to the community at large that arguably supports regulation of the industry – even to the point of regulating it out of existence.
You assume everyone agrees with your definition of “moral,” and you assume that, even under your defintion, alcohol-and-titty bars are okay. I don’t think you can easily support either of those assumptions.
Lolly, Lolly, Lolly, get yer drinkin’ here!
Lolly, Lolly, Lolly, get yer nudies here!