“I’ll go to jail” – Florida Veteran told to remove military flags from restaurant pro

[Oldguy]

"Liberal" or not liberal is NOT the issue.

The issue is why the FUCK should ANY city demand that any proprietor of any business apply for "permit" to fly the colors of any of our services? If he wanted to fly a banner for Pepsi, I can see how that might come within the parameters of regulation of commercial activity.

But he's not advertising or recruiting for any of the armed services. He is HONORING those who have served. And if that's not free speech, then what exactly IS free speech?

We are a nation of laws. I also think this is a stupid law. We don't have to like the laws....but we do sort of have to obey them.

This dude will probably get his way in the end. These things have a way of working themselves out.

We have to obey laws? Does that mean that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to move to the back of the bus? Or does you nation of laws schtick only apply when you like the law?

Rosa chose to break the law and took the penalty without bitching: She was arrested, jailed and fined. You always have the right to break a law if you like, but you've got to take the penalty too or you're just a crybaby throwing a fit.

 

[Oldguy]

We have to obey laws? Does that mean that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to move to the back of the bus? Or does you nation of laws schtick only apply when you like the law?

Watch out! The intellectual powerhouse has issued a brainstorm! Rosa Parks.

Parks was arrested......you imbecile.

Did I say she wasn't, genius? I said that, according to you, she was wrong.

She was wrong legally, but not morally. There is a difference.

 

[Papageorgio]

We are a nation of laws. I also think this is a stupid law. We don't have to like the laws....but we do sort of have to obey them.

This dude will probably get his way in the end. These things have a way of working themselves out.

We have to obey laws? Does that mean that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to move to the back of the bus? Or does you nation of laws schtick only apply when you like the law?

Rosa chose to break the law and took the penalty without bitching: She was arrested, jailed and fined. You always have the right to break a law if you like, but you've got to take the penalty too or you're just a crybaby throwing a fit.

I agree, that is why war protesters, why the occupy protesters and all the other protesters need to remember.

 

[The Professor]

To Eddie Colosimo: Semper Fi, motherfucker. I wish there was some way I could help you.

Note to non-Marines: “Motherfucker” is either an insult or a term of endearment depending on context. In this case it obviously expresses deep respect and admiration.

Here's what frosts my balls: According to the article, Eddie had the right to display the United States Flag, the POW flag and the State flag but not those of the the Service Branches. Don't those motherfucking (insult) idiots who make these rules realize that those who serve in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard make the other flags possible?

Eddie looks a little weathered and perhaps a wee bit frail, but he has a big pair of balls and a warrior's heart. Marines have two mottoes: Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful) and Death Before Dishonor. Eddie talks the talk and walks the walk. I just added his name to my hero's list.

 

[emilynghiem]

We have to obey laws? Does that mean that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to move to the back of the bus? Or does you nation of laws schtick only apply when you like the law?

Your seriously comparing this to rosa parks? Your comparing this to the government, the entire government oppressing an entire race of people to this?

If this is the case, you can compare rosa parks to every law you dont like.

Fuck you.

First off, I was talking to the idiot LoneLaugher, not you.

Second, I did not equate him to Rosa Parks, I pointed out that, according to the guy you are defending, Rosa should have moved to the back of the bus because that is what the law says. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him, not me.

Third, fuck off, asswipe.

Dear QW: First I agree with you about civil obedience, and obeying the laws in order to enforce the laws to correct injustice. You cannot enforce the laws while breaking them yourself.
However, this cannot be done so as to lie down as a doormat and allow the abuse or bullying to continue. The point is STILL to protest and publicize the injustice and push for correction.

Otherwise, civil obedience is taken advantage of to abuse the citizens who are trying to be law-abiding and comply with authority and laws.
The faithful Black Christians in my neighborhood have put up with the City not following Constitutional protections, and just keep respecting authority as some kind of Christian persecution to be accepted as God's will.

Guess what, QW. We've lost nearly all of a national historic district because no one dared sue the City to enforce laws and to police fraud where the City abused authorities and law, yet made it look legal when there were blatant conflicts of interest. It could always be argued that the City was within its authority "unless sued and a Court deems otherwise" because the City is a private municipality and isn't directly under the Constitution like the State and the County. So they take advantage over and over ESPECIALLY with Christians like the African American who do not believe in going against their govt leaders. They would not sue but kept asking nicely, which the City does not respect; they are CERTAINLY not required to follow the same Christian values that the church members follow by asking not suing and respecting free will and consent so as not to go against God's will by demanding anything. Seriously, I heard one of the church leaders speak of not wanting to displease God by making demands of the City and govt, so they keep accepting whatever compromises the City keeps pushing on them!

