|
Comments Please email us with you comments and questions, we will post them along with an appropriate response. You can email use @ info@johnscreekga.com
Note that this comment is the second in a series with a Johns Creek resident. To see the first email go to the next comment and response: Absoluteley this store should be regulated just like drugs, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, etc. But vegetarians and vegans aren’t screaming that their local Kroger or Publix not be allowed to operate because the sell meat of all kinds. They have their own arguments about the poor effects on health from meat, or “Exposure to” as you put it. You’re cause is no different. And, The Love Shack IS in fact government regulated by not allowing under 21 patrons. Once inside, it’s up to us as individuals to decide where we should go with our purchases. Don’t buy meat at Publix if you’re a vegetarian. But let anyone who doesn’t care about colon cancer or whatever buy meat In your email you say that “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.” I then ask you why are you judging me and my protesting of the Love Shack? If you tell me that I have no right to judge the Love Shack and the impacts of porn, then you have no right to judge me. You telling me that I can’t judge others is a judgment of me, which under you logic is not allowed. We both don’t like the store. The difference is that you are willing to live with it and I am willing to do anything that is legal, ethical, moral and logical to try and get the Love Shack to close at its current location. No matter what evidence I show you that porn has many impacts on our community, you are not convinced. Therefore I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Comment (in Black) and Response (in Red): Source: Just Harmless Fun? – section: Subsequent Research (page 7): www.protectkids.com/effects/justharmlessfun.pdf Of course people are to blame for the problems in the world, but we as a society have a right to protect ourselves from material that has been shown to be harmful. This is why we regulate things like drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. In the same way, we can and must regulate porn. Courts have held that local governments have the right to regulate adult entertainment due to a whole host of “secondary impacts”. Local governments can and do regulate adult businesses all over the county. In addition, obscenity and “adult toys/devices” do not have first amendment protection and can be strictly regulated and or prohibited. As for the causes I choose to take on, I have the right as an American to protest any business or activity as long as I do not break any laws in the process. The first amendment gives me the right to speak out against the Love Shack. There are many others who take it upon themselves to protest certain businesses (i.e. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, GM, Coke, etc.). They have the right to tell others not to shop there. People can then choose to listen to or to not listen, but we have the right to share our point of view. I am not stopping anyone from going into the Love Shack so what is the problem. Who gives you the right to tell me what I can and can’t protest. Why are you trying to deny me my first amendment rights to protest. If you don’t like my site then you are free not to visit it. As for the Love Shack, it is much more than “marital aids”. Even after Mr. Cornetta reduced his “adult” inventory to meet Judge Thrash’s order, there was still over 3,600 adult items in the store. Any rational person would have to say that the Love Shack is in the adult entertainment business. Here is a quote from the January 3, 2007 AJC article: “Although the store had replaced much of its adult merchandise with items such as cheap purses, scarves and comic books, Thrash said the 2,000 adult videos and 1,650 sex toys still in the store was a significant amount, regardless of the total inventory.” I am not the one who will decide if this business exists or not at its current location. This will be up to the federal judges and how well the city of Johns Creek can defend their adult entertainment regulations. This is actually a zoning issue and not a first amendment issue. There are no first amendment rights being violated. Both Fulton County and Johns Creek have held that this is a land use/zoning case. Mr. Cornetta has not sued the county over any first amendment issues. He only asked that the courts order Fulton County to issue him a regular business license, as opposed to an adult business license. He did this because he knows he could not get an adult license at the current place he is located. Adult businesses belong in places that are zoned for them not a few hundred feet from people’s houses. The county and city have said from the start that if Mr. Cornetta applied for a store in an industrial zone they would have given him an adult business license. The only reason that this has become a legal issue is because Mr. Cornetta refuses to comply with zoning regulations. The fact that the store is restricted to over 18 years of age indicates that even Mr. Cornetta understands that it is an adult business. The Supreme Court has ruled that governments can regulate time, place and manner of adult businesses due to secondary impacts. This is not a first amendment issue, but a zoning issue. We have rules about how close a liquor store or bar can locate near schools. I don’t