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

Damn, you aren't as much of a rightwingnutter as I took you for. Absolutely right, a commercial establishment is obligated to follow local zoning laws.

Wrong.

Even codes for commercial establishments have to be reasonably related to a valid government purpose AND may not violate the Constitution.

And that's how simple this really is.

Yep. And that's why they have a new law requiring permits for signs. This guy doesn't want to get one, he wants to be treated differently than every other commercial business simply because they are military flags.

That shit don't fly and you are a piss poor lawyer.

Oh nozies. A leftwingloon dishonest hack nitwit like the always dishonest Raving Dipshit has besmirched my abilities.

:lol:

Well, your ignorance and general dishonesty notwithstanding, toots, I remain right and you remain wrong.

What you don't know about the applicability of the First Amendment would fill vast libraries.

:thup:
 
I might be wrong, and I will stand corrected if I am, I read earlier that it was not actually a new ordinance, but an old one they just chose to start enforcing. If that is the case, tough luck City, you can't pick and choose when to enforce ordinances. And that is where the City will get their clocks cleaned, not any Constitutional issues.
The law was just passed in March.

Really doesn't matter much. The flags were flying for years. Grandfather them in and problems solved unless theirs a huge public outcry, which I doubt. Looking at the condition of the area of the sign, the size of the sign, etc., the flags are a pimple, not a boil.
Yeah, I think they probably should grandfather them in. Regardless, it isn't a first amendment case.

Not to mention that I'd still like to know how he gets a restaurant bar designated non-profit, i.e. tax exempt. The guy is sucking off the government tit and biting the hand that feeds him. No sales tax, no property tax.
 
Ravi says it isn't a First Amendment case.

:lmao:

Of course, in reality, there's no question about it. It is a First Amendment case.

Raving Dipshit taking the contrary position is, alone, almost conclusive proof of that fact.

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

One should not have to pay to exercise his rights on his property,

It would appear that what he is doing is basically harmless. The city does have a right to limit commercial business display, but this seems to be taking it too far.

Looking at the picture supplied, the business sign for a bar looks massive. Most cities I've lived in would not allow such a huge sign for a smallish business, so the flags are minimal by comparison. If I were a city official I would have a much bigger problem with, what appears to be, the cheesy looking banner over the sign.

Gotta be on the Owners side on this one. His base customer is a biker that is also a veteran. These flags are an important part of his customers lives and the city should either look the other way, grandfather him in or grant a variance without resistance. If what I've read is true and he has flown them for years without comment from the city, then the city is at fault for not enforcing the ordinance during preceding years.

Last comment is how the flags are displayed. Can't tell how deep the poles are or how sturdy the poles are (they appear flimsy), but they look as though a strong wind would take them down, and that's no way to treat a flag that's important to you.

This is the best you can offer as any type of comment in this thread. You need some remedial work on just about all of your issues; mostly your cognitive skills. I told you to do some research on this flim flam artist, but you sat on a mushroom and spoke of that which you knew nothing about.

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....:laugh:

Temporary in the sense that he puts them out every morning and takes them in every night?
Yes.

Signs, though?
Not really. They're flags.

We all take our flags in at night, unless they're illuminated.

Eddie's phone number is right on his website.

Feel free to give him a call, in a couple weeks, and see how things turn out.

The "colostomybag" remark, BTW, is way out of line.
You know less than nothing about the man or the extent of his injuries.
And to mock him because of his age and/or party affiliation is typical of those without any other valid points.



Someone else mentioned his NP status and supporting candidates.
Dig around some. I promise you that Eddie isn't alone.

:cool:
 
One should not have to pay to exercise his rights on his property,

It would appear that what he is doing is basically harmless. The city does have a right to limit commercial business display, but this seems to be taking it too far.

Looking at the picture supplied, the business sign for a bar looks massive. Most cities I've lived in would not allow such a huge sign for a smallish business, so the flags are minimal by comparison. If I were a city official I would have a much bigger problem with, what appears to be, the cheesy looking banner over the sign.

