171 replies to this topic

[Sweetpea & Snookems]

WalMart sells handcuffs?

[forumreader]

They are probably just toys, located in the same aisle as the squirt guns.

[Terry]

.

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.

And on this point, you have to understand that every law on the books evolved from some perceived necessity for it at some point in time. The laws and ordinances against slavery evolved in the 1800s, laws permitting women to vote evolved state by state over time, and just like this ordinance, it evolved from a perceived need by the City Council. Whether or not you agree with it, we need to accept the decision (and not defy it) and move on, or make LEGAL efforts to change it, or elect council members who you feel will better represent you.

[cw68]

They are probably just toys, located in the same aisle as the squirt guns.

Teaz's were toys, too.

[forumreader]

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.
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?

I think that on some level we are saying the same thing. While it is not my intent to quibble over terminology, I must contend that values and morals are not the same. A moral is a value, but not all values are morals. (In my house, we consider sitting down together for family dinner a value. On those busy nights when we eat separately, however, we are not doing something immoral.)

As a Catholic Christian I believe that civil disobedience is acceptable if it is contrary to God's higher law. In other words, there is a higher Moral Law which states much not transgress. Examples would be the early Christian martyrs in Rome, those who rescued the Jews from the Nazis, and those who participated in peaceful civil disobedience during the 60s civil rights struggles.

Exercising one's conscience against the state is a serious matter and should not be done casually. In the U.S., which is relatively protective of our human and civil rights, we should be exercising civil disobedience rather infrequently. If all citizens were to disobey laws which didn't match their values (not morals), we'd have anarchy.

I can't see how one can argue that the restraints put on Ms. Teaz are contrary to God's higher law. It is not a moral issue....It seems that Ms. Teaz is disobeying the law because she values the selling of sex toys. Perhaps she is also disobeying the law based on principal (i.e. the City Council is against her and has a "hidden agenda"). Personal principals and values are not on the same level as Moral Law. And this higher Moral Law is pretty universal. One does not necessarily have to be a Christian to embrace this morality.

In direct answer your question about selling or distributing Bibles, I might just go ahead and obey the unjust law, using the reason that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Evangelization successfully happened long before Guttenberg..... However, let's imagine that attending Mass were suddenly outlawed. In that case, civil disobedience would be acceptable, and you'd probably find me attending an underground Mass, at the risk of being arrested.

Teaz's were toys, too.

Dufour's attorney tried that argument. It didn't work. According to the judge, a reasonable person can make the distinction:

[Quoted from the SacBee]

Garrison [attorney for Dufour] said that language unfairly allows Target or Wal-Mart, for instance, to sell toy handcuffs, while similar handcuffs could not be sold at Ms. Teaz, because, in that context, they would be marketed for their "sexual utility."

That apparent contradiction should raise First Amendment alarms, he argued, because the legality of selling a product is being determined by the way it is marketed.

Connelly rejected that line of reasoning.

In his ruling, the judge said a marketing restriction can't be "bootstrapped" into a free-speech issue.

"If you follow that to its logical conclusion, then every product would fall under the First Amendment. That's not the law," Connelly said.

The judge also found that Folsom's ordinance distinguished clearly between allowed and prohibited items.

"In the real world, there's always a continuum of specificity," he said. "A reasonable person can make a determination about whether a product (falls) within the constraints of the ordinance."
[End quote]

[Steve Heard]

The question is whether or not one believes that the sale of adult products, out of a secured back room, away from children, for the private use of couples to enhance their relationships is immoral.

[bishmasterb]

forumreader,

I too think the difference in our opinion is one of scale, not that what we are saying is necessarily fundamentally different. You simply believe that the threshold for breaking the law is very high, while I believe it is very low (or, in fact, non-existant in a theoretical sense). Although I agree that in a practical sense, it is easier to obey laws (many of which I'd obey regardless) because the cost of disobeying them is usually too high.

Sure, morals and values are slightly different animals. Although I certainly object on moral grounds when anyone prohibits me from leading a life based on my values.

