Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal

[xoxoxoBruce]

What happens around here is a chunk of land will become available and developers bid huge sums for them. Then they break it up into building lots which they sell, or more likely build houses on and sell. In the process of breaking up the land into individual building lots, they include covenants (rules) in the deeds, that strictly limit the buyer... and all future buyers.

An individual can't out bid them, so you have to look for a single lot for sale, or a house that doesn't have any covenants in the deed. That makes it very hard to buy a newer house.

Even if you find a lot or house that isn't restricted by covenants, the taxing authority still has zoning restrictions unless you move pretty far out into the sticks. My brother is in the process of buying 653 acres in Massachusetts and building a race track. The hoops and hurdles with federal, state and local laws are daunting. Wetlands, environmental impact, traffic studies, noise abatement, impervious surface, storm runoff, emergency services access, etc, etc, etc.

[Ibby]

So, Rkzenrage...

People are completely and utterly free to do absolutely whatever they want with their property... unless it inconveniences you?

You can't have it both ways.

You are really too dim to see the difference between a business and a home?
Have I once stated that private homes should all be accessable?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You are really too dim to see the difference between a business and a home?
...

This is your style of posting that people object to.

[Ibby]

No, but you have repeatedly stated that property is property. And I also recall you being extremely opposed to a government-mandated smoking ban in restaurants/clubs/bars, because the establishment is private property.
You can't have it both ways, dude, seriously. Either the government has NO business telling you what you can and can't, must or mustn't do with your property, or they have some business. How much business they have telling you what to do is debatable of course, but it's a fairly simple black-or-white, they can or they can't situation.

[Ibby]

It was just a question.
Anyone who takes that out of context to not be a question must be an idiot.
Offended by a question? LOL!!!

That was my thought exactly.

Originally Posted by Ibram

No, but you have repeatedly stated that property is property. And I also recall you being extremely opposed to a government-mandated smoking ban in restaurants/clubs/bars, because the establishment is private property.
You can't have it both ways, dude, seriously. Either the government has NO business telling you what you can and can't, must or mustn't do with your property, or they have some business. How much business they have telling you what to do is debatable of course, but it's a fairly simple black-or-white, they can or they can't situation.

However, I would never say that a business could say that a specific group of people cannot come into their business and smoke.
If you are ok with Jim Crow laws fine.
I am not.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

However, I would never say that a business could say that a specific group of people cannot come into their business and smoke.

What is they said a certain group of people were not allowed to come in there and breathe? People with respiratory problems, or "disabled lungs" if that terminology makes them more deserving. The smokers would be in there eating hotdogs, and blithely smoking away, while the discriminated-against "weaklings with sissy lungs" were outside duct-taping photoshopped signs to the window. Who would we root for?

What is they said a certain group of people were not allowed to come in there and breathe? People with respiratory problems, or "disabled lungs" if that terminology makes them more deserving. The smokers would be in there eating hotdogs, and blithely smoking away, while the discriminated-against "weaklings with sissy lungs" were outside duct-taping photoshopped signs to the window. Who would we root for?

They can CHOOSE to come in or not. Same as they do with scented candle shops, BBQ restaurants, fragrance departments, the area of some hardware stores where they cut wood, tobacco shops, a shop where they fire pottery... get it yet?
How can this confuse you?

[Flint]

They can CHOOSE to go somewhere that might be harmful to their health. Not much of a choice for them. By that same token, you could CHOOSE to throw yourself out of your wheelchair and drag your ass into the hotdog shop. Not a great choice for you, either. Both cases could be prohibitively harmful. What's the difference?

How can this confuse you?

Because it doesn't make any fucking sense.

Yup, you are confused.

[Flint]

I should sympathize with you, and your condition, but say "fuck everybody else" ... I'm not confused. That's bullshit.

I never said that nor implied it.
That you cannot see that people can choose to, or not to, go to those stores is a point that you choose not to see because it invalidates your point.
If you think smoking should be illegal, then all of EVERY type of business I mentioned should be as well, correct?
That is an insane assertion.
However, at least people have a CHOICE to go to those shops or not.
They are not being INTENTIONALLY excluded.
I could give a fuck if you sympathize with me or not.

[9th Engineer]

You aren't being intentionally excluded, you just aren't being intentionally included.

[Flint]

Someone who would keel over and die in the prescence of tobacco smoke is excluded from entering those businesses. They are excluded by their health condition. Same as you. You don't want to be a selfish prick who only cares about yourself, do you?