Gotta be on the Owners side on this one. His base customer is a biker that is also a veteran. These flags are an important part of his customers lives and the city should either look the other way, grandfather him in or grant a variance without resistance. If what I've read is true and he has flown them for years without comment from the city, then the city is at fault for not enforcing the ordinance during preceding years.

Last comment is how the flags are displayed. Can't tell how deep the poles are or how sturdy the poles are (they appear flimsy), but they look as though a strong wind would take them down, and that's no way to treat a flag that's important to you.

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....:laugh:

Temporary in the sense that he puts them out every morning and takes them in every night?
Yes.

Signs, though?
Not really. They're flags.

We all take our flags in at night, unless they're illuminated.

Eddie's phone number is right on his website.

Feel free to give him a call, in a couple weeks, and see how things turn out.

Which is why I say the law is poorly drafted and should be set aside.

The "colostomybag" remark, BTW, is way out of line.
You know less than nothing about the man or the extent of his injuries.
And to mock him because of his age and/or party affiliation is typical of those without any other valid points.



Someone else mentioned his NP status and supporting candidates.
Dig around some. I promise you that Eddie isn't alone.

:cool:

"Crazy" Eddie misrepresented the facts in order to garner sympathy for his cause. He is full of shit.

My remark had nothing to do with his party affiliation, for which I am unaware. Nor his injures, I have service connected injures and advocate for veterans rights and benefits etc. What I will say is I do not respect a person who will use his injuries as a means to further his non injury related or pecuniary goals.
 
One should not have to pay to exercise his rights on his property,

It would appear that what he is doing is basically harmless. The city does have a right to limit commercial business display, but this seems to be taking it too far.

Looking at the picture supplied, the business sign for a bar looks massive. Most cities I've lived in would not allow such a huge sign for a smallish business, so the flags are minimal by comparison. If I were a city official I would have a much bigger problem with, what appears to be, the cheesy looking banner over the sign.

Gotta be on the Owners side on this one. His base customer is a biker that is also a veteran. These flags are an important part of his customers lives and the city should either look the other way, grandfather him in or grant a variance without resistance. If what I've read is true and he has flown them for years without comment from the city, then the city is at fault for not enforcing the ordinance during preceding years.

Last comment is how the flags are displayed. Can't tell how deep the poles are or how sturdy the poles are (they appear flimsy), but they look as though a strong wind would take them down, and that's no way to treat a flag that's important to you.

No no, conny. I rejected your bleating. there's a difference.

And as far as talking about stuff when you know nothing, you seem to be an expert on that.

I was responding to the ever unbalanced and hugely dishonest Ravi. You might be ignorant of what a stupid propagandizing hack she is, but that's not important. She is all of that and that's all that needs to be said about the silly shit she always spews.

Meanwhile, back ON topic, your objection to Colisomo's invocation of freedom of speech is vacuous. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with his views. What people are actually addressing is whether or not that dopey ordinance is Constitutionally valid.

Horty showed what this is all over. It quite squarely and fairly relegates your bleatings to the trash can.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....:laugh:

Temporary in the sense that he puts them out every morning and takes them in every night?
Yes.

Signs, though?
Not really. They're flags.

We all take our flags in at night, unless they're illuminated.

Eddie's phone number is right on his website.

Feel free to give him a call, in a couple weeks, and see how things turn out.

The "colostomybag" remark, BTW, is way out of line.
You know less than nothing about the man or the extent of his injuries.
And to mock him because of his age and/or party affiliation is typical of those without any other valid points.



Someone else mentioned his NP status and supporting candidates.
Dig around some. I promise you that Eddie isn't alone.

:cool:

Sounds like the ordinance is specific to advertising. They may have been using it to control those pesky A Frame signs from sidewalks, and over extended the meaning. I can't see this as an issue, First Amendment or not, when the ordinance specifically references signs, or even the "dreaded" banner. Flags are defined, Military flags are defined even better.

