Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Ubuntu webserver permission issue||
|World of Warcraft Thread||
|BSOD while playing games ( hal.dll +f768)||
|How do you feel about the Ribbon UI?||
|Symantec says antivirus software 'is dead'||
Posted 10 July 2012 - 22:24
Posted 11 July 2012 - 00:40
Posted 11 July 2012 - 00:42
Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:40
Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:41
And if something were to happen, and a ******** of people got killed, their relatives would want to sue the sate saying it "Should have done something". So they did.
That's just too much government regulation for me.
Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:45
Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:45
Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:48
Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:00
You cheer for the city's law? Probably you won't be when one day you find out you have to apply for permit just for party with more than 5 person.
Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:08
I'm sure it won't be long before the usual suspects come out saying they're being persecuted just for being Christians, but it seems to me they simply seem to be part of the growing trend of people that think religious faith should grant people dispensation to break the law. If you want to host religious gatherings file the paperwork and do it legally.
Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:15
Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:47
He holds services three times per week... in a building permitted only for residential use. This is an issue of safety and 67 code violations.
If he wants a church, get the permits and build a church. If a pastor is holding service in a 2000 square foot building because he can't fit the people in his living room... that's a church.
If there was a fire and people died, people could have sued the city for knowingly allowing this to continue.
Posted 11 July 2012 - 04:16
If that's the case, then I'm gonna put up some skyscraprs right beside your cottage..
I think the even bigger issue is the sheer disrespect for private property rights and a lack of personal responsibility. If he is the proprietor of the building, there should be no limitations as to what he can do with it so long as no one is being harmed without consent. Secondly, an unrelated third party should not be at fault for failing to violate someone's private property based on a what-if.