171 replies to this topic

[randb]

and in addition whether it is just or not........the law is not always right, fair, just, and that is why it is questioned. If a law is assinine, it begs to not be obeyed.

They call that anarchy.

[cw68]

It is what it is. The city won, and so Ms. Teaz will have to comply, move or appeal.

I don't have a problem with a city controlling what kind of businesses can operate in specific areas, but my arguements have been based on the facts that the outcry over Ms. Teaz was based on fear:

1) Fear that the 'Family Atmosphere' of Sutter would be ruined - The 'family atomosphere' some claim for Sutter Street does not exist. Snooks and the pizza parlors are the only truly family friendly establishments. The bars, art galleries and antique shops don't offer faimly friendly environments. In fact, 1 of the galleries and I believe one of the antique shops have 'watch your kids' signs posted.

2) Fear that such shops are harmful to familes and/or marriages - Actually, adult products sold by Ms. Teaz, such as lingerie, games, lotions, books, tapes and the infamous toys can actually enhance marital relationships and keep families together. I don't think too many marriages were destroyed by nylons or vibrators.

3) Fear that it would ruin the business climate of Sutter Street - Sutter is more vibrant now than it has been in years. The owner of American Visions once told me that her business increased when Ms. Teaz opened.

4) These things don't belong where kids might see them - Well they're kept in the back room, and as mentioned before, there aren't many kids on Sutter. On the other hand, there are two liquor stores a hundred yards or so from Sutter Middle School, and they display their pornography so prominently that everyone who walks in will see it. Kids DO frequent those stores to buy their sodas, chips and candy. Those stores have operated there for years, exposing kids to x-rated material, and no one complains.

5) Fear that it would bring the 'wrong element' to Sutter - As usual, fights go on at the 'family friendly' bars on Sutter all the time, but none at Ms. Teaz. No perverts in raincoats, no molester, no bums taking light rail to buy porn.

Be that as it may, the city won, and Ms. Teaz will have to decide if it would be best for the business and their pocketbook to accept it, move the shop, or continue to fight.

I'd hate to see them go. I think they livened up the place. I hope they can work something out.

Well said, Steve.

[forumreader]

On the other hand, there are two liquor stores a hundred yards or so from Sutter Middle School, and they display their pornography so prominently that everyone who walks in will see it. Kids DO frequent those stores to buy their sodas, chips and candy. Those stores have operated there for years, exposing kids to x-rated material, and no one complains.

I would like to see the City be proactive, and do something about these stores so close to the middle school!

[Chad Vander Veen]

Sorry all, my last post was, shall we say, too feisty. I'm just surprised how many of you think ignoring a law is OK cuz you don't like it. That's a dangerously slippery slope.

[Terry]

Sorry all, my last post was, shall we say, too feisty. I'm just surprised how many of you think ignoring a law is OK cuz you don't like it. That's a dangerously slippery slope.

And it sure explains all the redlight runners, stop sign rollers, speeders, non-users of signals, etc., etc., etc., along with those who put their basketball hoops out on the streets/sidewalks, oh, you get the idea.........

[bishmasterb]

Sorry all, my last post was, shall we say, too feisty. I'm just surprised how many of you think ignoring a law is OK cuz you don't like it. That's a dangerously slippery slope.

I can think of only two good reasons for obeying the law:

1) The law coincides with our own personal morals (which means we would behave that way regardless if a law existed)

2) The consequences of breaking the law (punishment) outweighs the benefit of breaking the law

A third reason:

3) We accept that the law is just

The only way I can accept that number 3 is valid is if a person has willingly agreed (by contract) to be subject to the government/law. Who would ever sign such a thing?

Would you support any of the following laws as just, only because they are laws:

* Chattel slavery
* A 90% tax on income
* A ban on all religious activity
* Prohibition from leaving your country

All of those things have been legal at one time or place or another. Are they just, only because a government somewhere said they were?

[forumreader]

A fourth reason:

Acceptance of authority. To maintain a civil society and avoid anarchy, we must accept the laws which are properly (i.e. constitutionally) crafted, and not otherwise morally objectionable. If we do not like a law or believe that it is unjust, then we should attempt to have that law changed. Not liking a law is not the same as finding the law morally objectionable.

In the vast majority of cases, disobedience is not moral.

Selling merchandise which is prohibited by a city ordinance is not moral.

[cybertrano]

I am glad the city won.

[Steve Heard]

A fourth reason:

Acceptance of authority. To maintain a civil society and avoid anarchy, we must accept the laws which are properly (i.e. constitutionally) crafted, and not otherwise morally objectionable. If we do not like a law or believe that it is unjust, then we should attempt to have that law changed. Not liking a law is not the same as finding the law morally objectionable.

In the vast majority of cases, disobedience is not moral.

Selling merchandise which is prohibited by a city ordinance is not moral.

As I understand it, selling that sort of merchandise is not prohibited. If a store devotes more than 25% of their floor space to, or derives more than 25% of their income from the sale of such merchandise, they are considered an 'adult' business, and adult businesses are not allowed in the Historic District.

