Posts
Though some of Utah's alcohol regs have changed recently, entrepreneurs still need permission from Religious leaders to hold licenses to serve alcohol within 200' of Church property.
Why don't Religious leaders have to ask Atheists or Agnostics for permission to put up buildings like Churches near bars, residential neighborhoods, schools or shopping centers?
I think faith based indoctrination is far MORE dangerous than is the potential for political brain-washing of our children through live and/or televised speeches by our political leadership.
12 comments:
bluto long time no see. i think the faith argument dosnt belong here its a pivate property issue there are tons of cases were the churches are not aloud to build because of people in the neighbor hood such as not alowing steeples or temples or bogges clams like makeing babtism fonts considered as swimming pools there for not alowed in neighbor hoods the fact is its a private property issue and what we should be fighting is no one has the right to tell you what you do with your own property
plowking
No kidding PK.
I'd like to see some references to situations where Religions in Utah were denied the opportunity to put up any type of building. This isn't the denial of a building anyway. It's the denial of a permit for a certain practice. The things you listed were superficial physical characteristics of a building.
How can a 'religion' be afforded the right to tell anyone else what their rights should be?
Why can't bars deny baptisms within 200 feet of their buildings?
Because baptisms rarely if ever result in social unrest. Unlike the guy puking behind the BeerFest tent, they are generally private, sacred, mellow displays of a civilized society.
Further, if Atheists or Agnostics were organized (FreeMasons, for example) they would have the same rights of private property rights afforded to the Theists.
This is not a thiest-athiest issue. This is a private property issue, fairly arbitrated by fair law. FreeMasons don't pay taxes either.
I agree some faith-based indoctrination has the potential to misshape a child's mind. But at least the intent is positive (like the political speeches).
Teaching and enforcing the Judeo-Christian ethic to a receptive mind has nothing on an inattentive or abusive parent.
Thankyou for the input Pani Ma...
I don't see 'puking' a sign of either 'social unrest' OR 'child abuse'.
If it's simply property rights, why are church owners afforded different rights from owners of furniture stores?
Why is it on a Church to decide who can or cannot compete in any certain market? There already exist many licenses to sell booze in that area. Why are they allowed to discriminate?
As you stated, this SHOULD be about simple property rights and a community decision. The owners of all property in the area ought to have equal voice. No single one of them should have the power to shut anything like this down. It should require at least a simple majority to do so, if you ask me ...
I think the last thing you want is simple majority control here bluto. One thing i have always wondered it is totaly normal for counties to be dry in the south were there is a majority religious rule. its insane you drive for 20 minutes and your in a area were its aloud and 20 minutes later you cant find any were until the alabama line. I think the church has always had restraint in being a theocrasy rule and not gone this route but i think all it would take is one cold day in november and you would see it dry to the point you would have to go to wyoming to find a desent firework and a drink! i realy dont think we want anything turned over to a vote anymore anyways when the damn city of logan has a 9% turn out. The voteing rights of everyone in this valley should be taken away with a showing like that
At minimum once the ok is given to one it should go for all. I believe that permission shouldn't be needed at all.
Just a little side story for you Chris. In 1997 I purchased a family house from the Church....part of the negotiated contract? I couldn't smoke or drink once I bought the house and moved in. I gave a big WTF to my realtor and he said that it was just their standard form and that they were used to dealing with commercial properties. I wonder how Blackstone got away with a bar in the old DI building?
The difference between the furniture store and the church is that there is no Separation of Furniture and State in the constitution.
What the church does is put up a statue of Zeus in the front and sell its furniture out of the back -- all tax free.
It is the greatest tax dodge and money grab known to our great union. As long as you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't be able to invest in IBM, buy property not directly used for worship or tell taxpayers how to use the sidewalks the taxpayers paid for.
Moreover, we subsidize their tax shelter by paying extra taxes for this Church-State separation.
We have a separation of church and state. What we need now is the church to reciprocate. That is, we need a separation of State and Church.
Ow Pan. Mom
Its time for me to take you to lunch because that one came out of left field
the amount of wrong in that last statment can not be shown on a blog because of the server size
Faith-Based Control is far more prevalent in Texas and other parts of the deep south than here. 1/2 of the land within the City of Dallas is dry. Many of the counties in North and East Texas are dry as well. This is due to the Baptists, Methodists, and other "Bible Belt" dominating religions in the area.
Interesting that many of the central Texas areas and the Border areas are wet as hell. This is due to the relaxed view toward drinking, that the dominate Catholics and Lutherans, have in those parts of the state.
Faith-Based control is not an LDS issue, it happens all over the country. And it sucks!
"Far more" Sheesh? My intention wasn't to single out Mormons and blue law. We're all aware that other states sell 3.2 beer and have state run liquor stores or dry counties.
DD spelled out elsewhere that the law in Denver (maybe the state of Colo) is for no alcohol sales within 500 feet of schools or churches NO EXCEPTIONS. I find this approach far more reasonable as one entity is not given the power to discriminate.
Again, if any church is offered the right to discriminate against private establishments springing up in their areas, then so should furniture store owners be afforded such 'rights'.
Good to see that you do recognise that these archaic laws are not merely LDS issues. I agree that churches should not enjoy special rights over other organizations. But where should we draw the line? I had a friend who had a successful skateboard park, who had to close it because a huge Tejano bar moved into the same shopping center in Dallas. There were little skateboarders and drunk Tejanos sharing the same parking lots at nights. After a few ugly incidents, he had to close his skateboard park down. Not sure what this has to do with "Faith based" control, but I do see a need for zoning at some point.
Me thinks you thinks to much!
Post a Comment