Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Here we go again. Expression is considered "speech", as I assumed until now that your know.
Let's say that I want to protest your moving into my neighborhood. Would you ask for police help to remove me after I spent 60 days on your sidewalk in protest.........expressing myself? Day after day, as your children would come and go, as your wife would comes and go, as you would come and go.
Yep, you would complain. The problem is you would argue for the rights of the squatter if this was happening to someones else in a different town (I know your type). Hanging out on your doorstep is considered "expression", which is considered equal to speech.
I should not be allowed to harass your family day after day after day. Creepy people should not be able to harass The Golden Nuggets customers day after day after day.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Here we go again. Expression is considered "speech", as I assumed until now that your know.
Let's say that I want to protest your moving into my neighborhood. Would you ask for police help to remove me after I spent 60 days on your sidewalk in protest.........expressing myself? Day after day, as your children would come and go, as your wife would comes and go, as you would come and go.
Yep, you would complain. The problem is you would argue for the rights of the squatter if this was happening to someones else in a different town (I know your type). Hanging out on your doorstep is considered "expression", which is considered equal to speech.
I should not be allowed to harass your family day after day after day. Creepy people should not be able to harass The Golden Nuggets customers day after day after day.
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Oh my.
1. Boiler believes that business people should not bother citizens.
2. Boiler believes that citizens should not bother business.
I won't set up a tent city 1 foot from your mailbox, and you don't hang out in front of my business and bother my customers.Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
The success of an establishment has no relevance on the correctness of the government's trampling on the business owners rights.Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. - T. Jefferson
Despite the prognostications that restaurants and bars in NJ would go out of business and suffer great declines in revenue due to the no smoking laws, they seem to be doing just as well as when smoking was allowed.
The rights of consumers often butt heads with the rights of business owners. Sometimes laws are needed to combat unethical and dangerous business practices. Do you oppose health inspections of restaurants?
You know, it just occurred to me that you've talked yourself in a circle. You want the government to impose restrictions on these water bottle selling business people. Guess you only support certain businesses. You'll be the judge to what businesses are proper and which ones are not. Just like you can judge who can express their freedom of speech and who cannot.
It's hopeless to have a discussion with you if yo don't know the difference between speech and a domicile.
My rights end where your rights begin. And vice versa. Harassment is not free speech. That line can get fuzzy but the courts have worked it out. It's defined where people can exercise free speech and when it turns to harassment.
