Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Macrobat · Mar 1, 2006, 01:23 PM

In the endless discussion about and view of "freedom", there is a new debate taking place in Florida. It seems the creator of Domino's pizza has decided to bankroll a town that forbids pornography and birth control from being sold and will have the nation's largest crucifix (65ft). His desire is to create a town based on Catholic values.

Civil libertarians are already preparing for the fight saying the move would be unconstitutional. This should be a wonderful debate about whose "freedom" is protected by the constitution.

Most notable quote:
"I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I don't want to be on the sidelines," Thomas Monaghan (owner and founder of Domino's) said in a recent Newsweek interview.

One has to wonder why folks who desire to live in such a town would not have the right to such an existence. We allow it all the time in gated communities across this country, why not a town? The only real difference is the gate!

I'm still waiting for the legal case against Amish Country. (Isn't there a similarity here?) But I didn't hear use of the words "Branch Davidians".

http://www.wral.com/family/7573297/detail.html

Dakar · Mar 1, 2006, 01:32 PM

That's crazy.

G Barnett · Mar 1, 2006, 01:34 PM

The operative phrase here is "A town based on Catholic Values" -- that implies a theocratic form of government, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. Amish country is different in that, to my knowledge, they don't actively criminalize the things that go against their beliefs and cultural mores. They simply don't use them. It's a huge difference, constitutionally speaking.

Millennium · Mar 1, 2006, 01:34 PM

As long as the town continued to obey federal law, there would be nothing unconstitutional about founding it. In the course of obeying federal law, however, many of this guy's plans for the town would be quite thorougly ripped apart.

He might, of course, try to circumvent this by going for an unincorporated community, rather than a legally-recognized town. The location would have to be chosen very carefully, because different states have different ways of dealing with unincorporated communities, but it would be very interesting to see how all the legal dramatics would play out.

Dork. · Mar 1, 2006, 01:45 PM

"While the governor (Jeb Bush in Florida) does not personally believe in abortion or pornography, the town, and any restrictions they may place on businesses choosing to locate there, must comply with the laws and constitution of the state and federal governments," Russell Schweiss, a spokesman for the governor, said Tuesday.

That's the key thing there, I think. Individual people have a right to make their own individual decisions, and if a bunch of Catholics decide to settle in a particular town, then it's their business.

But State and Federal laws still need to be respected, and one of those is non-discrimination in housing. If a Jew wanted to buy a house in this Catholic enclave, there's not a whole lot the town can do about it. Or, at least there shouldn't be.

There's a similar story (I'll look for the link when I get home from work, unless someone else provides it) about a town which has an occupancy ordinance that is worded something like "all people in a house must be related by blood, marriage, or adoption". Many towns have similar ordinances to limit "college slums" by making sure no more than X unrelated people could live in a house together, but for this town, X = 0.

An unmarried (i.e. unrelated by marriage, blood, or adoption) couple with kids (who are related to both their parents, we assume) bought a house there without being told of the ordinance, and now the town is trying to prevent them from moving in. When the couple went to see one of the town board members about the situation, she said to the woman "Well, why don't you just marry him, honey?".

BRussell · Mar 1, 2006, 01:50 PM

I just find it interesting that they want to forbid birth control. The theocrats' true motivation - their obsession with sex - comes through loud and clear.

"I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I don't want to be on the sidelines," Thomas Monaghan (owner and founder of Domino's) said in a recent Newsweek interview.

Yup, good and evil. You're just not on the side you think you're on.

Millennium · Mar 1, 2006, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I just find it interesting that they want to forbid birth control. The theocrats' true motivation - their obsession with sex - comes through loud and clear.

Does it? These people believe that using birth control is the same as killing human beings. I don't agree, but I acknowledge that this position need not come from an obsession with sex.

Yup, good and evil. You're just not on the side you think you're on.

My, how relativist of you.

Macrobat · Mar 1, 2006, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by G Barnett

The operative phrase here is "A town based on Catholic Values" -- that implies a theocratic form of government, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. Amish country is different in that, to my knowledge, they don't actively criminalize the things that go against their beliefs and cultural mores. They simply don't use them. It's a huge difference, constitutionally speaking.

