Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After all...corporations are people too. At least according to the Supreme Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by US downhill
I think that is over simplifying the situation. These people chose this area to live for specific reasons and have invested their lives and money to do so, if they take a vote and the majority say no that should be the end of it. Why should any business have the right to override that? What is democratic about a business forcing it's way into an area where the population doesn't want it? For them it will be the begining of the end, it will open the door to more and more commercialization. Which may destroy all that they have wanted and worked for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
i generally like the idea of people voting for what they want. however, our laws are also created in order to protect individual rights from the majority. thats why congress isnt supposed to pass laws that are unconstitional. should a group of voters be allowed to say that mcdonalds cant open but joe outback restaurant can? should voters be able to take away mcdonalds rights because they are an evil chain restaurant?
i generally like the idea of people voting for what they want. however, our laws are also created in order to protect individual rights from the majority. thats why congress isnt supposed to pass laws that are unconstitional. should a group of voters be allowed to say that mcdonalds cant open but joe outback restaurant can? should voters be able to take away mcdonalds rights because they are an evil chain restaurant?
You have a valid point and I'm inclined to immediately say yes because I look at McD's the same way I see the tobacco companies. But putting that aside I'll still say yes, IF the community agrees by a majority that this is what they want in their town than thats the way it should be. I think last year there was kind of* a similar situation in a NJ beach town over selling alcohol, and I'm pretty sure it's still a dry town. * kind of because it was just over selling alcohol, it wasn't against a secific company wanting to move in to sell alcohol.
McDonalds has just as much right to build a restaurant in a town as anyone else. It is the same as trying to keep Wal-Mart out of town. They also have a right to build a store wherever they desire.
OK, you don't like McDonalds. Does that mean you also don't want Taco Bell, Wendy's, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Donato's, or Papa Johns? There is a simple solution to this, patronize your local establishments so the chain outfits dry up and blow away. Guess what, those friends and neighbors of yours will patronize the chain outfits so your local establishments are the ones who dry up and blow away. Fault your local neighbors, not the chain outfits.
You have a valid point and I'm inclined to immediately say yes because I look at McD's the same way I see the tobacco companies. But putting that aside I'll still say yes, IF the community agrees by a majority that this is what they want in their town than thats the way it should be. I think last year there was kind of* a similar situation in a NJ beach town over selling alcohol, and I'm pretty sure it's still a dry town. * kind of because it was just over selling alcohol, it wasn't against a secific company wanting to move in to sell alcohol.
what if a majority of the residents of the town voted that they wont allow black people to own a business within the town?
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 04-04-2013 at 01:13 PM..
what if a majority of the residents of the town voted that they wont allow black people to own a business within the town?
As I said, you have a valid point and a situation like this has so many facets to it we could go on and on. But, each case has it's own unique facet, that has to be judged differently, are you saying race, religion, fast food, huge corporations and porn shops are all equal, have the same rights and should be judged exactly the same way?
As I said, you have a valid point and a situation like this has so many facets to it we could go on and on. But, each case has it's own unique facet, that has to be judged differently, are you saying race, religion, fast food, huge corporations and porn shops are all equal, have the same rights and should be judged exactly the same way?
i think that corporations are just collections of people looking to earn money, just like independent businesses are. if they said that they didnt want to allow any restaurants in that spot; that would be more fair. but i dont really see why the corporate ownership of a business would make it ok to ban while allowing other businesses in the same category to operate.
i think that corporations are just collections of people looking to earn money, just like independent businesses are. if they said that they didnt want to allow any restaurants in that spot; that would be more fair. but i dont really see why the corporate ownership of a business would make it ok to ban while allowing other businesses in the same category to operate.
To me, the difference is corporations are emotionless money making machines, who's sole motivation and purpose is to make money, they represent today's new business morality, and that is, no matter what it is you have to do or have done to make money it's all ok if you made enough in the process. And once they get a toe in the door use their unlimited money,power and resources to get what ever they want. To me it's like putting a shark in a goldfish pond. So no I cannot agree with your comparison and I ask... You truly see no difference between a family/privately owned farm and Monsanto?
I’ve heard of a number of cities that don’t want or allow specific types of printed materials to be sold within their city limits. Ex. a bookstore can’t sell xxx rated magazines openly to the public. Ex. Walmart will not sell a number of books or magazines that “they” choose to keep off their shelves. Is this a violation of their rights? Or is this a violation of the authors and printers of the books and magazines?
Moving yet to another example of what cities have a right to do in discrimination is: Ex. Sun City AZ is an adult ONLY living community of 55 year olds and up. It is prohibited that someone under that age can live within area of their city limits. It was several years ago when the grandparents of a young grade-schooler had to move because they were the only living relatives of the child and had to take care of them. The city would not allow the child to live permanently within the city. The youth could visit the grandparents and stay overnight at times but could not use that address as a permanent residences.
My point is that cities “can” make laws to prohibit what happens within their communities, even to the point where freedom of speech or prejudices of age are factors.
There are factors within any city that restrict property owners from doing whatever they want. These city codes normally always comply with state and federal laws.
Personally I believe if they don't want a fast food restaurant within the city limits they have a right to do that as long as it does not discriminate against just ONE fast food establishment but all of them.
To me, the difference is corporations are emotionless money making machines, who's sole motivation and purpose is to make money, they represent today's new business morality, and that is, no matter what it is you have to do or have done to make money it's all ok if you made enough in the process. And once they get a toe in the door use their unlimited money,power and resources to get what ever they want. To me it's like putting a shark in a goldfish pond. So no I cannot agree with your comparison and I ask... You truly see no difference between a family/privately owned farm and Monsanto?
you speak in these absolute terms that arent really appropriate. asking me if corporations and people should have EXACTLY the same rights and treatment. then you ask if there is NO DIFFERENCES between a family farm and monsanto. there are many differences. but i dont think you are interested in all the differences, so why not just focus on the ones that you are concerned with? as far as an indepedent business vs corportation; they are both equally emotionless money making machines. they both exist to make their owners money and neither is morally above the other.
Good for them. I wish the same gould be done with Walmart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
