Posted 11 months, 2 days ago in 
3 votes. Average 3.67/5
Loading ...
Concerning the issue of a gentleman’s club, the United States Supreme Court and the lower courts have repeatedly confirmed that government can regulate the activities of these businesses. So long as the restrictions are protective, and not based upon the government’s disagreement with the message conveyed, they are deemed consistent with the First Amendment.
The Grand Junction planning commission was installed by the City Council as those who were competent and knowledgeable. We, the city, trust in and employ the skills, talents, expertise and insight of these commissioners to ensure the codes of our city are followed accurately. They study the code and its applications to be sure they fairly apply the codes. They have twice looked at this issue and found it to be incompatible with the goals stated in our city code. Why would we question these experts? Didn’t we place them in this position for just this purpose?
It is interesting to note that there has been a turnover of commissioners since the first hearing and the new commissioners still came to the same conclusion. Doesn’t that lead you to believe they made the right choice?
I will not go deep into all the facts they used to come to their conclusion, such as traffic issues, increased cost to the city for police patrols, or whether this is the best possible use for valuable industrial land. What I will say is that they listened to the evidence and made their choice based on the facts. Isn’t that what they were to do?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in rendering judgment in “?The City of Erie vs. Pap’s a.m.” stated: “The traditional power of government to foster good morals, and the acceptability of the traditional judgment that nude public dancing itself is immoral, have not been repealed by the First Amendment.”
Isn’t it time to put this thing to rest once and for all? Isn’t hearing this at the planning commission level twice enough? City Council, Please, make a stand and do what is right for the future of this community and stop this business. Remember, there is no right way to do the wrong thing!
MIKE MACFARLANE
Grand Junction
2 Responses to “City has right to refuse strip club”
Posted December 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. McFarlane apparently does not wish to recognize the limits of government, and most probably because, in this instance, it suits his purpose.
The government is entitled to act, based upon a single criteria. And that is when such activity is potentially harmful to another. And, because either “I” or Mr. McFarlane doesn’t “like it”, for whatever reason, is not sufficient cause to either grant the government the right to act. Some things may be either uncomfortable, or downright unpleasant at times, but that is not sufficient cause.
I am very much afraid that the rationale which Mr. McFarlane uses is little more than an attempt to move beyond social engineering, to actually an attempt to “engineer the individual.”
Posted December 27th, 2008 at 11:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres I do believe that you will argue with God when your time comes. (:
Anyway, I am wondering why people are now referring to the proposed strip club as a gentleman’s club. Somehow I believe who you will find frequenting this establishment, if it were to be approved, is anything but gentleman.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.