Oh please, he means Catholic moral views of right and wrong, nowhere does he sanction a theocracy.

And BRussell, you woould actually have a point if there was some sort of compulsary residency, but there isn't, so your trolling is exposed for what it truly is.

BTW, "theocracies" exist legally all over the United States, they're called "religious communes."

Municipalities outlaw things that are Federally legal all the time (gun control laws ring a bell?) and they aren't called unconstitutional.

If Monaghan wants to put up the cash to found a town on these principles and other people willingly want to move there, where is the Constitutional crisis?

FYI, outlawing birth control would seem to me to be an attempt to curb promiscuousness, which fits right in with the aforementioned "Catholic values."

Also, before that spasmic movement of your knee puts your eye out, read what he said again. He never said that any of those items would be outlawed, he said that the sale of those items would be prohibited within the town limits.

G Barnett · Mar 1, 2006, 02:00 PM

As soon as you bring in a particular religious doctrine and enact laws to enforce that doctrine, it becomes a theocratic government. As for the religious communes, they're NOT towns. A town is a legally incorporated governmental entity; it has federal, state and local statutes and constitutions that it has to abide by in order to get recognition as an incorporated town.

Nice non-sequitur argument with gun control laws, btw. Not relevant to this discussion, though.

Dork. · Mar 1, 2006, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

If Monaghan wants to put up the cash to found a town on these principles and other people willingly want to move there, where is the Constitutional crisis?

The crisis comes when the first Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist family wants to move in, (edit: and asserts their (perfectly legal in Florida) rights to certain things), and the town tries to prevent it. If you don't believe me, rewind a few years and substitute "Black, Brown, or Yellow" for "Jewish, Muslim, or Athiest".

Macrobat · Mar 1, 2006, 02:03 PM

Except that the point is something like 9 miles over your head. He is not "bringing in a particular religious doctrine," he's simply wanting to have a town without pornography, et al sold within its limits. I personally think the crucifix would be a bit overdone, but there is no advocacy here for a theocracy of any kind, you're tilting at windmills.

Macrobat · Mar 1, 2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

The crisis comes when the first Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist family wants to move in, and asserts their (perfectly legal in Florida) rights to certain things, and the town tries to prevent it. If you don't believe me, rewind a few years and substitute "Black, Brown, or Yellow" for "Jewish, Muslim, or Athiest".

No, you're trying to manufacture a crisis where there is none. I see no place where he has advocated a religious government, where he has disparaged any other race or creed, he simply wants a town that's basically like Mayberry on the Andy Griffith show. He hasn't said a single word about not allowing other faiths, races, creeds or lack thereof, just that he wants a town without all the urban blight we have in our major cities, where there is no abortion clinic IN the town, etc.

He's not saying anywhere that any citizen of the town would be prohibited or even discouraged from using, owning or seeking ANYTHING that is legal in the United States, just that said items will not be allowed to be sold IN THE TOWN.

Zoning laws in municipalities all over the country already prohibit the sale of every item listed in certain areas of cities throughout the United States. Monaghan simply wants the entire town zoned that way.

Dork. · Mar 1, 2006, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Except that the point is something like 9 miles over your head. He is not "bringing in a particular religious doctrine," he's simply wanting to have a town without pornography, et al sold within its limits. I personally think the crucifix would be a bit overdone, but there is no advocacy here for a theocracy of any kind, you're tilting at windmills.

I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with founding a town based on "Catholic Values". But the town still needs to follow state and federal laws.

It all depends on how far he wants to go with it. I don't think the town could prevent the sale of otherwise legal items without a good, non-religiously-motivated reason.* One would wonder why a vendor would want to sell that stuff in a town like this in the first place, if people practive what they preach there shouldn't be much of a market. If he goes far enough to prohibit other houses of worship or restrict who he selld houses to, that would definitely go over the line.

* = (NYC has restricted the sale of Spray Paints to minors for quite some time, to prohibit the spread of grafitti.)

G Barnett · Mar 1, 2006, 02:14 PM

The ban on birth control would be a law based on a specific tenet of Catholic doctrine, as an example. That plus his own desire to found the town based specifically on Catholic values runs right into the Establishment clause of the Constitution. As a non-incorporated community, it would probably fly. As a legally recognized incorporated town, not a chance.

