Alarming News

October 29, 2007

Dumbass deeds done dirt cheap

In a move reminiscent of Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol, Utah’s liquor commissioner wants restaurants to hide their alcohol lest anyone get offended:

Liquor control commissioner Bobbie Coray asked her colleagues on Wednesday to consider a rule to cover up bottles of booze displayed at restaurants because some diners may be offended at the sight of alcohol.

A glass partition between bartenders and customers required under current regulations may not be enough, Coray told her fellow liquor control commissioners at their monthly meeting.

Coray, a lone holdout opposing liquor licenses for strip bars, now wants the commission to place more restrictions on glass partitions in restaurants. She called the partitions “a Zion curtain,” imposed to satisfy Mormons whose faith eschews alcohol.

Although the four other commissioners have not supported Coray in her quest to take away liquor licenses from sexually oriented establishments, they did not indicate whether they would back Corey’s bid to keep alcohol out of view.

Glass walls don’t obscure the alcohol, said Coray, a nondrinker, turning the “atmosphere in a restaurant to more of a bar.” She singled out the Cheesecake Factory, which opens its first Utah outlet at Fashion Place in Murray on Nov. 1, because alcohol bottles are in plain view.

“We have a dual responsibility,” she said. “We are to make alcohol available for those who want to consume it and at the same time not make anyone uncomfortable.”

Really? The responsibility of the liquor control commission has become to insure comfort? Because I’m completely uncomfortable with the idea that I have to pay for booze at all. It should be free. Make that happen, Bobbie.

Posted by Karol at 01:21 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Mixed thoughts on this. 62% of the people of Utah belong to a faith that does not drink and I do think states should do their own things and that people of faith do have the right to be active and attempt to have their communities uphold their ideals. Time for a proposition on the November ballott and let the people decide.

Posted by: Von Bek at October 29, 2007 at 5:52 am

I agree with letting states decide their rules but this woman is obviously letting her own personal preferences affect the responsibilities of her government job. Unacceptable.

Posted by: Karol at October 29, 2007 at 6:01 am

“I agree with letting states decide their rules but this woman is obviously letting her own personal preferences affect the responsibilities of her government job. Unacceptable.”
You mean like every member of the Bush Administration who has anything to do with family planning?

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at October 29, 2007 at 9:09 am

Taxation makes me feel uncomfortable.
Can they hide the tax collectors ?
Better yet, when I go to the grocery store and see welfare queens whipping out their food stamps, it reminds me that I’m paying for it—and that makes me feel uncomfortable.
The legislature needs to ‘do something’ to alleviate my feelings of discomfort !

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at October 29, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Von Bek, did you ever hear of private property?
The beauty of private property rights is that it defines a boundary where the other person doesn’t have to please your every sensibility, because you have no right to tell him what to do or say. If you don’t like what a restaurant serves, don’t go there. It’s really quite simple. If you’re Mormon and the sight of a Chivas label makes you want to regurgitate your green Jell-O (a joke Utahns and ex-Utah residents will understand), perhaps you need to stick to McDonalds.
People need to stop being goddamn busybodies with everyone else’s lives, especially uptight “Christians” who point out the specks in others’ eyes but ignore the beams in their own.
Disclosure: I’m an independent Christian (baptized Catholic, rebaptized Baptist, and disgusted with the political BS most Christian denominations get into). And I lived in Utah for 14 years.
Oh, I should add that because of private property rights, I support the Muslim cabbies refusing to transport people with alcohol. I also support their right not to earn fares, and for their competitors to earn those fares. The perfect thing to do in a true free market situation is for a passenger boycott to hit the Muslim cabbies in their wallets. A passenger can ask, “Are you Muslim?” If the cabbie answers yes, the passenger should then say, “Screw you, I’m getting out,” and find another cab.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 29, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Everybody brings their personal preferences to their job. My question is about the charter of her position based on Utah state law. She may be doing her job as she sees it.

Posted by: Eric at October 29, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Perry,
You’re absolutely right about private property, liquor bottles in Utah, etc.
However, the problem with your argument about the ‘free market’ in regards to the Muslim cabbies at the Minneapolis public airport is that it is uniquely NOT a free market.
Indeed, from what I understand, the state/city authorizes operating licenses for cabs.
Since the cab companies have an operating ‘contract’ with the city & state, they must abide by the non-discrimination laws.
In fact, when they apply for the license, they agree to abide by the laws.

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at October 29, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Eric, being “the law” does not make something right. Segregation was the law in many places for a long time. When we were colonies, it was against the law (treason, specifically) not to support the king. So when you say “She may be doing her job as she sees it,” that’s just a nicer form of the Nuremberg defense.
BadBoy, that’s just the thing, and in fact I expected someone to bring up what you did. The very problem is that government requires licenses in the first place. But because it does, it exerts control and therefore usurps the authority (giving itself a “right”) to require people to serve others against their beliefs. Similarly, we complain about public schools teaching our children being taught things contrary to our personal beliefs. That wouldn’t happen if our children weren’t forced to go to public schools, which we tolerate because of the tax money we shell out anyway for the schools.
Time after time, the problem is never with the free market, only the government that interferes.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 29, 2007 at 7:59 pm

“I agree with letting states decide their rules but this woman is obviously letting her own personal preferences affect the responsibilities of her government job. Unacceptable.”
As opposed to the mayor of NYC in taking on the Brooklyn musuem….the sex shops….etc. ? As opposed to Honest Abe who had a different take on what the territories could do with property than oh I dont know, Justice Taney and the Supreme Court of the US ? Is a politician supposed to leave all moral sense at home ?
I agree with Perry that property is under attack and too much power has been taken over by the SCOTUS and the feds. I believe the best way to fight against leviathin is self determination and local rule. Is it perfect? No. But I don’t think the golden calf of the market has all the answers either; the market may be better than the government but it is far from perfect or even good. Just turn on the tv sometime and with it with the kids.

Posted by: Von Bek at October 29, 2007 at 9:10 pm

The problem with “morality” is that it’s subjective. On the other hand, unalienable rights are not: life, liberty and property have clearly defined meanings and are not subject to interpretation.
No one is arguing that markets are perfect. In fact, it’s Austrian economics that explains how information works in markets, and the market forces we’re familiar with stem from the imperfections. Yet no matter how incomplete or “laggy” the information is, it’s still better than a politician setting himself above everyone else, and using law as a weapon to make us conform to his opinions.
If we don’t like what’s on the channel, we can change it, or be careful when we turn the TV on. I don’t have children yet, but close enough: my mother moved in with me several years ago after my father died. She’s very old-fashioned and needs baby-sitting as if she were 5. She’ll flip through channels and shudder at some gore scene, or as once happened, “Real Sex” on HBO. The first solution worked simply enough: I told her to always go first to the TV listings channel, instead of surfing. If that hadn’t worked, I’d have instituted parental controls. I’ve never needed some damn hypocrite commissioner or legislator to tell me what to do, or how to do it.
A lot of self-professed “Christians” claim that certain types of companies are “poisoning” America by “pushing filth” on us, but the fact is that consumer demand drives markets. The free market never forces anyone to buy anything. If people didn’t want provocative publications, movies or TV programming, that media wouldn’t be offered. The media is offered in the first place because entrepreneurs believed there would be a demand for those products. Perhaps not existing, but it would exist once people were aware of the products being offered.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 30, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Post a comment