|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 4:46:49 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10977
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
Fine y'all... Go ahead and cause a pile up. 
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 5:26:39 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1428
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Yes, he doesn't have the right to have a sign that targets a specific group (and yes I would say the same thing if this was the other way around), I'm pretty sure it's a local law or even state law that prevents that. No business or service can refuse their service to because of your political affiliation, race, nationality, or religion, point blank.
He's not charging, though, so it's not a business or service. And I'm pretty sure that the protection does not extend to political affiliation in the laws I've seen. Otherwise, people at the DNC and RNC would have been in serious trouble.
He owns a gravel lot. He lets people park there for free. He could decide that it's his personal zen gravel garden tomorrow and not let anyone park there, and it would be perfectly within his rights. It does not matter if it's the only place to park, it's his property. My parents live in the middle of nowhere, but the fact that there's nowhere else to use the bathroom does not mean that people get to show up and demand that my parents let them into the house to go to the bathroom.
As for a contract, that's ridiculous. Since there are no goods or services crossing to him, he can revoke permission at his personal recognizance whenever he chooses to give notice. Also, breaches of contract have nothing to do with illegality, they're civil matters, he can't be arrested over it.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 5:29:51 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
Yes, he doesn't have the right to have a sign that targets a specific group (and yes I would say the same thing if this was the other way around), I'm pretty sure it's a local law or even state law that prevents that. No business or service can refuse their service to because of your political affiliation, race, nationality, or religion, point blank.
He's not charging, though, so it's not a business or service. And I'm pretty sure that the protection does not extend to political affiliation in the laws I've seen. Otherwise, people at the DNC and RNC would have been in serious trouble.
He owns a gravel lot. He lets people park there for free. He could decide that it's his personal zen gravel garden tomorrow and not let anyone park there, and it would be perfectly within his rights. It does not matter if it's the only place to park, it's his property. My parents live in the middle of nowhere, but the fact that there's nowhere else to use the bathroom does not mean that people get to show up and demand that my parents let them into the house to go to the bathroom.
As for a contract, that's ridiculous. Since there are no goods or services crossing to him, he can revoke permission at his personal recognizance whenever he chooses to give notice. Also, breaches of contract have nothing to do with illegality, they're civil matters, he can't be arrested over it.
If he is providing a service, such as parking, and refused that service based on unfair discrimination then he's facing some legal issues. Because unfair discrimination is illegal and denial of service based whether or not a person is voting for Obama is, by definition, unfair discrimination.
I already said the matter of the verbal contract is a civil matter, but the outright denial of service may not be.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 5:32:35 PM
|
|
|
Longfingers1
Posts: 444
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
Yes, he doesn't have the right to have a sign that targets a specific group (and yes I would say the same thing if this was the other way around), I'm pretty sure it's a local law or even state law that prevents that. No business or service can refuse their service to because of your political affiliation, race, nationality, or religion, point blank.
He's not charging, though, so it's not a business or service. And I'm pretty sure that the protection does not extend to political affiliation in the laws I've seen. Otherwise, people at the DNC and RNC would have been in serious trouble.
He owns a gravel lot. He lets people park there for free. He could decide that it's his personal zen gravel garden tomorrow and not let anyone park there, and it would be perfectly within his rights. It does not matter if it's the only place to park, it's his property. My parents live in the middle of nowhere, but the fact that there's nowhere else to use the bathroom does not mean that people get to show up and demand that my parents let them into the house to go to the bathroom.
As for a contract, that's ridiculous. Since there are no goods or services crossing to him, he can revoke permission at his personal recognizance whenever he chooses to give notice. Also, breaches of contract have nothing to do with illegality, they're civil matters, he can't be arrested over it.
If he is providing a service, such as parking, and refused that service based on unfair discrimination then he's facing some legal issues. Because unfair discrimination is illegal and denial of service based whether or not a person is voting for Obama is, by definition, unfair discrimination.
I already said the matter of the verbal contract is a civil matter, but the outright denial of service may not be.
Thanks for responding, I was about to make the same statement. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 5:36:28 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1428
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
If he is providing a service, such as parking, and refused that service based on unfair discrimination then he's facing some legal issues. Because unfair discrimination is illegal and denial of service based whether or not a person is voting for Obama is, by definition, unfair discrimination.
I already said the matter of the verbal contract is a civil matter, but the outright denial of service may not be.
I'm assuming he's not a telepath (which I would hope you would agree is a fair assumption), so he can't really know who the person is voting for. As such, he's discriminating against campaign stickers. So, it's not any different from the "No shoes, no shirt, no service" signs on many restaurants, school uniforms, or people who have been told they're not allowed to wear campaign t-shirts at workplaces or school. Or the Homeowners Associations that ban campaign signs. Or colleges that ban political bumper stickers.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 5:39:55 PM
|
|
|
HighPlainsDrifter
Posts: 1292
Joined: 9/22/2005
From: The Great Sioux Empire
Status: offline
|
quote:
If he is providing a service, such as parking, and refused that service based on unfair discrimination then he's facing some legal issues. Because unfair discrimination is illegal and denial of service based whether or not a person is voting for Obama is, by definition, unfair discrimination.
I already said the matter of the verbal contract is a civil matter, but the outright denial of service may not be.
I'd like to know specifically which state or local statute in North Carolina states that this fellow can't close off a parking lot to whomever he wants if it's his property, his taxes are current, and he's not being compensated by any entity for it's use. If you can find one, post it. Anything else is as useless, pointless, groundless, and factual as me saying Alpha Centauri is made of limburger cheese.
_____________________________
Molon Labe
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 5:41:20 PM
|
|
|
Longfingers1
Posts: 444
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
If he is providing a service, such as parking, and refused that service based on unfair discrimination then he's facing some legal issues. Because unfair discrimination is illegal and denial of service based whether or not a person is voting for Obama is, by definition, unfair discrimination.
I already said the matter of the verbal contract is a civil matter, but the outright denial of service may not be.
As such, he's discriminating against campaign stickers. So, it's not any different from the "No shoes, no shirt, no service" signs on many restaurants, school uniforms, or people who have been told they're not allowed to wear campaign t-shirts at workplaces or school.
Those are two way off comparisons. First, no place that provides a service can deny their service based on your political affiliation, religious affiliation, or ethnicity. With a school or workplace is a whole other story... but I'm sure you already know that... 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 5:45:10 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1428
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
He is not selling anything. He is not providing a service. "Service" by definition implies a two way exchange, generally money for something done for you.
I checked North Carolina discrimination laws, and nowhere did they say anything about political affiliation. Race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, or sexual orientation yes. Political affiliation, no.
So, unless you want to categorize putting an Obama sticker on your car as indicative of a mental handicap, I'm afraid you don't really have a case there.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/9/2008 7:05:51 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1428
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Well, I guess Obama could sue him for the libelous assertion that Obama is a finely-spun cotton fabric, but otherwise, *shrug*.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/10/2008 5:37:43 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5392
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
Shouldn't a person have the same rights regarding their property as one does regarding their womb?
_____________________________
John
Proverbs 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Should this man have to take down his signs? - 10/10/2008 5:40:23 PM
|
|
|
Longfingers1
Posts: 444
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Shouldn't a person have the same rights regarding their property as one does regarding their womb?
Why is it with any topic brought up, do you have to have a pro-life statement that doesn't even go with the topic. Please, let's stay on topic.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
