Do you have a right to eat at a restaurant?

herr_ryan

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
123
Reaction score
3
Location
New Yak
Handicap
14
I am well aware of Kelo v. City of New London. My point is I don’t agree with the ruling just as four of the nine justices didn’t agree. It’s a dangerous road to go down when you simply say, “Oh well, the Supreme Court has ruled and that is that”.
Count me among those who didn't agree. I think it's among the worst rulings the court has ever rendered.
 

Ty_Webb

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
652
Reaction score
12
Location
New York
Handicap
3
Yes sir, just as the founders believed.
Which god and which founders?

Couple of quotes for you:

Thomas Jefferson - The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

James Madison - "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Benjamin Franklin - As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.

This is the treaty of Tripoli - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
Note what is said in article 11. This was passed by the Senate in 1797 unanimously. I think I'll take their word for it myself.
 

AHacker'sHacker

Who is John Galt?
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
9
Location
Saint Louis, MO
Handicap
WIP
Count me among those who didn't agree. I think it's among the worst rulings the court has ever rendered.
Common ground, common ground! :blob:

In all honesty I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides regarding the smoking issue. However, how we got to where we are on eminent domain I will never understand.
 

scott_d

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Austin Texas
Handicap
9
No I am not talking about taxes and yes I do think the government has the right to pass laws. I am curious did you agree with the Supreme Court ruling regarding eminent domain? If so, would you feel the same way if they took your house so they could build an office building because it produced more tax revenue and as the argument goes it’s for the public good?

I think your argument in the last paragraph is a good one. But the difference we have is that I am not looking at this from the smoker’s perspective but instead from the property owner’s perspective. I just don’t see the logic of saying someone has right to frequent an establishment assuming they aren’t being excluded due to gender, race, etc. In my opinion we are too quick as a people to allow the government to limit our freedoms and choices.
Assuming you are talking about Kelo, yea I agreed with it but no I wouldn't be crazy about it if I was them either. Eminent domain has been around for a long time and used for a log time to ensure land was available for roadways, railways and such. What if I owned a piece of property where the state wanted to put a new road that was needed but I refused to sell? The state has all the other land they need except for my land. I tell them I will sell only if they pay me 25 times the fair market value. Can I hold them up for an exrbinant price?
 

AHacker'sHacker

Who is John Galt?
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
9
Location
Saint Louis, MO
Handicap
WIP
Assuming you are talking about Kelo, yea I agreed with it but no I wouldn't be crazy about it if I was them either. Eminent domain has been around for a long time and used for a log time to ensure land was available for roadways, railways and such. What if I owned a piece of property where the state wanted to put a new road that was needed but I refused to sell? The state has all the other land they need except for my land. I tell them I will sell only if they pay me 25 times the fair market value. Can I hold them up for an exrbinant price?
Eminent domain is in the Constitution and has its place as you said for roads, schools, etc. My problem is with taking private property and giving it to another private individual which is exactly what Kelo did.
 

herr_ryan

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
123
Reaction score
3
Location
New Yak
Handicap
14
Assuming you are talking about Kelo, yea I agreed with it but no I wouldn't be crazy about it if I was them either. Eminent domain has been around for a long time and used for a log time to ensure land was available for roadways, railways and such. What if I owned a piece of property where the state wanted to put a new road that was needed but I refused to sell? The state has all the other land they need except for my land. I tell them I will sell only if they pay me 25 times the fair market value. Can I hold them up for an exrbinant price?
This makes absolutely no sense (and you're the first person I've ever heard support Kelo, for what it's worth). In Kelo they took someone's private property and gave it to another private citizen for private economic development. Nobody has a problem with the government taking land for roads, but taking it from one private citizen and giving it to another? That's a whole different ball of wax, my friend.
 

AHacker'sHacker

Who is John Galt?
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
9
Location
Saint Louis, MO
Handicap
WIP
Which god and which founders?

Couple of quotes for you:

Thomas Jefferson - The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

James Madison - "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Benjamin Franklin - As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.