I am hoping to get this addressed as both an issue of Constitutional exclusion and discrimination/abuse of the residents based on the religious beliefs taken advantage of.

You are right they should follow the laws; but we still have the duty to ask or petition for laws to change so nobody's equal rights are violated and nobody has to violate the law in order to protest. We've lost national history while this conflict goes unresolved.

QW the City even demolished a historic church, and then tried to take the land away from the poor Black congregation by claiming a lien on the demolition they never agreed to since they didn't agree to the demolition to begin with; they were forced under duress to sign things while being told something else. So they were clearly taken advantage.

This is the only historic district in the entire county of churches built by Freed Slaves after the Emancipation, it is a nationally registered site, and this belief in "civil obedience" by obeying authority no matter if they are right or wrong, has cost all but 8 churches left.

Where's the "civil obedience" to enforce Constitutional equal protections of the people and interests in preserving national history? According to a City representative appointed by the mayor, the City has no plans to help the churches preserve the national history because of "separation of church and state." Do you believe in enforcing that interpretation? Not me!
I believe people should be equally protected, not allow the City to abuse authority to bully.

Note: the City also passed and enforced other unconstitutional ordinances and policies that were challenged by citizens, including (a) a red-light camera contract with a private company to make money off shortening the yellow lights to increase revenue through tickets but which was eventually stopped by suing in Court and arguing that it violated due process (b) an ordinance banning individual and smaller charity groups from giving assistance to homeless clients unless the volunteers are part of organizations that meet requirements that only a few nonprofits can meet, thus giving them monopolizing control of all authority and grants for homeless programs, while the smaller and individual religious charities lose equal freedom to reach out to the homeless unless they all incorporate in a big enough group to meet the same requirements of the larger nonprofits pushing this rule.

All this happens because the City is NOT required to follow the Constitution, but is a private municipality similar to a Corporation that has to be sued before they are forced to change.
So if you don't have resources or organization to sue, then you don't have Constitutional rights under such a City administration. And yet the City gets federal funds, they just carefully allocate the funding to places where they can follow laws; and use local funding for areas where they need to bypass federal laws, so they play a legal shell game. Also, although the taxpayers pay for a legal dept and ethics committee, the city attorney advises the ethics committee, and the citizens who pay for the City's legal defense/dept do not have equal legal defense paid for when the citizens bring grievances to the City. It's not equal.

This is why you have unchecked bullying going on, and it's completely justified legally.
You would have to get Constitutional or Christian lawyers to come in to separate the jurisdiction so that nobody has to be under City jurisdiction who does not agree to this.
I've been pushing for change for the longest time, QW, but keep running into complacency because people keep saying this is legal and you just have to obey authority under the law.

I believe in pushing for change by civil obedience, too, but by enforcing Constitutional laws.
Not denying violations of them. This can be changed by mediating and also setting up some policy for mediation or SEPARATION where the City does not impose policies against the beliefs of the citizens where they have to sue to defend themselves, that is NOT equal.
To be equal means you can petition in advance and not pass laws at all without consent.
QW this is not an equal relationship where the City can pass any law before citizens can organize time and money to stop it "after the fact" -- that abuse of law itself is a violation.

At some point someone is going to have to be the Rosa Parks who says I am tired, I want to sit down, and I don't deserve to be bullied around until these unfair laws change.

Well QW I am tired. I work 3 jobs to pay the costs of community groups evicted and excluded by the City to mow down the plans to save national history in our district. I don't believe in violating laws to protest and publicize this injustice but I have considered a hunger strike, provided all the conditions are spelled out in advance where the City, legal community, and parties most responsible for letting abuses and bullying continue have ample time to meet all the demands for reform and corrections, so no one gets hurt.

Instead of civil disobedience to publicize civil rights,
this would be a civil obedience movement to correct civil wrongs.
That is the second half of the storm I believe this country is going through.

Yes, we do need to emphasize civil obedience, but it is not to be a doormat
as even you protest QW. You defend free speech but you would not tolerant a person abusing free speech to say false things to try to discredit the faith. Same here: I also agree with you about obeying the laws and exposing/changing the injustice without violating laws. But that does not mean to sit back and let the bullying and abuse continue to go unchecked.

Thanks QW I hope I do have enough energy to at least tell people to come help before I give up and collapse. This is too much work, and I hope to organize support from all the parties protesting the problems with govt right now, and pull together teams on solutions!

 

[Connery]

We'll have to wait two weeks for the city's special hearing.
In the meantime, the guy will amass over $7,000 in fines.

