Goddamn religious based laws

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Went to do my grocery shopping early today to avoid the crowds. Had a cart full of food and some beer that was on sale.

"Sorry sir, we cant sell you beer before 12 on a Sunday"

Good thing too, because I was going to get fvcking wasted at 10AM on a Sunday. I just left my cart at the register with everything in it and walked out.

How the hell do people buy beer in time for Sunday football games? Good thing some Christians thought up this ban on beer before 12. Maybe they can all put their heads together and outlaw dancing too. Maybe censor some books. Christ.

What a stupid law. I am betting that the stupid "Christian" fundies in ATOT are wagging their heads though saying that this is a "Secular Humanist" agenda. :roll: Give me a break.

Walk the Line -
- Johnny, your main fan group is Christian, they don't want you playing in jails for rapist and murderers to try to cheer them up.
- Well, they ain't Christian then.

Great movie and great quote.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The blue laws BEGAN as religious laws. Now they're lobbied for and maintained by small businesses, not the religious right. If supermarkets and convenience stores can sell beer on Sunday morning then package stores have to stay open too. That costs them money for very little return and on a slow day they'd probably lose money during those hours.

Pay attention to your local newspaper once in a while. When the blue laws come up for review and possible change it's not the Jesus-freaks that are screaming about maintaining a holy day, it's small business owners who are screaming about maintaining a day off. Just buy your beer on Saturday evening or any other time during the week. It's not all that complicated.

Interesting, I never knew that.

 

[ericb]

Hate to say it but if you don't like it then get out of the house and vote when it comes up for review. The same people complain and complain but when the law comes up for review the county gets 5% turnout. And most of that 5% consists of people who want it to stay the way it is.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The blue laws BEGAN as religious laws. Now they're lobbied for and maintained by small businesses, not the religious right. If supermarkets and convenience stores can sell beer on Sunday morning then package stores have to stay open too. That costs them money for very little return and on a slow day they'd probably lose money during those hours.

Pay attention to your local newspaper once in a while. When the blue laws come up for review and possible change it's not the Jesus-freaks that are screaming about maintaining a holy day, it's small business owners who are screaming about maintaining a day off. Just buy your beer on Saturday evening or any other time during the week. It's not all that complicated.

Interesting, I never knew that.

Read the entire thread, he got shot down. Not surprising, considering he's this guy :laugh:

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The blue laws BEGAN as religious laws. Now they're lobbied for and maintained by small businesses, not the religious right. If supermarkets and convenience stores can sell beer on Sunday morning then package stores have to stay open too. That costs them money for very little return and on a slow day they'd probably lose money during those hours.

Pay attention to your local newspaper once in a while. When the blue laws come up for review and possible change it's not the Jesus-freaks that are screaming about maintaining a holy day, it's small business owners who are screaming about maintaining a day off. Just buy your beer on Saturday evening or any other time during the week. It's not all that complicated.

Interesting, I never knew that.

Read the entire thread, he got shot down. Not surprising, considering he's this guy :laugh:

Perhaps you both should do some reading...
From the Readers companion to American History

BLUE LAWS
State and local regulations banning various activities on Sundays are called "blue laws." The origin of the term is uncertain. It has been said variously to have originated in the color of the paper on which a code of laws for the early New Haven, Connecticut, colony was printed or to have derived from the concept of being "true blue" to the law. Whatever the origin, these measures, which are based on the biblical injunction against working on the Sabbath, have been traced back to fourth-century Rome, when Constantine I, the first Christian emperor, commanded all citizens, except farmers, to rest on Sunday. The first blue law in America was enacted in the Virginia colony in the early 1600s and required church attendance.

About three-fourths of the states still carry on their books laws imposing some kind of Sunday restriction on such activities as retail sales, general labor, liquor sales, boxing, hunting, or barbering, as well as polo, cockfighting, or clam digging. These laws have been challenged in federal courts as a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. The Supreme Court has upheld them, starting with McGowan v. Maryland (1961), ruling that though the laws originated for religious reasons, the state has a secular right to set aside a day of rest for the well-being of its citizens.