Macrobat · Mar 1, 2006, 02:14 PM

Dork. think again, read my pervious post about zoning laws. It's completely legal, with more than ample precedent.

Again G Barnett, he is NOT "banning birth control," he wants to ban the SALE of birth control items WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS.

jcadam · Mar 1, 2006, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

The crisis comes when the first Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist family wants to move in, (edit: and asserts their (perfectly legal in Florida) rights to certain things), and the town tries to prevent it. If you don't believe me, rewind a few years and substitute "Black, Brown, or Yellow" for "Jewish, Muslim, or Athiest".

....and the ACLU will get someone to attempt to move there, for the sole purpose of creating said crisis. Such is their MO.

BRussell · Mar 1, 2006, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Does it? These people believe that using birth control is the same as killing human beings. I don't agree, but I acknowledge that this position need not come from an obsession with sex.

It need not, in theory. But it's hard to come to any other conclusion. Look at the other thing that was mentioned - pornography.

And wait, is the belief really that contraception kills human beings? As far as I know, that's not the belief, because if you believe that human beings start at conception, then contraception can't be ending a life. The belief, from what I understand, is that sex is for procreation, and contraception separates sex from that goal.

My, how relativist of you.

I thought it was actually quite absolutist.

BRussell · Mar 1, 2006, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And BRussell, you woould actually have a point if there was some sort of compulsary residency, but there isn't, so your trolling is exposed for what it truly is.[/i]

How did my post depend on compulsory residency? It did not. I simply said that these people reveal their true colors by focusing on sex: porn and birth control.

As far as I know, a town can forbid pornography. But I wonder if it's legal to pass a law against selling contraception. I doubt it, because access to birth control is considered a basic right, in fact it came before and formed the basis of Roe v. Wade. But I don't know if there's a difference between passing a law against selling it vs. banning its use. There might be.

In general, I'd think that if they're a real town, i.e., a government, they can't violate the constitution, and that would include things like putting up a cross. If they're just a group of people who get together and agree and put crosses in their yards and don't make laws for other people, then they can believe in whatever they want.

Chuckit · Mar 1, 2006, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

My, how relativist of you.

Did BRussell ever claim to be a moral relativist?

Anyway, my take: This is probably within the original intent of the Constitution, but not the postbellum interpretation wherein states and cities are basically considered to be subsidiaries of the federal government.

cpt kangarooski · Mar 1, 2006, 02:32 PM

Well, here comes Marsh v. Alabama again. And if that's applicable -- and it ought to be, since this is no mere mall -- I think he'll have serious problems when it comes to the triumverate of Lemon, Lee, and Lynch, since "[h]is desire is to create a town based on Catholic values."

OreoCookie · Mar 1, 2006, 02:41 PM

I remember that there were a few articles about Mormons around the time of the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. They had `effectively' outlawed things like porn shops and shops to get alcohol as well.

I'm not sure if you can really (literally) outlaw these things, but on a practical level, it suffices if it is made a lot more difficult for a porn shop owner to open a new store in the `utopia'. Another example might be the pharmacy which may (or may not) be legally required to sell a certain assortment of medication.

smacintush · Mar 1, 2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

But I wonder if it's legal to pass a law against selling contraception. I doubt it, because access to birth control is considered a basic right, in fact it came before and formed the basis of Roe v. Wade. But I don't know if there's a difference between passing a law against selling it vs. banning its use. There might be.

The article says there is no law preventing the ban of the sale of birth control.

In general, I'd think that if they're a real town, i.e., a government, they can't violate the constitution, and that would include things like putting up a cross. If they're just a group of people who get together and agree and put crosses in their yards and don't make laws for other people, then they can believe in whatever they want.

Putting up a cross in no way violates the constitution. It would be a cross at a church on private property surrounded by a town.

NOWHERE in the constitution does it say that it is illegal to start a town based upon religious principles. Nowhere. The whole idea of freedom of religion was to PREVENT the government from getting in the way of things like this.

Anyone know what the first official act of the first congress of the US was?

BRussell · Mar 1, 2006, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

The article says there is no law preventing the ban of the sale of birth control.

