The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub Saving America?

wasn't gonna get involved with this but something Slinger said didn't make sense to me. He said that dogs are not allowed in restraunts as a freedom that was taken away (way i phrased it doesn't make sense but you get the idea.) I was not aware of any Federal Law that states that dogs are not allowed in restraunts.

So I did some research and found out
- There are no Federal laws prohibiting dogs at restaurants. The FDA Food Code is a recommendation, not a law. Federal Law requires restaurants to allow service dogs for the handicapped both inside and outside.

- State laws govern the restaurant health codes. Not the Federal Government. Many States incorporate parts of the FDA Food Code into their laws.

- If a state doesn't allow dogs at outdoor restaurants then cities or counties in most states may allow it locally by issuing a variance (exception) to the state code. Cities may implement these variances through an ordinance or simply through the health department. Variances can be allowed for all restaurants or individually.

- Even if allowed by law the final decision is up to the restaurant owner who may choose to allow or not allow dogs.

Not sure if this is actully true but i will investiagte more to discover the truth of these statements ( taken from http://www.dogfriendly.com/server/newsletters/jul06.shtml )

Slinger, read my last post again thoroughly, especially the first sentence. You're drawing the wrong conclusions.

Chaulootz, you're correct that it isn't governed by federal law, and that not all states restrict such things, and that exceptions can be made. That's not exactly the point I was trying to get at though, I guess I never wrapped my point up.

The thing that really bothers me is that we aren't as free in this country as we were intended to be by our forefathers. While the dogs in restaurant ordeal doesn't apply to everyone, why should anyone require "the proper papers" to have their well behaved family dog at their restaurant?

Why should we be required to have papers for a number of things? I'll give some examples, and arguments for both sides so we don't have to argue over them, lol.

Airplane tickets: why are we required to verify our identity when boarding airplanes?

It's intrusive and an invasion of privacy, I don't care to have the government know exactly where I am or where I travel to. On the other hand, this is a good way to make sure criminals don't escape the law.

Setting up a charity: why do I have to set up or go through a not-for-profit organization (or equally qualified organization) to raise money for a charity or cause?

I don't want to pay the government a fee so that I can raise money for my local recreation center or to send financial support to a veterinary clinic that isn't able to save as many pets as need help in their very poor town in South America somewhere. On the other hand, if there were not laws regulating such things, what's to stop me from saying I'm raising money for a good cause then pocketing it?

There are a lot of situations that are similar, or can be looked at in similar ways at least. As it stands now, I have no radical ideas to go changing laws or fighting the man, only a desire to educate people on little freedoms that have been mangled with paperwork. I want a simpler world, I guess.

I think we have way more freedoms than our forefathers intended, I mean, Washington (while he was president) got arrested in... Connecticut I want to say, while riding to deliver some important document on a Sunday. Yeah, he got arrested for not obeying the sabbath. Freedom?

I want to say the document was a veto, and that's why the 10-day rule for a president to submit his veto doesn't count Sundays or something like that, but honestly I'm not 100% sure.

I don't want to get too involved in this, much like Chaulootz, although I have been reading all of your obscenely long posts, but all I wanted to say was that although it may seem like our Forefathers were for all sorts of freedoms, really they'd wig out if they saw the country in the state it was today (because of freedoms, not restrictions implemented; e.g. "What?! Women and Blacks actually VOTE?!")

Why verify our identity when boarding an airplane??? I do believe that is an incredibly bad choice of a situation you are using to try and prove a point in light of recent events...

Your intent is well meant and certainly some of your points are valid... the question is where is the line drawn in trying to impose some sort of law and order to this society vs. having a lawless society with no rules, regulations, or respect. Yes certain personal liberties/freedoms may have to be impinged on for a certain degree of safety i.e. showing a valid id when boarding a plane is one that I am not against.

I guess I am still struggling with your intent Slinger... if it is trying to educate the masses about what is considered lost liberties and freedoms then good luck because again unfortunately the average joe doesn't care. Those that do are informed and often quite polarized one way or another... this nation needs folks to move a little more to the middle...

To address 5050 and Crim, it comes down to property rights.
The basic question is if I own the bar, why do I not have the right to smoke in it, or allow others to smoke in it. Sure, its unhealthy. But its my bar. Not your bar. I am not forcing you to patronize my bar. If you dislike the smoke in my bar, you are more than free to not patronize my bar.

Either our bodies and property belong to ourselves, or they do not. I can see regulating things that may harm others without their consent. I can see regulating public property, for example I think the Govt has every right to eliminate smoking in a Courthouse. Many people may be required to visit the courthouse to do the publics business who dont like smoke. And after all, their taxes helped pay for it.

I'm also all for "truth in labelling", I think intentionally misrepresenting a business or product should be punishable according to the laws governing fraud. But I think having dogs or smoke is fine, as long as the establishment freely states that smoke and dogs are or may be present. Same goes for transfatty acids and all sorts of other unhealthy things.

And to Owain, you made the point Sling made I think- the Govt is elected by the people. Which is why if you really dislike it so much, and think its going down a terrible terrible path, I say its our responsibility- as in those who think so, to get involved.

5050, lets take another example then: Taking your shoes off at the airport. Do you really think that improves security in any meaningfull fashion?

I know we spend alot of time and money. I also know most of the measures in place are mere theatre. People need to learn to be less scared, and we need to spend our time and money more sensibly.

The reason there hasnt been another 9/11 style hijacking is because the terrorists now know that we know what theyre up to. They know that if they try and hijack another plane with boxcutters, we are all going to rise up and beat the shit out of them and crash the plane if necesarry.

It certainly has 0 to do with removing our shoes, or "no-fly" lists, or secret "terror rating" scores accumulated
in secret, or mass investigations of normal citizens.

Owain is absolutely right that it is American society at large that is to blame rather than the government (which the society places in power). In my original post I stated that we live in a bi-polar nation with only two reigning political parties. They are continuously playing tug of war with the nation, when they should be more focused on tackling and succeeding with the issues at hand. Unless a third party or more emerge, there will never really be much of a balance in American politics. My theory is that through balance the truth and fairness can be found; not in polar extremes.