Nevertheless, Sunday blue laws have declined since the 1960s. A number of states have repealed them, and many municipalities have long ignored those still on their books, simply choosing not to enforce them.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The blue laws BEGAN as religious laws. Now they're lobbied for and maintained by small businesses, not the religious right. If supermarkets and convenience stores can sell beer on Sunday morning then package stores have to stay open too. That costs them money for very little return and on a slow day they'd probably lose money during those hours.

Pay attention to your local newspaper once in a while. When the blue laws come up for review and possible change it's not the Jesus-freaks that are screaming about maintaining a holy day, it's small business owners who are screaming about maintaining a day off. Just buy your beer on Saturday evening or any other time during the week. It's not all that complicated.

Interesting, I never knew that.

Read the entire thread, he got shot down. Not surprising, considering he's this guy :laugh:

Perhaps you both should do some reading...
From the Readers companion to American History

BLUE LAWS
State and local regulations banning various activities on Sundays are called "blue laws." The origin of the term is uncertain. It has been said variously to have originated in the color of the paper on which a code of laws for the early New Haven, Connecticut, colony was printed or to have derived from the concept of being "true blue" to the law. Whatever the origin, these measures, which are based on the biblical injunction against working on the Sabbath, have been traced back to fourth-century Rome, when Constantine I, the first Christian emperor, commanded all citizens, except farmers, to rest on Sunday. The first blue law in America was enacted in the Virginia colony in the early 1600s and required church attendance.

About three-fourths of the states still carry on their books laws imposing some kind of Sunday restriction on such activities as retail sales, general labor, liquor sales, boxing, hunting, or barbering, as well as polo, cockfighting, or clam digging. These laws have been challenged in federal courts as a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. The Supreme Court has upheld them, starting with McGowan v. Maryland (1961), ruling that though the laws originated for religious reasons, the state has a secular right to set aside a day of rest for the well-being of its citizens.

Nevertheless, Sunday blue laws have declined since the 1960s. A number of states have repealed them, and many municipalities have long ignored those still on their books, simply choosing not to enforce them.

Your point?

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I agree with you, and believe that legislation of morality is wrong.

ALL laws are legislated morality.

I guess a better statement would be that legislation of subjective/religious morality is wrong.

Is there any other type of morality? "subjective" and "religous" covers a lot of ground.

To some religious people, homosexuality is a sin. To others, it is not. To some religious people, drinking at all or working on Sunday is a sin. To others is not.

By definition, this is subjective.

Morals and religion are not exclusive. People that are moral for fear of God are not really moral. People can find true morality through religion, philosophy, free thought, etc.


So what type of morals should the government cover? The obvious and nearly universally viewed human rights. The right to life, liberty etc.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Legend
To some people, homosexuality is a sin. To others, it is not. To some people, drinking at all or working on Sunday is a sin. To others is not.

Edited for truth.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The blue laws BEGAN as religious laws. Now they're lobbied for and maintained by small businesses, not the religious right. If supermarkets and convenience stores can sell beer on Sunday morning then package stores have to stay open too. That costs them money for very little return and on a slow day they'd probably lose money during those hours.

Pay attention to your local newspaper once in a while. When the blue laws come up for review and possible change it's not the Jesus-freaks that are screaming about maintaining a holy day, it's small business owners who are screaming about maintaining a day off. Just buy your beer on Saturday evening or any other time during the week. It's not all that complicated.

Interesting, I never knew that.

Read the entire thread, he got shot down. Not surprising, considering he's this guy :laugh:

Perhaps you both should do some reading...
From the Readers companion to American History

BLUE LAWS
State and local regulations banning various activities on Sundays are called "blue laws." The origin of the term is uncertain. It has been said variously to have originated in the color of the paper on which a code of laws for the early New Haven, Connecticut, colony was printed or to have derived from the concept of being "true blue" to the law. Whatever the origin, these measures, which are based on the biblical injunction against working on the Sabbath, have been traced back to fourth-century Rome, when Constantine I, the first Christian emperor, commanded all citizens, except farmers, to rest on Sunday. The first blue law in America was enacted in the Virginia colony in the early 1600s and required church attendance.

