Georgia House OKs 'Sunday brunch' bill (Atlanta, Clayton: living in, move to, family friendly)

[CCATL]

Originally Posted by Clayton white guy

Still no answer to my question; I guess I will not get one. I have given you my view. One-seventh of a week is not too much to ask in a democratic republic where we have majority rule with minority rights. To me, it was a compromise of sorts. A compromise is where both sides get some of what they want. It is the "alcohol everywhere all the time" crowd that is "imposing" their views on everyone. Also, what do you mean by, "pushback"? This is an open forum, a marketplace of ideas. It is the purpose of this forum to discuss. Push back? That would indicate that you want this forum to be a vehicle for one viewpoint rather than an avenue for understanding of different points of view. This is an open forum, do you wish to silence opposing voices like a modern day virtual Stalin? The grand thing about America is everyone is allowed to have and voice their own opinions. I do not consider your comments, "pushback", I consider them a lively discussion that is part of what makes America great!

It is that important, that early in the day, because I choose to drink alcohol at that time. I choose to have a mimosa with my breakfast, I choose to be in a restaurant that serves mimosa's at breakfast. I don't want the state I choose to live in to tell me when I can and cannot drink a legal beverage, while I continue to follow laws surrounding what to do after I have consumed that legal beverage. And again, if you choose to shelter yourself from that atmosphere, then all the power to you! However, I think that's an over the top thing to do, as I've never seen anybody in a bottomless restaurant on a Sunday morning out of control, and among those consuming alcohol, I've seen many families around with no complaints. So, again, your choice to not drink alcohol should not determine everybody else's freedom to drink alcohol. I'm not religious, and I don't want anybody forcing their religion on me. Laws that come from a religious belief, such as Sunday's being "God's time" and therefore a break from alcohol, go against my beliefs and my freedoms as an American. Is that an answer enough for you?

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Clayton white guy

I guess my confusion here is that I have never known anyone, including my Catholic, non-religious, and beer-nerd (relentlessly obsessed with different kinds of beer) friends, that were unable to enjoy a meal without an alcoholic beverage. What is wrong with water, lemonade, or sweet iced tea (the "table wine" of the south) with your Brunch. Why is it that important, that early in the day? Please enlighten me.

Please enlighten me why my gay friends have such a hard time getting married? What is wrong with just letting them have their marriage? Why is it important for them to decide who ELSE can get married, as if it affects them in literally any way. Why do you feel you need to control others' legal lives? Can you explain to me how someone else having a beer affects you in ANY way, provided they aren't driving drunk, which has nothing to do with it being a Sunday as opposed to 8pm on Friday.

Answer this one question: do you want your specified religion to control what other people can freely do? Should other religions get the same control?

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by Clayton white guy

It is the "alcohol everywhere all the time" crowd that is "imposing" their views on everyone.

Are you kidding me? Please tell me how people drinking at a bar in a restaurant forces you to imbibe. My dad always orders a beer when we go out to eat. Doesn't mean that anyone else at the table has to drink. Fast food places don't serve alcohol despite larger restaurants serving. It's far from alcohol everywhere and far from forcing everyone to drink or even show slight approval in drinking culture. It doesn't change a thing.

It's really simple. One viewpoint allows people to order or not order alcohol when they choose. The other forces everyone to not order alcohol at a certain time. One viewpoint allows people a choice. The other has already made the choice for people.

[Clayton white guy]

Again, I said compromise, not Theocracy. Thank you enlightening me with your view on this free and open forum in the good ole' United States of America. ;0)

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Clayton white guy

Many people do not consider a restaurant full people drinking "bottomless" cocktails very family friendly. You, however, did not answer my question. I asked why it was so important to you. Is your answer, "It is an expression of my freedom as an alcohol loving American to drink everywhere I go"? Is it, "I love the German, French and Italian culture an the tradition of imbibing alcohol at every meal"? Is it, "I have an Epicurean pallet and must have the correct wine pairing for each bite of food I take a'la Downton Abbey"? or is it more sarcastic, "I am glad that people who feel uncomfortable being around people drinking alcohol after Sunday service have limited places to take their families; I feel like I am really sticking it to them after decades of Blue laws in Georgia"? Perhaps more benign, "I have no personal objection to alcohol consumption, therefor people with other beliefs should just get over it." I have gotten over it, it is just that I long for simpler times, such a brief time ago, when Sundays felt more special. I am glad that my wife is a good cook. ;0)

Ummm, are you under the impression that everyone who has some mimosas with brunch becomes loud, obnoxious, drunks that are not family-friendly? If so, you have very, very limited (or more likely, NO) experience with the average consumer.

