Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 03/13/2010 5:21:54 AM PST by stars & stripes forever
This is one of those rare times we disagree.
I do agree if commerce is involved govt does have a role. However, once you let the "community standards" start determining who can gather in a house you open the door for discrimination like we see in this case. In the example you give of the swingers club as long as it is behind closed doors and doesn't involve minors who's business is it?
As a Christian I find that kind of thing offensive and would probably want to stand out front praying for them and exhorting them not to do it, but I do not want the govt saying they can't do it. The next thing you know a predominantly Mormon community will find it violates their community standards and disallow a Trinitarian Christian group gathering in a home. ;-0
Gasp. Is this still FREE REPUBLIC?
***I’ve often wondered the same thing myself. We’ve been inundated with RINO & Libertarian trolls.
Why do we tolerate this? The 9th Amendment is there for a reason:
To tell every level of government from Federal to Local that the people retain all their rights in America under our Constitution.
That we have to wiggle around the 14th is silliness.
Government is limited the people are not.
That’s the fight we are in and will be forever.
Too many people don’t realize that the Constitution restricts or limits the government, NOT the people.
We are an old neighborhood narrow little streets with odd turns and only two exits. Built in the 1950's and about a third of the families here are descendants of the families that were the original owners. We are sort of the area that time forgot and we like it that way.
Sadly because of the job situation we are losing people fast. About 10% of the houses are empty and for sale but the walks are still shoveled and their lawn neatly trimmed.
They would do it for us.
I’m an Agnostic. The city pulling this crap is way out of line.
Freedom OF Religion. Not freedom FROM religion.
This group needs to fight this. What thecity is doing is blatantly unConstitutional. Private home. Private meetings. If it IS a church, sfw? It’s still private proptery being used for a private purpose.
It’s from WorldNut Doily, and therefore not to be trusted.
This is one of those rare times we disagree.
Yep, I totally understand. It is a very tough call for me.
I do agree if commerce is involved govt does have a role. However, once you let the "community standards" start determining who can gather in a house you open the door for discrimination like we see in this case.
My angle would be that SOMEONE would have to be accountable as the person or group that made the law/ordinance in the first place. I would think it would be easy in the vast majority of America to bounce idiots who want to prohibit private Bible studies by law/ordinance. The opponent could nationalize the issue and completely embarrass the town and its moronic local government. In theory, problem solved. In theory also, this would work against the swingers.
In the example you give of the swingers club as long as it is behind closed doors and doesn't involve minors who's business is it?
I guess I consider it my business if my young kids (or my neighbor's kids) have to walk by that house every day to the bus stop knowing what it going on in there. I don't think it would be a good example to my kids to have a live and let live attitude toward intolerable behavior. I suppose through the legal process and my voting (or running for office) it could be my version of "rebuking" what is Obaminable. :) Philosophically, WE ARE the government, so I think we have every right to be intolerant of the intolerable.
Residential communities are for residents and the common needs of residents: that would include churches, schools, stores, and recreational areas. This are historically contiguous with residential neighborhoods and for good reasons. They provide a total quality of life that makes a residential area liveable and close at hand.
Swingers clubs are an aberration rather than a rule, but I would not use zoning ordinances to keep them out. The abuse of zoning laws is the focus of this article. Being honest, I would have to say that swingers clubs being excluded on the basis of business transactions is really dishonest and hypocritical on my part. What I’m really opposing is the sex that goes on behind those doors.
Therefore, I am entirely within my rights to go after that sex traffic directly. At least it’s honest, AND it informs everyone of the problem with that particular house. I’m wondering why selling porn can be against community standards but practicing porn is not.
I agree, but why does govt think they have these powers in the first place.
(swingers meeting) I guess I consider it my business if my young kids (or my neighbor's kids) have to walk by that house every day to the bus stop knowing what it going on in there. I don't think it would be a good example to my kids to have a live and let live attitude toward intolerable behavior.
Here's where we differ. I don't believe govt has the right to tell them not to meet. If they are adults and it's not in public it's not my business.
I'm with you 100% that I want my children and everyone else to be free from the filth of the world for as long as possible, but not at the cost of personal liberty. Also, as Christians we are surrounded by people that don't know the Lord as their Savior. We can't legislate, or regulate, them into belief.
I agree. The arrogance of govt to think it can insert itself into law abiding citizens lives and their use of private property is the problem.
What I’m really opposing is the sex that goes on behind those doors.
It's a great example of how the camel's nose gets in the tent. Govt will use an extreme that the vast majority will agree is offensive and once the right of govt to be involved is established the argument becomes the scope of the authority.
I’m wondering why selling porn can be against community standards but practicing porn is not.
Probably because the selling of it involves commerce. In the hypothetical we are discussing it's not open to the public and is not being sold to the public.
I reject zoning ordinances being used to manipulate the exericise of others’ freedoms under the Constitution.
“I reject zoning ordinances being used to manipulate the exericise of others’ freedoms under the Constitution.”
Are there any areas, such as traffic and noise, where zoning ordinances are an appropriate use of the police powers under the health, safety, welfare clauses of the federal and state constitutions?
Are occupancy restrictions and building and fire regulations appropriate when residences are used for public assembly?
In this article, we have a local government manipulating zoning ordinances to further some hidden agenda, whatever it might be. The very idea that churches don’t belong in residential communities flies in the face of the reason residential neighborhoods exist. They are places for living. Traditionally, they’ve included all the conveniences necessary for living: bakeries, butcher shops, barbers, schools, AND churches.
Such things as traffic aids would be determined to a large degree by the size of the residential community. Fire, police, and safety are long associated with residential communities.
Again, we’re discussing the manipulation of zoning ordinances rather than their existence. Yet, any zoning ordinance involving residential areas that attempts to forbid the attachments of living from being at hand for simplicity of living strike me as manipulative on their face.
Many Christians and FReepers celebrating the usurpation of private property freedom when the government started implementing tobacco bans on privately owned property. I warned them then and now I see that the sword they made is now slitting their throats.
Welcome to the party.
So...you actually have the ability to decide whether to be a part of the problem, or part of the solution.
Your choice seems-- seems-- evident.
That is unfortunate, especially as a lot of us have begun to choose who we can or cannot count on in the event of a governmental crisis.
I hope I'm wrong in my conclusions.
There is an abandoned building with broken windows and graffiti painted on it that is a huge eyesore to the area. The upset neighbors complain to the city to do something about it.
People that argue for private property rights would say that the city can't/shouldn't do anything. But the city has to consider the rights of everyone involved, and will in most cases require the owner to bring the building up to some reasonable level of appearance.
Sounds like a nice place. THe sort of place where if I was cleaning a rifle on the front porch, the neighbor would come over to examine it and show off his.
How’s the job situation there?
Here's my solution: I assume that, as in my mom's town, the property line does not extend to the street, but includes the sidewalk(in her case, where the sidewalk would be if built) and a bit more. So, use the city property for the benefit of the city by erecting a solid fence around the property where it meets the street, and let property owners on either side and behind know that they may jointly or severally place fences on their side of the property lines.
Just out of curiosity: did you, on assuming your office, take an sort of oath? Did it include anything about upholding the Constitution? If so, for shame!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.