About three-fourths of the states still carry on their books laws imposing some kind of Sunday restriction on such activities as retail sales, general labor, liquor sales, boxing, hunting, or barbering, as well as polo, cockfighting, or clam digging. These laws have been challenged in federal courts as a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. The Supreme Court has upheld them, starting with McGowan v. Maryland (1961), ruling that though the laws originated for religious reasons, the state has a secular right to set aside a day of rest for the well-being of its citizens.

Nevertheless, Sunday blue laws have declined since the 1960s. A number of states have repealed them, and many municipalities have long ignored those still on their books, simply choosing not to enforce them.

Your point?

you're all bigoted towards religion, and think you can blame all your problems in life due to the existence of religion. The courts feel that these laws (although religious in origin) are secular enough to be constitutional, and all your whining about the religious over a nonreligious subject is just simply uncalled for, and its really getting on my nerves.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: sao123
you're all bigoted towards religion, and think you can blame all your problems in life due to the existence of religion. The courts feel that these laws (although religious in origin) are secular enough to be constitutional, and all your whining about the religious over a nonreligious subject is just simply uncalled for, and its really getting on my nerves.

Might want to read the thread before labelling me. Regardless, 95% of people are religious; this includes judges. Just why exactly do you think the SC ruled that way? You've dodged the same question as paulnepants (or whatever his SN is); why should our options be limited?

Lastly - whining about whining is great hypocrisy... not that the religious have a habit of that or anything ...

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: sao123
you're all bigoted towards religion, and think you can blame all your problems in life due to the existence of religion. The courts feel that these laws (although religious in origin) are secular enough to be constitutional, and all your whining about the religious over a nonreligious subject is just simply uncalled for, and its really getting on my nerves.

Might want to read the thread before labelling me. Regardless, 95% of people are religious; this includes judges. Just why exactly do you think the SC ruled that way? You've dodged the same question as paulnepants (or whatever his SN is); why should our options be limited?

Lastly - whining about whining is great hypocrisy... not that the religious have a habit of that or anything ...

Why should your options be limited?
Let me explain it this way... You are the one who dodged the question...
what makes you think that your option to buy alcohol on sunday is a right and should not be interfered with?
I dont recall the right to drink alcoholic beverages being added anywhere in the constitution. Any agenda not set forth in the constitution must explicitly be considered a privelage. Any privelage granted, may be governed as the grantor see fits, regardless of the motivation behind the methods or specifics of that governing policy.
But this isnt about your right to drink on sunday now is it...
truthfully you have no case to argue about your options as a conumer being limited, and if you were a store owner who is arguing that you want to sell alcohol on sunday, well that arguement has already been refuted by my last post.

In short, you have no options except that which are explicitly granted to you.
Anything more than that is by definition anarchy. We dont live under anarchy, we live under democratic capitalism. When you have enough money to influence the politicians, then you can have your say. Until then, you will just ebb and flow like the rest of us.


I did read the entire thread, and the mentality of the folloing statement is exactly what I addressed.

That's not what anyone has said; rather, the argument is that if something doesn't hurt others, there's no basis for outlawing it. Perhaps if you learned to read...

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: sao123
you're all bigoted towards religion, and think you can blame all your problems in life due to the existence of religion. The courts feel that these laws (although religious in origin) are secular enough to be constitutional, and all your whining about the religious over a nonreligious subject is just simply uncalled for, and its really getting on my nerves.

Might want to read the thread before labelling me. Regardless, 95% of people are religious; this includes judges. Just why exactly do you think the SC ruled that way? You've dodged the same question as paulnepants (or whatever his SN is); why should our options be limited?

Lastly - whining about whining is great hypocrisy... not that the religious have a habit of that or anything ...