hear anyone saying that this is a first amendment issue. If a massage parlor opened across the street from your house would you be willing to give them their “first amendment rights” or would you want them shut down due to incompatible zoning? Are you willing to allow the Love Shack to open across the street from your house? If Mr. Cornetta thinks that having the Love Shack a few hundred feet from other people’s house is okay (with the one way in and out that goes right by the Love Shack), why doesn’t he move into the development right next to the Love Shack? Instead he lives in a gated community isolated from the impacts of his adult business. Judge Thrash has already ruled that the Love Shack was operating as an illegal adult business and that Fulton County was correct in not granting him a regular business license. As for being called a “religious zealot”, who are you to judge me. You don’t even know my religious background and you would be surprised if you actually found out. There are people from all religious backgrounds (including atheists) who believe than porn is harmful to our society. Please check out the site www.nopornnorthampton.org. It was started by a secular Jewish man in Massachusetts (a real hotbed for “religious zealots”!!!). On that site you will see articles from all different perspectives. The site lists Senator Barney Frank (D-Mass) as someone who supports regulation of adult businesses. Have a good day, and a more understanding tomorrow. i don’t know about weekly prayer walks but i will help boycott and demonstrate in front of this business. let me know what the schedule is. thanks. Wayne K. 770 xxx xxxx Response Comment Thanks for all of your positive work so far. One of the points was to contact the landlord. I believe it is the Korean gentlemen who own DC Beverage. It would be helpful to know their website, so we can shower him with our prayers and concerns. Although most of the folks who are opposed to LoveShack probably don’t patronize a liquor store, those who do, can vote with their pocketbooks and visit other liquor stores in the area. Rich D. Response As far as I can tell, the owners last name is “Kim”. DC Beverage website – Click on “Special Order” and let them know your concerns. Recent Fulton County Zoning Action Hi, You sent this out to the_____ discussion group. Can we share this website with non-homeschooling friends or is this just to be kept within _____? thanks so much for taking this time to do this. I left the meeting discouraged Thursday night> Thanks again, Response |
Please pass the information on. The owner of the “Love Shack” would love nothing better than for us all to get discouraged. His comments are meant to scare, intimiate and make us think that we are defeated before the battle has started. Please join us for our weekly prayer walks on Friday nights at 7 PM.
Comment
Recent questions have arisen as to what if anything can be legally done to prevent the opening of an “adult book store” in our community. The answer to this question is not surprisingly dependent upon the resolve of the citizenry, but is also ironically largely dependent upon the moral values we hold as a community. While those who pedal pornography have effectively convinced many disapproving citizens that their opposition to pornographic material is a prudish and hypocritical affront to the First Amendment, a common sense evaluation of the law shows that this is nothing more than a strategic public relations attempt to equivocate pornography with free speech thereby making it less offensive or obscene. This shift in public opinion is ironically a critical element a successful legal claim to First Amendment protection. While the United State Supreme Court has a stalwart tradition of protecting free speech no matter how offensive, it has clearly permitted some restrictions of obscene material.
In the 1973 ruling Miller v California Supreme Court Justice Berger opined that
“the protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people, but the public portrayal of hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain, is a different matter.”
The Miller decision further dictated that
“this much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. We acknowledge, however, the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of _expression. State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited. As a result, we now confine the permissible scope of such regulation to works which depict or describe sexual conduct. That conduct must be specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed. A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Thus, the success of pornographers’ claims to First Amendment protection rests precariously on the contemporary standards of the average person in the community which they desire to purvey their product and their ability to make their products less prurient, less offensive, or less devoid of literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to society. The power to permit or restrict such materials squarely rests with standard of decency we choose to adopt. As opined by Justice Scalia in the 2004 decision City of Littleton CO vs Z.J. Gifts
“The Constitution does not require a State or municipality to permit a business that intentionally specializes in, and holds itself forth to the public as specializing in, performance or portrayal of sex acts, sexual organs in a state of arousal, or live human nudity.”