This is the treaty of Tripoli - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
Note what is said in article 11. This was passed by the Senate in 1797 unanimously. I think I'll take their word for it myself.
Ty, below are a few quotes give the opposite opinion and there are many more like this. While many of the founders were not Christians they did believe in one ultimate power. We too often confuse religion and God. Religion is man made.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” John Adams

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237. Thomas Jefferson

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. --Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790
 

herr_ryan

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
123
Reaction score
3
Location
New Yak
Handicap
14
Ty, below are a few quotes give the opposite opinion and there are many more like this. While many of the founders were not Christians they did believe in one ultimate power. We too often confuse religion and God. Religion is man made.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” John Adams

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237. Thomas Jefferson

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. --Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790
All well and good, however:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
:rolleyes:
 

scott_d

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Austin Texas
Handicap
9
This makes absolutely no sense (and you're the first person I've ever heard support Kelo, for what it's worth). In Kelo they took someone's private property and gave it to another private citizen for private economic development. Nobody has a problem with the government taking land for roads, but taking it from one private citizen and giving it to another? That's a whole different ball of wax, my friend.
So if the city is wanting land to build a building that will bring in 5000 new jobs they on't have the right to take the land necessaary to build the facility? How do you think cities come up with the land to give to a compnay to build a factory to enticed them into town? Yes they will buy it but they will also use emminenet domain if needed. If they buy all the land except for one parcel and that is held out then they will use eminent domain to finish the project. Once that is done they give the land or lease it cheap to the company to build their factory. Most people sell because they are given a fair if not a slightly high price. Some hold out for exhorbinant prices.
 

herr_ryan

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
123
Reaction score
3
Location
New Yak
Handicap
14
So if the city is wanting land to build a building that will bring in 5000 new jobs they on't have the right to take the land necessaary to build the facility?
That wasn't the case with Kelo, and no, I don't.
 

AHacker'sHacker

Who is John Galt?
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
9
Location
Saint Louis, MO
Handicap
WIP
All well and good, however:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

:rolleyes:
herr_ryan I think we are going to disagree on the meaning of that statement. My belief is the founder’s intention was to keep government out of religion by not letting government establish a national religion like they experienced in Britain. In other words, the phrase so often used is “separation of church and state” which is a phrase that can’t be found in the Constitution. If their intent was different we wouldn’t have the Ten Commandments as the basis of our laws.

By the way I am ready to talk some golf! :act-up:
 

herr_ryan

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
123
Reaction score
3
Location
New Yak
Handicap
14
herr_ryan I think we are going to disagree on the meaning of that statement. My belief is the founder’s intention was to keep government out of religion by not letting government establish a national religion like they experienced in Britain. In other words, the phrase so often used is “separation of church and state” which is a phrase that can’t be found in the Constitution. If their intent was different we wouldn’t have the Ten Commandments as the basis of our laws.

By the way I am ready to talk some golf! :act-up:
You may believe that... ;)

I'm well aware that "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is. And by what means are the Ten Commandments the basis of our laws? That some of them coincide (murder, stealing) should not be confused with them being the basis of our laws. I covet married women all the time, but I've never been arrested for it. :D

And if you're going to say "covet" refers to the physical, adultery isn't against the law either.
 

provisional

Could Care Less
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
14
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Handicap
10+/-
"eminent domain" Don't those folks exercising eminent domain (politicians, utilities, railroads, etc) have to offer the person who owns the property a fair market price? Then if the person refuses to take the offer, others can then take the property free of charge through legal processes.

I don't think someone can just come in and move property owners out without due process, and part of that due process is a monetary offer of the property in question. :comp:
 

Craig Mac

_____________________
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
4,069
Reaction score
83
Location
Hampton Roads
All this :bicker: over "Do you have a right to eat at a restaurant?", let's move on to something else.
 

AHacker'sHacker

Who is John Galt?
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
9
Location
Saint Louis, MO
Handicap
WIP
"eminent domain" Don't those folks exercising eminent domain (politicians, utilities, railroads, etc) have to offer the person who owns the property a fair market price? Then if the person refuses to take the offer, others can then take the property free of charge through legal processes.

I don't think someone can just come in and move property owners out without due process, and part of that due process is a monetary offer of the property in question. :comp:
You are correct that they have to pay what is determined to be fair value. That is not the issue. The issue is taking something that you own away and giving it to another private citizen. Consider the scenario where you have had property and house in your family for four generations. The government wants to build a road exactly where your house is. You may hate the idea but I think you can see that it may be for the “public good”. Now take the same scenario but instead of a road or school they want to pay you “fair value” and then sell it to a developer who is going to build an office complex on the site. To me that is an entirely different animal.
 

AHacker'sHacker

Who is John Galt?
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
9
Location
Saint Louis, MO
Handicap
WIP

herr_ryan

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
123
Reaction score
3
Location
New Yak
Handicap
14
All this :bicker: over "Do you have a right to eat at a restaurant?", let's move on to something else.
If it interests some of us and nobody's breaking a rule, what's the biggie? :confused2:

It's brought up some interesting points.
 

