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.
HOUSTON — The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that the state’s “pole tax” — a $5-per-customer fee that strip clubs that serve alcohol are required to pay the state — did not violate the clubs’ free-speech rights, overturning a lower court decision that declared the fee unconstitutional. In 2007, state legislators passed the Sexually Oriented Business Fee Act, which imposed the fee on nearly 200 establishments that feature live nude performances and allow the consumption of alcohol. The $5-per-customer entrance fee, which is imposed on the business and not the patron, is intended to raise money for sexual assault prevention programs and health insurance coverage for low-income people.
An Amarillo strip-club owner and the Texas Entertainment Association, which represents many of the state’s topless clubs, sued the state attorney general and comptroller over the fee. A district judge struck down the law in 2008, and an appeals court in 2009 ruled, in part, that the law was a “selective taxation scheme” that singled out nude dancing and a specific class of “First Amendment speakers.”
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the fee was constitutional, declaring it a “minimal restriction” on the businesses and that any establishment seeking to avoid the fee “need only offer nude entertainment without allowing alcohol to be consumed,” Justice Nathan L. Hecht wrote for the court. He wrote that the fee was not intended to suppress expression in nude dancing, but was directed instead at “the secondary effects of nude dancing when alcohol is being consumed.”
Stewart Whitehead, a lawyer for the Texas Entertainment Association, said he and his client were considering whether to appeal to the United States Supreme Court or to have the state district court rule on the law’s constitutionality under the Texas Constitution. “We’re obviously disappointed and disagree with the ruling,” Mr. Whitehead said.
A spokesman for Greg Abbott, the state attorney general, called the ruling a victory for both the state and victims of sexual assault. “Thanks to today’s ruling, we are a step closer to freeing up millions of dollars for sexual assault prevention and crime victims’ assistance,” said the spokesman, Jerry Strickland.
Texas lawmakers had expected the fee to initially raise about $44 million, but because many strip clubs have refused to pay it while the case was in the courts, only about $15 million has been generated. The money “will continue to be held in an account pending the final outcome of the legal proceedings,” said a spokesman for Susan Combs, the comptroller.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 27, 2011, on page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: Strip Club ‘Pole Tax’ Is Upheld In Texas.
Scout's honor, I have never visted a strip club and have no plans too. I simply believe in freedoms for all. Freedoms that are not deemed harmful to self and others. But who will do the deeming?
Answer: no one can stop them. But, in practice in most democracies I am aware if, complete tyranny of the majority is not going to happen. I am not aware of any such examples.
I'm quite happy to provide one for you:
Amendment I (Bill of Rights)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Remember the thing called "McCain Feingold?" A very clear violation of said article. Passed by Congress, signed by the President, rubber stamped by SCOTUS. The sad part is that it would appear that at the time the majority was actually against it. No howls of protest from the main stream media...and why would there be in light of the fact that it greatly increased their power base.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Remember the thing called "McCain Feingold?" A very clear violation of said article. Passed by Congress, signed by the President, rubber stamped by SCOTUS. The sad part is that it would appear that at the time the majority was actually against it. No howls of protest from the main stream media...and why would there be in light of the fact that it greatly increased their power base.
I still dont see major changes in the way minorities are negatively impacted. Changes do not happen often because the are difficult to implement as I mentioned earlier.
Like you, I am not too impressed with the media - there are very few good journalists that are hired because of financial pressures.
Now the question I would like to pose to you is, wouldn't this be the same as a democrat saying to a republican "as a democrat, I don't really care if you are a republican until you choose to attempt to impose what you believe into society" ???
While there are many factors that cause someone to side with a political view point, also recognize they change constantly. The republican platform of today vs. the platform that Eisenhower stood for are about as far apart on most issues as you can get. Not going into detail as that is not the point, but for the most part it is not based an ancient superstition that has not changed regardless of the amount of knowledge gained over thousands of years.
Today I would possibly be a republician, or at much least less critical of the party, IF the party still had the values of the republican party that Dwight Eisenhower followed. Today's republican party has primarily been hijacked by the ancient superstition called christianity, and now is being hijacked by the fringe of this that call themselves the tea party.
All the talking points, gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc. boil down to if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, don't approve of abortion, don't have one. Don't believe one should be able to buy beer on Sunday morning, don't buy one on Sunday.
Like Calmdude pointed out, the parties are supposed to be operating under the Constitution and the interpretation there of: Republicans are trying to trump the Constitution with their buy bull. Atheists have no such rule book, and other religions have completely different rule books. Atheists are also the only group not basing decisions on ancient superstition.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Remember the thing called "McCain Feingold?" A very clear violation of said article. Passed by Congress, signed by the President, rubber stamped by SCOTUS. The sad part is that it would appear that at the time the majority was actually against it. No howls of protest from the main stream media...and why would there be in light of the fact that it greatly increased their power base.
If a majority opposed McCain-Feingold, its passage is a bad example of tyranny of the majority.
All it shows, as do many other things, is our representative government doesn't always represent the majority.
[btw, the USSC overturned key parts of M-F last year.]
[snip political diatribe]All the talking points, gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc. boil down to if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, don't approve of abortion, don't have one. Don't believe one should be able to buy beer on Sunday morning, don't buy one on Sunday.[snip political diatribe].
It doesn't matter why someone opposes [or supports] abortion, gay marriage, buying beer on Sunday. They have every right as individuals and organizations to convince legislators of their position. Whether its because of the bible, an ultrasound, science, yuckyness, misogyny, bigotry, brilliance, stupidity, that's America and the Constitution.
It doesn't matter why someone opposes [or supports] abortion, gay marriage, buying beer on Sunday. They have every right as individuals and organizations to convince legislators of their position. Whether its because of the bible, an ultrasound, science, yuckyness, misogyny, bigotry, brilliance, stupidity, that's America and the Constitution.
The Constitution guarantees many freedoms, the actions of these people are attempting to legislate the removal of freedoms and replace them with their own bias, ignorance and hatred............ typically derived and empowered by playing their 'god' card.
Many would have a much different opinion if (when?) muslims want their ancient superstitions imposed unilaterally through law, eliminating the freedoms to say NO!
...and here are a bunch more as constitution is a living document:
You seem to be missing my point. It doesn't matter whether or not the constitution is a living document. My illustration shows that it can easily be ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
I still don't see major changes in the way minorities are negatively impacted. Changes do not happen often because the are difficult to implement as I mentioned earlier.
My point doesn't concern the probability that the constitution will be ignored...merely the reality that it can be. In other words, that it's possible to ignore and override the constitution by a majority fiat, if you will.
You seem to be missing my point. It doesn't matter whether or not the constitution is a living document. My illustration shows that it can easily be ignored.
My point doesn't concern the probability that the constitution will be ignored...merely the reality that it can be. In other words, that it's possible to ignore and override the constitution by a majority fiat, if you will.
My answers about constitutional protection and relatively slow changes etc in relation to OP are already there.
Am not missing any point - just saying we are seriously off-topic now and I see my cows have come home.
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.