In the 1957 decision Roth v the United States Justice Warren opined that
“the defendants in both these cases were engaged in the business of purveying textual or graphic matter openly advertised to appeal to the erotic interest of their customers. They were plainly engaged in the commercial exploitation of the morbid and shameful craving for materials with prurient effect. I believe that the State and Federal Governments can constitutionally punish such conduct. That is all that these cases present to us, and that is all we need to decide.“ Thus the contention that just because a store stocks less than 25% adult material that it is not subject to regulation is an erronous one. The zoning laws are meant to regulate certain types of commerce. Specifically the adult zoning laws have been put in place to regulate the sale and distribution of adult realted materials. In this respect the 25% requirement is a loophole and the “adult establishment” will engender First Amendment protection. This being said, nothing in the law requires that a community permit the dissemination of obscene material because obscene material is not protected under the First Amendment (see Miller v California 1973 and Roth v US 1957). This is specifically prohibited under Georgia law in OCGA 16-12-80.
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=16-12-80
O.C.G.A. 16-12-80 Material is considered obscene under Georgia law if
(1) To the average person, applying contemporary community standards, taken as a whole, it predominantly appeals to the prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
(2) The material taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; and
(3) The material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of this paragraph:
(A) Acts of sexual intercourse, heterosexual or homosexual, normal or perverted, actual or simulated;
(B) Acts of masturbation;
(C) Acts involving excretory functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals;
(D) Acts of bestiality or the fondling of sex organs of animals; or
(E) Sexual acts of flagellation, torture, or other violence indicating a sadomasochistic sexual relationship.
As for the AJC’s contention that the state’s obcenity law has been found unconstitutional, this is not entriely accurate. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 found that OCGA 16-12-80 was only unconstitutional where it prevented the advertising of sexual devices to those who were entitled to possess them. This ruling is the result of ambiguous wording of an exemption clause in the code. The code asserts that it is not unlawful to disseminate obscene material to certain people such as people who have authorization from a medical professional or individuals pursuing a course of study at an institution of higher learning in which the material would be relevant. (See This That and the Other v Cobb County 2002,2006) This ruling should have little impact on the ability of government to prevent the sale of obscene material to the general public.
We must draw a distinction between adult material and obscene material becuase one may have some protection under the First Amendment and the other clearly does not. Thus while we should definitely impose zoning restrictions on adult buisness we should also enforce the existing obscenity laws and prevent the distribution of obscene material.
Thus the question of whether we can be successful in preventing the sale of pornographic material in our community is not entirely a matter of law but is largely a referendum on our hearts, and our values, and our ultimate standard of decency. This fight is not for the uncommitted or the wavering few who merely find pornography a public annoyance, but for those whose steadfast character convicts them with moral clarity that such material is an attack on the better virtues and an affront to the common sensibilities of man. It is for such a group of people whose character is clearly defined that the outcome of a such fight is not at issue nor the unity of community behind them; the conflict itself is an inevitable product of the depth of their conviction. We must remember that not to fight is to surrender a part of our identity.
Chris T
P.S. I am not a lawyer,but play one on the web.
Response
Thanks for the great information. Please keep it coming!!!
July 6, 2007 at 11:21 am
Facts are always irrelevant when one is attempting to force their personal agenda on others, but here they are:
1. How many liquor stores are in Johns Creek?
2. How many drunk drivers are there in Johns Creek?
3. How many violent crimes due to alcohol are in Johns Creek?
4. How many families suffer due to alcohol in Johns Creek?
Is that okay? Do we turn a blind eye to real problems that cause harm and death? It is legal to buy alcohol, it is legal to buy guns, and it is legal to enjoy yourself sexually.
I can see your point as to how dangerous sex can be.
July 6, 2007 at 4:35 pm
THank you for you comment. In light of the dangers of alcohol, I am sure you can get your buddy Mr. Cornetta to not serve alcohol at his new restaurant in Johns Creek.
In fact maybe all adult businesses can do the responsible thing and stop serving alcohol due to the dangers.
Fat chance!!!
