New York's Central Park gives musicians the boot

[MasterKiller]

The Constitution says nothing about the Government defining or protecting marriage. The STATE law was voted on, and it should be in effect. IMO, that's waht the founders wanted, States rights. So if California said no to gays getting married, and say New York said yes to it, those gays who wanted to live under New Yorks laws are free to move there. The Founders had a brilliant blueprint that would make just about everyone happy if we had just followed it, mainly by allowing State's rights. That way we would have less of a Federal Government 'one size fits all' set of laws, and instead have 50 different sets of State's laws and citizens could choose to live in the State they felt most fit their beliefs. Anything wrong with that?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Do you think Virginia should be allowed to prevent whites and nonwhites from marrying?

Did a group of judges who didn't like the law overstep their authority?

Incorrect. The Constitution does not call for that. Nowhere does it ban direct votes on local issues

And neither does it guarantee that direct votes MUST be held on anything other than appointment elections, right?

Take this local issue as an example; sports stadiums. Those are usually (if not always) decided by the city in question's voters. Which is fair. Would you prefer a City Council made up of politicians choosing whether or not to build a billionaire a free sports stadium, or would you want the entire city to get to vote on that?

Those types of issues are usually voted on because they involve some type of tax increase to pay for the bonds (city sales tax or hotel/motel taxes, in most cases). But some cities DO build stadiums or other event buildings without voting on it.

For example, Pittsburgh voted NO on a new stadium referrendum, but the city built it anyway.

I imagine there is something in the state constitutions that controls this, but I'm not sure how it gets decided as to which issues require votes or not.

[BJJ-Blue]

And neither does it guarantee that direct votes MUST be held on anything other than appointment elections, right?

Correct. So why can't a direct vote be called for the Central Park music ban instead of just a handful of politicians deciding it? We both agree it's an option, right? So why wasn't that option used in this case?

For example, Pittsburgh voted NO on a new stadium referrendum, but the city built it anyway.

I imagine there is something in the state constitutions that controls this, but I'm not sure how it gets decided as to which issues require votes or not.

I'm not discussing what's done in every instance, as I'm sure they vary. I just wanted to know if you think a city funding a sports stadium should be decided by an at-large citywide election, or only by politicians.

[MasterKiller]

Correct. So why can't a direct vote be called for the Central Park music ban instead of just a handful of politicians deciding it? We both agree it's an option, right? So why wasn't that option used in this case?.

I dunno, and frankly don't care. It's a non-issue, which you basically admitted in the other thread, because it's not a BAN. They just have designated areas in which they can play.

So what about this?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Do you think Virginia should be allowed to prevent whites and nonwhites from marrying?

Did a group of judges who didn't like the law overstep their authority?

[BJJ-Blue]

I dunno, and frankly don't care. It's a non-issue, which you basically admitted in the other thread, because it's not a BAN. They just have designated areas in which they can play.

It is a ban. It may be a partial ban, but there is a ban in place. And I want to know if you believe the ban should have been voted on by the citizens or decided by a few politicians.

So what about this?

I'm not going to discuss racial marriage laws that were in place over 100 years ago in a thread about banning music in Central Park in 2010. Start a new thread for that discussion.

[MasterKiller]

It is a ban. It may be a partial ban, but there is a ban in place. And I want to know if you believe the ban should have been voted on by the citizens or decided by a few politicians.

Whatever. It's not a ban. There is no issue. Plenty of activities are zoned, and this is no different than 1,000 other iterations of those laws.

I think the politicians were voted in office to make decisions, and they made one. If people don't like it, they should vote in new politicians. That's how a republic works.

I'm not going to discuss racial marriage laws that were in place over 100 years ago in a thread about banning music in Central Park in 2010. Start a new thread for that discussion.

1967 was 100 years ago? You've been discussing gay marriage on this thread, so why not this?

[BJJ-Blue]

Whatever. It's not a ban. There is no issue. Plenty of activities are zoned, and this is no different than 1,000 other iterations of those laws.

So seeing as you are ok with the law as it allows for certain areas where music is allowed, why are you for laws that completely ban smoking on private propery?

Prior to those laws restaurants had smoking and non-smoking areas. Why are you ok with a complete ban?

[MasterKiller]

Prior to those laws restaurants had smoking and non-smoking areas. Why are you ok with a complete ban?

I think businesses should be able to decide if they are smoking friendly or not. But if one wants to be both, I think there should be separate rooms or custom ventilation because smoke doesn't just stay in one place.

My work building has an enclosed smoking room with a custom vent filtration unit so people can smoke inside without forcing others to be exposed to it.

[BJJ-Blue]

I think businesses should be able to decide if they are smoking friendly or not. But if one wants to be both, I think there should be separate rooms or custom ventilation because smoke doesn't just stay in one place.

My work building has an enclosed smoking room with a custom vent filtration unit so people can smoke inside without forcing others to be exposed to it.

You're fair on that issue. I give you credit there. Defending someone's right to do something you don't do is an admirable trait. I also do not smoke cigarettes, but I believe those who do have every right to 'pursue happiness' in that way without the Government depriving them of that right on private property.

[Syn7]

our smoking rules in vancity are getting nazi-esque... we cant even smoke on a beach... of course i understand the littering argument and i would suggest anyone who doesnt use some sort of portable ashtray should be fined for littering, but its a pi$$ poor excuse to just hate on something... i have to suffer idiots every day, can we ban idiots please???

i dont really even care about the smokers, i just think its unfair and overly biased... the only part i dislike is that when you are at the beach smoking a ginourmous stogue of kushy greens and the cops roll upo, having somebody light a smoke is great cover... most cops dont bother with weed anymore, but every once in a while some officer hardass d1ckhead comes along and just runs you thru the ringer for it... very annoying... especially since my moral base is far more just than the laws of the land... i am so tired of being told what to do and what not to do... im starting to relate to the 5 man electrical band... fukcin signs everywhere maaaaan!!!

[BJJ-Blue]

im starting to relate to the 5 man electrical band... fukcin signs everywhere maaaaan!!!

I'm with you there. But I do suggest you look at the political leanings of those people who put the signs up.