He will amass these fines because he is obstinate. Should the law be unconstitutional the fines should be waived. He should take the flags down and fight the law.

Dumb law, dumb man.

 

[Zona]

We'll have to wait two weeks for the city's special hearing.
In the meantime, the guy will amass over $7,000 in fines.

He will amass these fines because he is obstinate. Should the law be unconstitutional the fines should be waived. He should take the flags down and fight the law.

Dumb law, dumb man.

 

[emilynghiem]

And where did he and other citizens -- supposedly represented by city officials -- consent to have these flags interpreted as signs that require permits. If laws are not written and passed by consent of the governed, that is like writing a contract and signing someone's name to it. ??? I learned in the eighth grade that Constitutional laws are a social contract between people and government. I must have slept through whatever class teaches people to run cities like a racket at taxpayers' expense! ethics-commission.net

?I?ll go to jail? ? Florida Veteran told to remove military flags from restaurant property, but he?s not budging » The Right Scoop -

Above is my initial comment to this article posted online.

I know this may come as a shock to posters here, but City Governments are not required legally to follow Constitutional laws, where the last level of govt under the Constitution is either the State or the County. Anything you want enforced requires lawsuits, just like private Corporations.

In Houston we are fighting multiple abuses of this unequal relationship between taxpaying citizens and the City that is not automatically checked by the Bill of Rights.

Another problem is that citizen taxes pay for the legal dept for the City, but if citizens try to petition or sue the City, our resources are then used against us to pay for the City defense.
So it is not equal, and is unconstitutional by violating equal protections of the law.

Hate to break this news to people, as it was a shock to my whole sense of justice and law, and everything I thought I was taught in school about how govt works.

I have been fighting an unequal battle for over 15 years, and I'm still not over this.
So if anyone here is hearing this for the first time, and it makes no sense to you how this could be and nobody has done anything to challenge and change it, I feel for you.

Here is a poem I wrote, grieving over the bad example we are teaching young people:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

There are groups in Houston having to organize to stop the red-light camera ordinance and now a homeless ordinance banning charities or individuals from helping the homeless downtown, that are clearly unconstitutional because people did not consent to have restrictions on their due process or free exercise of religion, but unless people sue and win in Court the City has no legal requirement preventing them from passing and enforcing laws like this. Totally outrageous, and yet it's happening folks. We just don't hear about it unless someone protests like this Vet. Or Houston becomes the butt of a joke by a late night comedian on national TV, equating us to Nazi Germany!

I am sad to see this same abuse and bullying on a city level spread nationally. But if it compels more people to organize across cities to defend Constitutional laws and principles from being bullied over, that's a good thing I am thankful for. I hope we unite! If we stay divided politically, we are easy targets for oppression. By uniting, we can overcome and can work together, pool our resources, to address and correct these problems we see.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Watch out! The intellectual powerhouse has issued a brainstorm! Rosa Parks.

Parks was arrested......you imbecile.

Did I say she wasn't, genius? I said that, according to you, she was wrong.

Asshole....I think the dude with the flags is right....as was Parks. But they both broke laws. They both face penalties. You are borderline retarded.

No, you said we have to obey laws, that means you think they are both wrong.

Unless, of course you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why not just apply for the permit and avoid all the drama? I doubt it's all that hard.

Probably some kind of principle thing.

More likely a partisan thing, conservatives attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists for some perceived political gain.

Even more likely, a badly written law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are a nation of laws. I also think this is a stupid law. We don't have to like the laws....but we do sort of have to obey them.

This dude will probably get his way in the end. These things have a way of working themselves out.

We have to obey laws? Does that mean that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to move to the back of the bus? Or does you nation of laws schtick only apply when you like the law?

Rosa chose to break the law and took the penalty without bitching: She was arrested, jailed and fined. You always have the right to break a law if you like, but you've got to take the penalty too or you're just a crybaby throwing a fit.

Like the guy in the OP who said he would rather go to jail than obey a stupid law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Watch out! The intellectual powerhouse has issued a brainstorm! Rosa Parks.

Parks was arrested......you imbecile.

Did I say she wasn't, genius? I said that, according to you, she was wrong.

She was wrong legally, but not morally. There is a difference.

Reality check.

The law was wrong, legally and morally. That makes her right on both counts, not just morally.

 

[emilynghiem]

We'll have to wait two weeks for the city's special hearing.
In the meantime, the guy will amass over $7,000 in fines.

He will amass these fines because he is obstinate. Should the law be unconstitutional the fines should be waived. He should take the flags down and fight the law.

Dumb law, dumb man.