Why should your options be limited?
Let me explain it this way... You are the one who dodged the question...
what makes you think that your option to buy alcohol on sunday is a right and should not be interfered with?
I dont recall the right to drink alcoholic beverages being added anywhere in the constitution. Any agenda not set forth in the constitution must explicitly be considered a privelage. Any privelage granted, may be governed as the grantor see fits, regardless of the motivation behind the methods or specifics of that governing policy.
But this isnt about your right to drink on sunday now is it...
truthfully you have no case to argue about your options as a conumer being limited, and if you were a store owner who is arguing that you want to sell alcohol on sunday, well that arguement has already been refuted by my last post.

In short, you have no options except that which are explicitly granted to you.
Anything more than that is by definition anarchy. We dont live under anarchy, we live under democratic capitalism. When you have enough money to influence the politicians, then you can have your say. Until then, you will just ebb and flow like the rest of us.


I did read the entire thread, and the mentality of the folloing statement is exactly what I addressed.

That's not what anyone has said; rather, the argument is that if something doesn't hurt others, there's no basis for outlawing it. Perhaps if you learned to read...

If you won't answer the question, I guess we're done. You could be a politician with evasion skills like that.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: sao123
you're all bigoted towards religion, and think you can blame all your problems in life due to the existence of religion. The courts feel that these laws (although religious in origin) are secular enough to be constitutional, and all your whining about the religious over a nonreligious subject is just simply uncalled for, and its really getting on my nerves.

Might want to read the thread before labelling me. Regardless, 95% of people are religious; this includes judges. Just why exactly do you think the SC ruled that way? You've dodged the same question as paulnepants (or whatever his SN is); why should our options be limited?

Lastly - whining about whining is great hypocrisy... not that the religious have a habit of that or anything ...

Why should your options be limited?
Let me explain it this way... You are the one who dodged the question...
what makes you think that your option to buy alcohol on sunday is a right and should not be interfered with?
I dont recall the right to drink alcoholic beverages being added anywhere in the constitution. Any agenda not set forth in the constitution must explicitly be considered a privelage. Any privelage granted, may be governed as the grantor see fits, regardless of the motivation behind the methods or specifics of that governing policy.
But this isnt about your right to drink on sunday now is it...
truthfully you have no case to argue about your options as a conumer being limited, and if you were a store owner who is arguing that you want to sell alcohol on sunday, well that arguement has already been refuted by my last post.

In short, you have no options except that which are explicitly granted to you.
Anything more than that is by definition anarchy. We dont live under anarchy, we live under democratic capitalism. When you have enough money to influence the politicians, then you can have your say. Until then, you will just ebb and flow like the rest of us.


I did read the entire thread, and the mentality of the folloing statement is exactly what I addressed.

That's not what anyone has said; rather, the argument is that if something doesn't hurt others, there's no basis for outlawing it. Perhaps if you learned to read...

If you won't answer the question, I guess we're done. You could be a politician with evasion skills like that.

He answered your question quite skillfully if you ask me. Why don't you answer his question now?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
He answered your question quite skillfully if you ask me. Why don't you answer his question now?

No, he dodged it like Neo in The Matrix.

His snide rhetoric has already been answered ad nauseum in this thread; actions which don't affect others should not be outlawed.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I don't see people bitching when the world shuts down for a day to celebrate christmas. Why are you guys bitching when stores stop selling liquor for 12-24 hours?

And it is sadly ironic that so many people who don't believe in god, let alone jesus, celebrate / observe Christmas in the first place...positively silly.

California FTW...lots of stores open 24/7/365.

How's that ironic? I love how Christians think they have a monopoly on December 25th. People were celebrating on December 25th waaaay before the Christians started using the date. LOL

That is a mere technicality...

Unless you (as a person in general) are christian, or belong some druidic sect or somesuch, you have no reason for observing the 25th other than it being it an antiquated piece of your culture's past (a past to which you, again, as a general person, do not hold, I might add).

It's akin to someone who is not jewish observing the passover.

Christmas and thanksgiving (turkey day...whatever!) have become mass mecca's in US culture... and not everyone who participates are religious...but they are still sheep following all the other sheep.