What I get from reading that is that Florida has no law requiring pharmacists to sell contraception. But my question is whether it would legal for a town to pass a law saying that it would be illegal to sell it, which seems to be what is happening here.

Putting up a cross in no way violates the constitution. It would be a cross at a church on private property surrounded by a town.

If it's just a church cross, then I misunderstood it. But the way it looks is that these "administrators" have this plan for a town, and just a couple of them are making all the rules for what is going to happen in the town. That's a bit different from a church and a pharmacy etc. just privately deciding to set up shop there. It sounds like they're setting the rules from the outset, which sounds like a local government. In my city, small as it is, we couldn't just decide it's going to be a Catholic city and set all these rules. How is that different from what these people want to do?

smacintush · Mar 1, 2006, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

In my city, small as it is, we couldn't just decide it's going to be a Catholic city and set all these rules. How is that different from what these people want to do?

Nobody lives in this town yet and anyone who lives there will start off understanding what it is. I think that is a huge difference.

Look, I believe that this town will not make it through. They will eventually force them to comply with the current ever-further-reaching interpretation of the establishment clause. I personally think they should be left the hell alone as long as they don't force the residents to be catholics or restrict the practice of other religions but that won't happen here.

Chuckit · Mar 1, 2006, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Nobody lives in this town yet and anyone who lives there will start off understanding what it is. I think that is a huge difference.

Why does that matter from a legal perspective? If it's OK to do, it's OK to do, generally.

RAILhead · Mar 1, 2006, 04:23 PM

I used to be a big fan a Pappa John's Pizza, but their delivery people never can find our house so it takes like an hour and half for them to get to us.

So, I switched back to Domino's.

I had a girlfriend that managed a Domino's once, and she'd let all of us come in after hours and screw around with everything...making our own bread sticks, adding notes to people in the computers, crap like that.

OldManMac · Mar 1, 2006, 04:35 PM

Tom Monaghan is not a very tolerant person. I knew someone who worked in Domino's Ann Arbor, MI, offices about ten years ago, when he still owned Domino's. He would have regular staff meetings, which included meeting in the headquarters chapel, where prayers were said, and if you were a member of executive staff, you were expected to go to those meetings.

smacintush · Mar 1, 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Why does that matter from a legal perspective? If it's OK to do, it's OK to do, generally.

Probably doesn't.

Chuckit · Mar 1, 2006, 04:48 PM

Man, Papa John's is so much better, I'm willing to drive there to get it.

smacintush · Mar 1, 2006, 04:52 PM

Domino's sucks big donkey cocks with herpes on it.

Dakar · Mar 1, 2006, 05:12 PM

"The founder of Domino's Pizza is building a Florida town centered on strict Catholic principles, including bans on abortion, pornography and contraceptives. I bet it's all just an elaborate ruse for the return of The Noid."

Kevin · Mar 1, 2006, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by G Barnett

The operative phrase here is "A town based on Catholic Values" -- that implies a theocratic form of government, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

Actually that isn't true either. Constitutionally only CONGRESS is banned from making any national religion or setting any rules of such.

It wasn't till recently did leftist broaden that to ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY GOV IN THE US!!

Thinking it was for our own good.

So it really has little to do with the constitution. And more to do with people having alterior motives.

RAILhead · Mar 1, 2006, 05:44 PM

I say it's up to who has the most money and/or who can get their pizzas delivered to me the fastest.

BRussell · Mar 1, 2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually that isn't true either. Constitutionally only CONGRESS is banned from making any national religion or setting any rules of such.

It wasn't till recently did leftist broaden that to ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY GOV IN THE US!!

Thinking it was for our own good.

So it really has little to do with the constitution. And more to do with people having alterior motives.

The Republicans in the aftermath of the civil war were leftists? Because that's when the bill of rights was applied to local governments in addition to the federal government, as Chuckit aptly pointed out.

Atomic Rooster · Mar 1, 2006, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Domino's sucks big donkey cocks with herpes on it.

And you like...yes?

smacintush · Mar 1, 2006, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

The Republicans in the aftermath of the civil war were leftists? Because that's when the bill of rights was applied to local governments in addition to the federal government, as Chuckit aptly pointed out.

