I read an article today about a town that the founder of Dominoes wants to build. It will be a Catholic haven. No smut on TV or in the stores, no birth control and so forth. The article said that a lot of people were threatening to sue over this. I find it unfortunate that people can't just let others go off and do their own thing without getting huffy about it and threatening to sue. (I think I have a blog about shunning as my favored method of social control.)
People, if you want to live in a smut filled, condom filled town (Which I, for one, do.) then you should be happy these idiots are off living far, far away from you, happily sequestered in their own little area. Let them have their "town." Why does it bother you that they are off, where you don't have to see them, doing (or rather in this case, not doing) their thing?
The State controls certain social issues where they meet civic issues- in Florida it said, for example, pharmacies do not have to carry contraceptives. Thus, if I owned 20 acres I could offer to sell it to you with the restriction that you may not use the property to sell birth control. Just like communities set up protective covenants that cover what color you can paint your front door, or what kind of play equipment your kids can have in your back yard, to how long your garage can be raised-- individuals and communities can limit the uses to which their land may be put when it is sold.
In some states one does have to carry contraceptives in a pharmacy, in which case the restrictive covenant would be void as not being compliant with state law. Likewise, many States have laws on the books outlawing abortions, criminalizing the performance of abortions and so forth- but said laws are unenforceable.
I once went to Sun City in Arizona- and I am here to tell you that one can create a community where people really do walk up and down the street and tell you that you can't have a car parked there, or you do have to lower your garage- and you can be fined by the homeowner's association or removed from the community- but these provisions are very different than having a municipal government with rights to criminally enforce certain "Catholic" laws.
Look, we have Constitutional rights, and State laws passed to protect our individual rights- but the right to be free from insult is not and is never going to be among them. Where it does get a bit complicated is where a government would enforce "Catholic" laws- but a lot of people would argue, and its a pretty strong argument at that, that almost all of our laws are Christian in origin. It would not be that difficult to write laws that would be perfectly in line with the commitment to Catholicism and yet not a violation of one's Federal and State civil rights.
In other words, just because it says in the bible that if you hurt someone and they survive a year and a day, its not murder, and your state tracks the same language, does not make this an invalid law.
Ok, lets say this community has decided that no restaurant in the community shall serve meat on Fridays. Written into each purchase agreement was a covenant that the resturanteur would not sell meat on Fridays. The penalty for selling meat on Friday's would be...hmmm.... a penalty of $1,000.00 for your first offence, than forfeiture of your property and any equity you had in it. Ok, that's a contract, and aside form certain provisions void for improper subject (you can't enforce a contract in which you bought a human being, for example.) assuming its written well, you can enforce this.
On the other hand, lets say the Catholics form a government and they pass a law making it a crime to eat meat on Fridays. A misdemeanors, just as they are allowed to create and authorize. The difference lies in the difference between a valid contract in which you agree to do or not do something and a criminal law enforced by a government. There are U.S. Supreme Court standards and Federal standards for a valid law as there are State standards- and those standards must be met- I think its "rational relationship" to the health or safety of the people- but I'm no constitutional lawyer.
I'm a live and let live kind of person- and to me that means I have to respect other's rights even when I think they're using them poorly. I am all for people being allowed to create communities that would infringe upon their constitutional rights- as long as one could always avoid any non-constitutionally acceptable punishment by citing your one time only "permanent ban" in exchange for said punishment. Thus: you're about to be nailed for eating steak on Friday instead of fish so instead of taking the three hours in the stocks you accept excommunication from the community and agree to put your property for sale immediately.
But I probably won't come visit you.
No comments:
Post a Comment