Maybe offended fellow patriots will help pay the fine,
like Bill O'Reilly who paid thousands more after a Court reversed a ruling and ordered the military family who won a suit against the Westboro Baptists to pay them a huge fine instead. O'Reilly was so offended, he paid it for them. I respect him for doing that.
This Vet is likely counting on the fine being retracted or paid off with help of supporters.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We'll have to wait two weeks for the city's special hearing.
In the meantime, the guy will amass over $7,000 in fines.

He will amass these fines because he is obstinate. Should the law be unconstitutional the fines should be waived. He should take the flags down and fight the law.

Dumb law, dumb man.

Dumber post.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not just apply for the permit and avoid all the drama? I doubt it's all that hard.

Because the permit restricts first amendment rights.
One does not require a permit to practice ones freedom.

Because he did not consent to have his flags count as signs requiring permits.

What I would do is have him rotate them and hang them from
different places, and take photos. if they are not permanent displays
but they are rotated and taken down and put up etc, then the law may not apply either.

He could have different people come in and take turns hanging their flags,
where they are not all his flags so they are not permanent business signage.
Either way, he is publicizing the heck out of this case, so he is achieving that goal.
If he is racking up $300 per fine, he is getting plenty of advertising out of that cost.
Corporations count their fines as the cost of doing business, why not small businesses?
At least his is for a good cause, to express support for Vets and First Amendment defense.

I don't think he is trying to advertise rebellion and disrespect for govt and authority of law,
but is trying to defend the laws and protest unfair policies made without citizen consent.

 

[hortysir]

Holly Hill, hunh?


I'll be there Monday

 

[emilynghiem]

We have to obey laws? Does that mean that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to move to the back of the bus? Or does you nation of laws schtick only apply when you like the law?

Rosa chose to break the law and took the penalty without bitching: She was arrested, jailed and fined. You always have the right to break a law if you like, but you've got to take the penalty too or you're just a crybaby throwing a fit.

Like the guy in the OP who said he would rather go to jail than obey a stupid law?

Dear LoneLaughter OldGuy and QuantumWindbag:
What I'd like to see is people turn the tables on government.
Instead of treating the protestors as the ones practicing "civil disobedience,"
let's make it more clear that this Vet is trying to practice CIVIL OBEDIENCE
by defending the First Amendment and consent of the governed from infringement,
by City officials basically writing a contract and signing his name to it without his permission where he never agreed to the interpretation of his flags as signs requiring permits.
So make it clear it is the city officials who are violating law where the citizen's
right to consent to contracts before enforcing them was not equally protected
under the 14th Amendment. Where the City does not follow the First or Fourteenth Amendment, well maybe it's time we address that issue.

In the meantime, in order to enforce Constitutional laws, we need to follow them ourselves. So the Vet should make it clear his point is to enforce the laws and petition the City to do the same. This should be promoted as civil obedience not disobedience. And quit blaming the victims and making the wrong side out to be the lawbreaker if it's the people abusing govt who are breaking laws by violating the spirit of the laws. If a policy is passed or enforced without consent of the governed, that is abuse of legal or govt authority for bullying. We need to stand up and stop this trend, and quit calling and treating it as legal!

Maybe this Vet will be the Rosa Parks who drives that point home. Good for him!

 

[Pop23]

?I?ll go to jail? ? Florida Veteran told to remove military flags from restaurant property, but he?s not budging » The Right Scoop -

Pay the fine, don't pay the fine, but I bet the free advertising couldn't be purchased for a million bucks. Hope the place is packed!

That would be true justice.

 

[Connery]

We'll have to wait two weeks for the city's special hearing.
In the meantime, the guy will amass over $7,000 in fines.

He will amass these fines because he is obstinate. Should the law be unconstitutional the fines should be waived. He should take the flags down and fight the law.

Dumb law, dumb man.

Maybe offended fellow patriots will help pay the fine,
like Bill O'Reilly who paid thousands more after a Court reversed a ruling and ordered the military family who won a suit against the Westboro Baptists to pay them a huge fine instead. O'Reilly was so offended, he paid it for them. I respect him for doing that.
This Vet is likely counting on the fine being retracted or paid off with help of supporters.

I am a vet, I volunteer my professional time at a VA hospital sitting on a board of a medical facility and help vets who do not have the wherewithal to understand their rights and get benefits on a pro bono basis.

I will not give money to some dude who chooses to incur a debt when he has every opportunity to go through the system and help himself. If he came to me to ask for help in overturning the law I would, of course, help him.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why not just apply for the permit and avoid all the drama? I doubt it's all that hard.

Why does he need a permit to fly a flag on his own property? That's the first question that should have entered your mind and the fact it didn't is exactly the problem.