The sell of certain types of items may be unimportant to you. But they are obviously very important to Ms. Teaz (obviously, since she has invested an inordinate amount of resources into this venture). On the flip side, the ability to attend mass may be irrelevant to others, but of extreme importance to you. One man's trash, it would seem, is very much another's treasure.

[Dave Burrell]

They are probably just toys, located in the same aisle as the squirt guns.

they're exactly the same as the ones Ms Teaz sells - cept the ones at Ms Teaz have faux fur around them

or elect council members who you feel will better represent you.

when do they hold elections? I got the impression they were appointed....by other city council members (?)

[forumreader]

The question is whether or not one believes that the sale of adult products, out of a secured back room, away from children, for the private use of couples to enhance their relationships is immoral.

That's not the main question here, Steve.

I believe there are two separate issues:

1) Is it permissable to break this city ordinance? This speaks to the bigger question: When is civil disobedience morally permissable?

2) Should the current city ordinance regarding "adult products" remain the same, or be changed?

Cities pass numerous ordinances that have little to do with big moral issues. (Consider Folsom's signage restrictions.).....Let's not buy into Ms. Teaz's red herrings. Do you really believe she is doing society a public service by participating in a moral pursuit to help "couples to enhance their relationships?".....No. She likes these "adult products" and she wants to make $$ selling them.

[Dave Burrell]

The question is whether or not one believes that the sale of adult products, out of a secured back room, away from children, for the private use of couples to enhance their relationships is immoral.

thanks Steve, after all that is what their business is all about....enhancing relationships. Sex between two consenting adults or a married couple is not immoral

1) Is it permissable to break this city ordinance?

I've asked this question twice now with no answers... I'll re-word it ... is it morally permissable for folks drive more then 45 miles an hour when the posted legal speed limit is 45?
You know everyone here breaks that law daily

2) Should the current city ordinance regarding "adult products" remain the same, or be changed?
Cities pass numerous ordinances that have little to do with big moral issues.

this ordinance seems to be entirely moral based, there's no logical reason otherwise because Ms Teaz does not have items openly on display they are restricted to a back room and there is an age restriction - IMO, Ms Teaz has done all they can to make sure no one underage has access to those items.

Or there is some underlying agenda by a developer who wants that property space so he's using the city council to help him get it - money talks and ethics take a back seat when it comes to dinero

Do you really believe she is doing society a public service by participating in a moral pursuit to help "couples to enhance their relationships?".....No. She likes these "adult products" and she wants to make $$ selling them.

yes, I do believe she's doing society a favor by making these items available locally. and well yes she wants to make money - who runs a business that does not want to make money? - that wouldn't make much sense

[forumreader]

thanks Steve, after all that is what their business is all about....enhancing relationships. Sex between two consenting adults or a married couple is not immoral

This is exactly what I am talking about!!!.....Red herrings everywhere.

No one claimed that marital relations were immoral! The question is whether or not Ms. Teaz should sue the City and flagrantly disobey the because she doesn't like an ordinance, and/or thinks she was treated unfairly.

I've asked this question twice now with no answers... I'll re-word it ... is it morally permissable for folks drive more then 45 miles an hour when the posted legal speed limit is 45?
You know everyone here breaks that law daily

With due respect, davburr, the question has probably not been answered because it is a silly one.....Two wrongs do not make a right.

It is not morally permissable to purposely speed. Moreover, if you are caught driving 45 mph in a 25 mph zone, you will get a ticket.

[Terry]

when do they hold elections? I got the impression they were appointed....by other city council members (?)

You're kidding, right?

[Dave Burrell]

You're kidding, right?

nope, I'm still fairly new here and will admit, I have no clue about how the council gets elected...

[ducky]

It's okay, Davburr. Folsom residents elect the council members and the council members elect the mayor and vice mayor. That's probably where your misunderstanding is.

[Dave Burrell]

It's okay, Davburr. Folsom residents elect the council members and the council members elect the mayor and vice mayor. That's probably where your misunderstanding is.

Many thanks Ducky - that really cleared things up for me and I completely understand now - thanks again

Do you know when the elections take place? I'll have to find out how folks get nominated or do people just run?

I'll have to find out when these elections take place, I've been here two years and haven't ever heard of any