I think that the rub came from the fact that the city enacted an emergency ordinance prohibiting the sale of items shaped like genitalia in the Historic District, and Ms. Teaz objected on the grounds that it was a special ordinance aimed specifically at them.

One can order cakes shaped like organs from bakeries, and buy drinking straws shaped like organs from party places, and liquor stores can sell graphic pornography next to the candy, but marital aids shaped like organs are prohibited from sale by Historic District merchants.

That, to my understanding, was the objection. The city said they could sell adult stuff if they obeyed the 25% rule, but then enacted an ordinance made just for them.

Apparently, the judge agreed with the city's stand that they had the right to do this, and the city believes that this will be for the greater good for the community.

I disagree, but accept the decision.

[tessieca]

We should not obey ordinances when there is no harm being done, . . .
Drugs are illegal and cause harm. Pleasure items are not illegal and harm no one. They are used by consenting adults and do not need bedroom watchers trying to take away citizens' rights.

Most drug purchasers would tell you that they are not harming anyone.

we WISH it was an "exiting" ordinance

If we're correcting grammar, you would wish it "were" an exiting ordinance. That's subjunctive tense where you're wishing something existed that actually does not.

Then how about targeting businesses that crumble our family units, create disorder, contribute to domestic violence, severe health problems, destitution and crime? That doesn't describe an "adult" store. That's alcohol. Bars. Taverns. The legal drug we allow, take and promote.

How many people and/or families do you know that have been detrimentally effected by racy items? Compare that to the cost of excessive drinking and alcoholism. I've been hurt by the second thing, never the first.

Those businesses happen to be greatly regulated by government. Alcohol is a legal drug, but its use and sale is not rampant and uncontrolled. They should be regulated, as should adult businesses within communities who care.

[bishmasterb]

A fourth reason:

Acceptance of authority.

That is the same as my third reason, although you certainly phrased it better.

Although ask yourself, who has the authority? The answer to that question is ALWAYS: the people with the most guns. Whether it be the military, the local police, the FBI, etc. If they didn't have the most guns, they wouldn't be in power, would they?

So in essence, that position is: We should obey the people who have the most guns.

To maintain a civil society and avoid anarchy, we must accept the laws which are properly (i.e. constitutionally) crafted, and not otherwise morally objectionable.

The constitution itself it just another law. It can not be used as the "first cause" for all law, and like the rest, no one is obligated to obey it. (furthermore, the constitution is an agreement between state governments and the federal government, you and I, nor any other person as an indiviudal, ever contractually agreed to be under it's authority).

In terms of your objection on a moral basis, I agree wholeheartedly! You should not obey any law that goes against your values, and I should not obey any law that goes against mine. Unless, we believe that the consequence of disobeying that law outweighs the benefits of disobeying the law.

For example, I may believe that the income tax is immoral. But since men with guns show up if I don't pay, I always pay exactly what they tell me I have to.

In the vast majority of cases, disobedience is not moral.

Selling merchandise which is prohibited by a city ordinance is not moral.

What if a city ordinance prohibited you from selling or distributing Bibles? Would you find that law to be immoral? Would you be acting morally in breaking that law?

[Dave Burrell]

A couple of thought provoking questions....

- If Ms Teaz is not allowed to sell handcuffs, how come Walmart is?
- If Ms Teaz is not allowed to sell pornography, how come the liquor store NEXT TO A MIDDLE SCHOOL is?
- How many of you that say an ordinance/law must be followed actually drive the posted speed limit in town?...do you really drive 45 miles an hour or less everywhere you go? Do you follow all laws to that extent?

- If a city has a safety code that requires water sprinklers in all houses over 5000sf, shouldn't that code be enforced and followed? - especially by City Council members who create the codes? How come that code was magically amended to cator to a certain city council member who just so happened to have a house over 5000sf? Hmmm, I'm beginning to see how this works around here..

It seems that codes and ordinances are changed and modified at will in this town to cator to individuals on the council... I wonder which one has a vested interest in Sutter street?

[cw68]

Most drug purchasers would tell you that they are not harming anyone.
If we're correcting grammar, you would wish it "were" an exiting ordinance. That's subjunctive tense where you're wishing something existed that actually does not.
Those businesses happen to be greatly regulated by government. Alcohol is a legal drug, but its use and sale is not rampant and uncontrolled. They should be regulated, as should adult businesses within communities who care.

Not rampant and uncontrolled? Right.

- More than five million high schoolers binge drink at least once a month.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

- One-third of sixth and ninth graders obtain alcohol from their own homes.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University

- Children cite other people's homes as the most common setting for drinking.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University

- In 2000, there were 2,339 alcohol-related fatalities among youth ages 15-20.

According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2004, 16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities.

About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol are repeat offenders. (Fell, 1995)

Each year, college students spend approximately $5.5 billion on alcohol- more than they spend on soft drinks, milk, juice, tea, coffee and books combined. (Drug Strategies, 1999)

[cybertrano]

Rampant and uncontrolled but still doesn't make it right.

Not rampant and uncontrolled? Right.

[cw68]

Rampant and uncontrolled but still doesn't make it right.

Exactly.