Originally Posted by Clayton white guy

Still no answer to my question; I guess I will not get one.

It's been given several times. You just choose to ignore it. The reason many people don't want to have your religion controlling when they can have a drink is that there's simply no reason for it outside of your chosen religion.

I have given you my view. One-seventh of a week is not too much to ask in a democratic republic where we have majority rule with minority rights. To me, it was a compromise of sorts. A compromise is where both sides get some of what they want.

And you get some of what you want. You don't have to drink alcohol. I'd like to have sex in public. Will you agree to one day a week where people can have sex in public? I mean, it's a compromise after all. I'll only do it on the specified day. You have the constitution backing you in being able to practice your choice of religion at any time or place you choose, and I'd bet you'd be pretty damn angry if someone asked you not to do it on Wednedays, because, after, all it's only one day.

Should Jewish rules be able to determine how a restaurant can cook or serve food? Should pork be banished from everyone because it's against the Muslim religion to eat it? Maybe we should just ban all alcohol and coffee because Mormons don't like it.

It is the "alcohol everywhere all the time" crowd that is "imposing" their views on everyone.

Uh, no, it's not. What I do on my own time, as long as it's legal or doesn't affect anyone else, is entirely up to me. Me having a beer does not affect you in ANY way, other than your feelings. Nothing about me having the right to a beer changes the way that you can act by your own free will. However, you are saying that you want to limit what other people are allowed to do. THAT, pal, is imposing views. Not the other way around.

Nothing about this is imposing anything on you whatsoever, unless you actually feel uncomfortable around someone just enjoying a cocktail. And that is on you, not them. Someone else might feel uncomfortable with you or someone with you wearing a cross around their neck. What do you say to that? Would you agree to not wear it since others can possibly be upset by it? I doubt it.

Also, what do you mean by, "pushback"? This is an open forum, a marketplace of ideas. It is the purpose of this forum to discuss. Push back? That would indicate that you want this forum to be a vehicle for one viewpoint rather than an avenue for understanding of different points of view. This is an open forum, do you wish to silence opposing voices like a modern day virtual Stalin? The grand thing about America is everyone is allowed to have and voice their own opinions. I do not consider your comments, "pushback", I consider them a lively discussion that is part of what makes America great!

Well, when you advocate for limiting rights of others based on a specific viewpoint, you're going to get "pushback" against that. You seem to think that everyone should agree with your view. And when they don't, you are, get this...pushing back.

So, we should ask this question: why is your religion so important to you? Why can't you just not practice it sometimes?

[Clayton white guy]

Once again, the "push back" comment. Is that your lexicon for discussing items on an open forum? What do you mean by, "push back"? Is this your word for stating your views? Perhaps choose different wording than seems less aggressive and narrow minded. Stating my opinion on an open forum is not, "shoving my views down your throat." Pretending that your views on things on the only valid ones do. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your tone, if so I apologize. I will also pray that the Holy Spirit will lead you to new understanding of my world view which many of you do not seem to even want to hear.

[arjay57]

I am okay with this either way but if somebody has got to have a drink before noon on Sunday passing another law is not going to help them.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Clayton white guy

Once again, the "push back" comment. Is that your lexicon for discussing items on an open forum? What do you mean by, "push back"? Is this your word for stating your views? Perhaps choose different wording than seems less aggressive and narrow minded. Stating my opinion on an open forum is not, "shoving my views down your throat."

You don't seem to be answering anyone else's questions either. I asked you several and you didn't answer any of them. And it would really be nice if you would quote who you are responding to so the rest of us could understand.

And I'm sorry that you don't understand what "pushback" is. Essentially, you try to control someone else, they will push back. But, since you want it "less aggressive", how about "when you try to control someone else, they will kindly and politely request that you refrain from practicing such methods."

And people having drinks is not imposing or shoving anything on you, now, is it?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

And people having drinks is not imposing or shoving anything on you, now, is it?

You know they are doing it but you have to sit there and act like it's okay with you.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by arjay57

You know they are doing it but you have to sit there and act like it's okay with you.

And how is that different from any number of thousands of things?

I'm not okay with people who can't use "you're" and "your" correctly or use an apostrophe in their plurals, but you don't see me trying to regulate them. I may never want to hear religious talk at all (that is not true of myself), but I'm not going to regulate against it. I may not like the color of your house, but unless we live under an HOA, what should I do about it? I don't like redneck accents, so maybe those people just shouldn't talk. Where does it end?

Of course, you may be agreeing with me again...I don't know...