Just got back from chick fil a

[clistensprechen]

Clara's weak justification to support this is based on counties and towns being dry, not allowing liquor to be sold which is probably a religious reasoning.  The hole in her theory is that in the case of dry counties or towns (I lived in one) is that ALL establishments of this type were disallowed.  The se counties or towns are not singling out ONE business based on the comments of one man.


May she is being contrary just to argue.

You left out the precedent and my statement that "community standards" is a recognized successful legal argument in local matters even when the federal government is affected. Local governments have always had that power, and what's novel is your interpretation.

[Woody]

Clara's weak justification to support this is based on counties and towns being dry, not allowing liquor to be sold which is probably a religious reasoning.  The hole in her theory is that in the case of dry counties or towns (I lived in one) is that ALL establishments of this type were disallowed.  The se counties or towns are not singling out ONE business based on the comments of one man.


May she is being contrary just to argue.

You left out the precedent and my statement that "community standards" is a recognized successful legal argument in local matters even when the federal government is affected. Local governments have always had that power, and what's novel is your interpretation.

Clara, your argument does not apply to Cathy and chick fila.  Even including your statement.  Not that you would but can you post one single instance where a locality successfully blocked a business based on the thoughts and words of one business man?  Not an entire business type.


That is unconstitutional.

[wbcoleman]

Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

You're just saying "If you speak freely and say something the government doesn't like, then its OK if the government makes you pay for it." That will teach everyone in the country not to speak freely won't it. Exactly what you left-wing Stalinists want. Everyone afraid to speak freely.

Umm, you're confusing local government with federal government. This isn't a federal case because the First Amendment isn't even remotely involved in the local issuing of permits unless the business is a publication. Restaurants don't qualify as the Press. No single business president does, either.

There are consequences for everything everybody says. That's life.

The concept you are missing is called "incorporation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

The specific case which incorporated the free speech clause of the First Amendment against state and local governments was Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652.

If you think a local government can deny permits based upon the exercise of protected speech, you are either nuts or a liberal.

[clistensprechen]

The granting or denial of a business permit is not covered by any part of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is not a business entitlement program.

The U.S. Constitution regulates commerce between states and internationally.

There is no illegal reason to deny any business any permit unless that business is a member of the Press.

No restaurant is considered to be the Press.

A community can deny a business permit for NO reason. A community can decide that it doesn't want a particular business within its borders, period. What the president said is neither here nor there if a community decides to pull its permit, since a community has the right to for any OR NO reason.

[wbcoleman]

The granting or denial of a business permit is not covered by any part of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is not a business entitlement program.

The U.S. Constitution regulates commerce between states and internationally.

There is no illegal reason to deny any business any permit unless that business is a member of the Press.

No restaurant is considered to be the Press.

A community can deny a business permit for NO reason. A community can decide that it doesn't want a particular business within its borders, period. What the president said is neither here nor there if a community decides to pull its permit, since a community has the right to for any OR NO reason.

Whew!  For starters, try reading the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[clistensprechen]

Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

You're just saying "If you speak freely and say something the government doesn't like, then its OK if the government makes you pay for it." That will teach everyone in the country not to speak freely won't it. Exactly what you left-wing Stalinists want. Everyone afraid to speak freely.

Umm, you're confusing local government with federal government. This isn't a federal case because the First Amendment isn't even remotely involved in the local issuing of permits unless the business is a publication. Restaurants don't qualify as the Press. No single business president does, either.

There are consequences for everything everybody says. That's life.

The concept you are missing is called "incorporation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. ...

Now you're claiming that a town is a state.
Wrong.
Try again.

[Woody]

Ok Clara.  You support a town denying a black man a business based on his race.  A gay man on his sexuality.  A Muslim because of religion.  A woman based on gender.


I am only applying your wrongheaded logic.


Good luck with that babe.

[clistensprechen]

The granting or denial of a business permit is not covered by any part of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is not a business entitlement program.

The U.S. Constitution regulates commerce between states and internationally.

There is no illegal reason to deny any business any permit unless that business is a member of the Press.

No restaurant is considered to be the Press.

A community can deny a business permit for NO reason. A community can decide that it doesn't want a particular business within its borders, period. What the president said is neither here nor there if a community decides to pull its permit, since a community has the right to for any OR NO reason.

Whew!  For starters, try reading the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Right to Work states break that all the time regarding employees. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander--if the 14th Amendment applies to employers, it applies to employees.

Except it doesn't, so BZZZZT! wrong.

[Woody]

The granting or denial of a business permit is not covered by any part of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is not a business entitlement program.

The U.S. Constitution regulates commerce between states and internationally.

There is no illegal reason to deny any business any permit unless that business is a member of the Press.
No restaurant is considered to be the Press.

A community can deny a business permit for NO reason. A community can decide that it doesn't want a particular business within its borders, period. What the president said is neither here nor there if a community decides to pull its permit, since a community has the right to for any OR NO reason.

Whew!  For starters, try reading the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

She is too far into this dude to admit she is wrong.

[clistensprechen]

Ok Clara.  You support a town denying a black man a business based on his race.  A gay man on his sexuality.  A Muslim because of religion.  A woman based on gender.


I am only applying your wrongheaded logic.


Good luck with that babe.

...except you aren't. You're covering rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, hon. None of those rights specify that any business has a right to operate in any particular town.

[clistensprechen]

The granting or denial of a business permit is not covered by any part of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is not a business entitlement program.

The U.S. Constitution regulates commerce between states and internationally.

There is no illegal reason to deny any business any permit unless that business is a member of the Press.
No restaurant is considered to be the Press.

A community can deny a business permit for NO reason. A community can decide that it doesn't want a particular business within its borders, period. What the president said is neither here nor there if a community decides to pull its permit, since a community has the right to for any OR NO reason.

Whew!  For starters, try reading the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

She is too far into this dude to admit she is wrong.

I would if I was wrong. I'm not.

[Woody]

Ok Clara.  You support a town denying a black man a business based on his race.  A gay man on his sexuality.  A Muslim because of religion.  A woman based on gender.


I am only applying your wrongheaded logic.


Good luck with that babe.

...except you aren't. You're covering rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, hon. None of those rights specify that any business has a right to operate in any particular town.

Now her argument is speech is not a constitutionally protected right. 


Really?  I mean, really?


WOW!

[wbcoleman]

Nobody's saying that the president can't speak freely.

You're just saying "If you speak freely and say something the government doesn't like, then its OK if the government makes you pay for it." That will teach everyone in the country not to speak freely won't it. Exactly what you left-wing Stalinists want. Everyone afraid to speak freely.

Umm, you're confusing local government with federal government. This isn't a federal case because the First Amendment isn't even remotely involved in the local issuing of permits unless the business is a publication. Restaurants don't qualify as the Press. No single business president does, either.

There are consequences for everything everybody says. That's life.

The concept you are missing is called "incorporation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. ...

Now you're claiming that a town is a state.
Wrong.
Try again.

I don't believe that you are an ignoramus, but you are doing your damndest to impersonate one.

You are arguing a counterfactual.  No, you're not arguing anything, you are asserting a counterfactual, and an incredibly foolish one.  This is not a conservative/liberal difference of opinion, and it's not a close case.  You are flat out wrong, totally, and I'd suggest that you contemplate why it is that Rahmbo and the other mayors backed off from their threats so quickly.  They knew that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on, even if you don't.