July 10, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Rather catty comment. I’d advise them to ask their community representative or church about helping to educate the community about alcohol. Think proactive not reactive.
July 11, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought this was a site protesting an Adult Store, but this is a site protesting John Cornetta. What I should have said was: The amount of time spent worrying about this subject could be better spent helping those in real physical dangers.
July 11, 2007 at 11:22 pm
This website is about protesting an Adult Store that is located in a location that is not zoned for adult businesses.
You were the one to bring up the dangers of alcohol. If you have problem with the number of places you can get alcohol in Johns Creek than you can protest that.
We are free to pick which issues to be vocal on. I choose to be vocal against the Love Shack. This does not mean I think that alcohol is without its problems, but this is not an issue I choose to be vocal about at this time.
The fact is that you are making these claims about the dangers of alcohol to put down my protests of the Love Shack. My point is that the same person who owns the Love Shack also wants to sell alcohol, which you find very dangerous.
Another interesting thing is that Mr. Cornetta would not open his restaurant until he had his alcohol permit.
July 12, 2007 at 3:17 pm
LOL. I was calling YOUR (blog master) comment catty. Then I gave what I believe to be sound advice for someone with concerns about alcohol. ‘Tis all. But I digress…this is about the Love Shack.
July 12, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Dear Cutie827:
Do you really believe that these type of comments are made out of concern about alcohol?
The reality is that these comments are a diversion from Love Shack issue. My comments regarding Mr. Cornetta were made to show that the pro porn folks are not really concerned about the problems of alcohol. If they were concerned where is the protest against Mr. Cornetta’s new restaurant/sports bar?
July 12, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Yeah, so? Shrug it off; why get your feathers ruffled? Being reactive & catty shows weakness. sorry, debate team days.
July 13, 2007 at 6:03 am
How is showing the true nature of their comment being reactive and catty?
If they were truly concerned about the dangers of alcohol, there are many resources on and off line that they could contact.
July 17, 2007 at 10:11 pm
You write:
“Another interesting thing is that Mr. Cornetta would not open his restaurant until he had his alcohol permit.”
The fact of the matter is he’s got the permit and he’s YET to open. So how could you factually state that the latter WAS contingent on the former when the latter hasn’t EVEN happened yet? Where did you get that gem?
Most restaurants tend to get all ducks in a row before opening. Is that so odd? Alcohol is a ridiculously high profit commodity.
July 18, 2007 at 6:06 am
Please check out this quote from the February 1, 2007 Johns Creek Herald:
“I could open tomorrow if I had a liquor license. The plates are there. We just need one more coat of varnish on the bar, which we held off on because this thing has been stagnate,” said Cornetta.
July 18, 2007 at 12:27 pm
He said that in February! Though I do see your point…
For a nice after-work-chill-out-sports-bar-lounge or whatever it’s going to be, a stocked and available bar means major income. It’s a business, after all.
Eh. Still. He’s got it and he isn’t open – so he must not have been solely awaiting that to open his doors.
July 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm
My assumption is what Mr. Cornetta meant is that he was waiting on the alochol license to do the rest of what is necessary to open. For example, he would need to hire staff. Since he would not want to pay staff to not serve alcohol, he probably would not go through the process of hiring staff until he got the license.
Therefore even with the alcohol license he would still not open the next day (or week), but he would not open until he got the license.
I know that “ripfinger” was upset that I would make an issue with the Love Shack when alcohol is “much more dangerous”. I did I little bit of research on deaths due to alcohol and found out that it is the 3rd leading cause of preventable deaths, behind Tobacco and poor diet.
Tobacco causes approximately 5 times more deaths per year than alcohol(435,000 versus 85,000). Where is “ripfinger”’s outrage at places that sell tobacco and related products. Again if he was outraged he could protest the Love Shack, which has a whole section that sells tobacco related products (The Burn Smoke Shop).
Note: This will be the last post on alcohol/tobacco since it is way off topic. As you may recall, the topic of this blog is the Johns Creek Love Shack and why it should not be allowed to stay open in a location not zoned for adult business.