JB

Follow @THPGolf
Albatross 2021 Club
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
214,539
Reaction score
97,758
Location
Where the THP Tour Van Takes Us!
If it interests some of us and nobody's breaking a rule, what's the biggie? :confused2:

It's brought up some interesting points.
I assure you, you do not want to mess with HACKER. The Forum IT Genius. As for what's the biggie? It is a golf forum after all. You have only been here a couple of days, but this is a fun group of people that really enjoy time together and discussing things. While debates are fun and can be good, yours seem to get rather heated (my opinion only) and have yet to really discuss anything golf. We are glad that you are here and hope you enjoy THP as much as the rest of us, but in the end, this board is about golf and fun, not really about politics.
 

Craig Mac

_____________________
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
4,069
Reaction score
83
Location
Hampton Roads
Don't get me wrong I'm all for debate and discussion, but these "right" threads have seemed to head off in to something else where it becomes an "I'm right and your wrong thread". Start a politics thread if that is what you wish to discuss.
 

roughing_it

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
104
Reaction score
4
Location
it varies
Handicap
11.4
herr_ryan I think we are going to disagree on the meaning of that statement. My belief is the founder’s intention was to keep government out of religion by not letting government establish a national religion like they experienced in Britain. In other words, the phrase so often used is “separation of church and state” which is a phrase that can’t be found in the Constitution. If their intent was different we wouldn’t have the Ten Commandments as the basis of our laws.

By the way I am ready to talk some golf! :act-up:
The 10 Commandments are not the basis for our laws. I believe 2 of them are against the law... possible 3. The OP is a public health issue. A restaurant owner can allow as much smoking as he wishes on his premises. He can also have pet rats and roaches running around as well and an open pit in the middle of the floor for a bathroom. He just can't open for business selling food & drink under those conditions. The whole "taking of private property" argument simply doesn't apply here.
 

BigLeftyinAZ

New member
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
2,225
Reaction score
31
Location
San Antonio, TX
The reason I ask is Saint Louis County is considering passing a county wide ban on smoking in restaurants and other public places. I think this is just another way of taking away individual rights and my reasoning is below…

To me this is a private property issue and nothing else. I am fine with bans in government buildings but I do not believe you have a “right” to eat at any restaurant you wish. Restaurants are private businesses and should be able to make decisions based on the owners’ desires. This is very similar to the private clubs thread regarding The Masters and women. Many will cringe at this comment but I believe that our personal freedoms such as the ability to own private property and other inalienable rights come directly from God and since they come from God they are ever present and can’t be taken away. When you start to believe your rights come from government you then lend yourself to the situation where certain rights can be taken away. A very scary proposition as far as I am concerned.

The issue of eminent domain and the taking away of one’s private property to give to another individual so that they can “enhance” the property and therefore create more tax revenues is exactly like the smoking issue.

I also have a right to not inhale smoke from those who do smoke.What's so hard to wait till you leave the restaurant to light one up?
 

Smallville

#WeLoveYouAlex
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
98,699
Reaction score
455
Location
Kansas City, Kansas
Handicap
In Flux
I also have a right to not inhale smoke from those who do smoke.What's so hard to wait till you leave the restaurant to light one up?
But they will just tell you not to go to there, since you know they allow smoking there! Kind of like my neighbor who told me not to look out our dining room window which overlooks his side yard where he keeps all the scrap metal he collects (which is against code by the way)!
 

scott_d

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Austin Texas
Handicap
9
This makes absolutely no sense (and you're the first person I've ever heard support Kelo, for what it's worth). In Kelo they took someone's private property and gave it to another private citizen for private economic development. Nobody has a problem with the government taking land for roads, but taking it from one private citizen and giving it to another? That's a whole different ball of wax, my friend.
Well it must makes some sense since I know of at least 5 US Supreme Court Justices that agree me. I also know of lots attorneys, judges and law professors that agree even though all have reservations about it. From a legal standpoint it makes sense. From a personal is it fair standpoint is what people struggle with.

There have been many situations where local government has used emminent domain to obtain the land needed to give to private industry. It happened in Mississippi in 2000, the land was given to Nissan. It happens to build sports stadiums (Indiana and Texas off the top of my head), to build Targets and Wal-Marts and other big box stores all over the country. In short it happens all the time. So no, my friend, it is not a whole different ball of wax.

So while it may make no sense to you that doesn't mean it is not legal and that there is legal precedence. Courts have historically ruled that it is legal.

Now let's talk about golf.
 

Welcome to The Hackers Paradise

Don't just play golf, live it!

Register Log in
Top