Actually, it wasn't until the 1925 Supreme Court ruling on Gitlow v. New York where they reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

As far as the Establishment Clause goes I believe that it was Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940 the really started the current trend that Kevin referred to.

BRussell · Mar 1, 2006, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Actually, it wasn't until the 1925 Supreme Court ruling on Gitlow v. New York where they reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

As far as the Establishment Clause goes I believe that it was Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940 the really started the current trend that Kevin referred to.

You're right, I stand corrected.

Rumor · Mar 1, 2006, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

FYI, outlawing birth control would seem to me to be an attempt to curb promiscuousness, which fits right in with the aforementioned "Catholic values."

So then these good Catholics can go back to thier coat hanger methods?

smacintush · Mar 1, 2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

So then these good Catholics can go back to thier coat hanger methods?

That would be fine with me. If someone sticks a coat hanger up their coochie, it's NOT the fault of the "fascist theocrats". It's the fault if the dumb bitch who sticks the thing up there.

Kevin · Mar 1, 2006, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Actually, it wasn't until the 1925 Supreme Court ruling on Gitlow v. New York where they reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

As far as the Establishment Clause goes I believe that it was Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940 the really started the current trend that Kevin referred to.

Bingo

So when people refer to the Constitution as reasons this is, it's actually being dishonest.

That wasn't the founding fathers original intentions.

It has just been distorted over the years to mean so. Right under our noses.

Oh I am sure it was harmless at first. But now it's used as a tool for secular humanists and religious bashers to do away with reminders.

Chuckit · Mar 1, 2006, 07:36 PM

To be fair, I don't really want to argue that the state should be able to prohibit religion, restrict free speech, strike down the press and deny us the right to assemble or petition the government for redress of grievances.

Dork. · Mar 1, 2006, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

There's a similar story (I'll look for the link when I get home from work, unless someone else provides it)

Here and Here.

The interesting point in these stories from St. Louis is that the Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in these matters on the basis of "race, religion, color, national origin, gender, disability and families with children", but not all state statutes prohibit discrimination involving marital status. So there are a numberof cases of families who buy houses, and then are denied occupancy permits on the basis of their marital status, and that denial is affirmed in the state courts. Weird.

Back to the OP, I think that a lot of our disconnect here comes from the fact that the article is a little ambiguous about what this guy's plans are exactly. Macrobat is right that he is only ever quoted in the article as saying he wanted to ban the sale of certain items, but many of the rest of us, the ACLU, and the article's writers assume he plans to eventually go further, because let's face it: why bother going through all the trouble to make a community like this if all you're going to do is ban porno mags? We all assume the other shoe is going to drop sometime.

Kevin · Mar 1, 2006, 09:18 PM

Towns can choose not to sell alcohol (Dry towns) so how is this any different?

davesimondotcom · Mar 1, 2006, 09:19 PM

Banning birth control in a small community would be pretty damn hard to enforce, I would think.

--

Doorbell rings.

Happy Catholic-town residents answer their door.

"Excuse me, Mr. and Mrs. Pope, we're here to serve this search warrent. It gives us the right to search any and all bedroom drawers as well as other hiding places for condoms, birth control pills, diaphrams or any other birth control paraphernalia herein."

"But you don't have any just cause."

"Sure we do. We're doing it just because. Get it? Just 'cause? Hahahaha. No, really, it's in your town covenent (hahaha, another pun) that you signed when you purchased your home. We can search as many as 5 times a week."

"Why not every day?"

"Well, Bob gets Tuesdays off and Sunday, well, we all spend all day in Mass."

"What is the penalty if we have any birth control?"

"Death... just kidding. Actually, I don't know. It's either destruction of said paraphernalia and a scarlet letter or after we isolate you both in a private room for three months until your wife is pregnant."

----

Overall, if someone wants to live in a community like that, fine by me. I don't think it's unconstitutional. But I think it's stupid.

But then, I think most religion is taken too far to extremes.

davesimondotcom · Mar 1, 2006, 09:22 PM

BTW, I find that the ACLU is trying to push buttons as much as they can. This is obviously not unconstitutional but the notion of "Separation of church and state" is kind of out of control.

From both sides.