Not seeing the Cities concerns unless someone is embarrased at doing a poor job writing the ordinance. And THAT could very well be the case.
 
It would appear that what he is doing is basically harmless. The city does have a right to limit commercial business display, but this seems to be taking it too far.

Looking at the picture supplied, the business sign for a bar looks massive. Most cities I've lived in would not allow such a huge sign for a smallish business, so the flags are minimal by comparison. If I were a city official I would have a much bigger problem with, what appears to be, the cheesy looking banner over the sign.

Gotta be on the Owners side on this one. His base customer is a biker that is also a veteran. These flags are an important part of his customers lives and the city should either look the other way, grandfather him in or grant a variance without resistance. If what I've read is true and he has flown them for years without comment from the city, then the city is at fault for not enforcing the ordinance during preceding years.

Last comment is how the flags are displayed. Can't tell how deep the poles are or how sturdy the poles are (they appear flimsy), but they look as though a strong wind would take them down, and that's no way to treat a flag that's important to you.

Still hanging on to to your senseless argument for fear of having a bruised ego, I see. The ordinance speaks clearly to "temporary signs" and that is why he has been warned to take them down, get a permit or be fined for those "temporary signs".

"Crazy" Eddie has made misrepresentations regarding the City's objection and you have fallen for his nonsense and swallowed his fish story whole. You can make your check out to "Crazy" Eddie Colostomybag and he will gladly cash it while laughing all the way to the bank....:laugh:

Temporary in the sense that he puts them out every morning and takes them in every night?
Yes.

Signs, though?
Not really. They're flags.

We all take our flags in at night, unless they're illuminated.

Eddie's phone number is right on his website.

Feel free to give him a call, in a couple weeks, and see how things turn out.

The "colostomybag" remark, BTW, is way out of line.
You know less than nothing about the man or the extent of his injuries.
And to mock him because of his age and/or party affiliation is typical of those without any other valid points.



Someone else mentioned his NP status and supporting candidates.
Dig around some. I promise you that Eddie isn't alone.

:cool:

Sounds like the ordinance is specific to advertising. They may have been using it to control those pesky A Frame signs from sidewalks, and over extended the meaning. I can't see this as an issue, First Amendment or not, when the ordinance specifically references signs, or even the "dreaded" banner. Flags are defined, Military flags are defined even better.

Not seeing the Cities concerns unless someone is embarrased at doing a poor job writing the ordinance. And THAT could very well be the case.

Someone mentioned Eddie running for office.
I'd be curious to know what office......

:eusa_whistle:
 
Temporary in the sense that he puts them out every morning and takes them in every night?
Yes.

Signs, though?
Not really. They're flags.

We all take our flags in at night, unless they're illuminated.

Eddie's phone number is right on his website.

Feel free to give him a call, in a couple weeks, and see how things turn out.

The "colostomybag" remark, BTW, is way out of line.
You know less than nothing about the man or the extent of his injuries.
And to mock him because of his age and/or party affiliation is typical of those without any other valid points.



Someone else mentioned his NP status and supporting candidates.
Dig around some. I promise you that Eddie isn't alone.

:cool:

Sounds like the ordinance is specific to advertising. They may have been using it to control those pesky A Frame signs from sidewalks, and over extended the meaning. I can't see this as an issue, First Amendment or not, when the ordinance specifically references signs, or even the "dreaded" banner. Flags are defined, Military flags are defined even better.

Not seeing the Cities concerns unless someone is embarrased at doing a poor job writing the ordinance. And THAT could very well be the case.

Someone mentioned Eddie running for office.
I'd be curious to know what office......

:eusa_whistle:
Look at his website.
 
Sounds like the ordinance is specific to advertising. They may have been using it to control those pesky A Frame signs from sidewalks, and over extended the meaning. I can't see this as an issue, First Amendment or not, when the ordinance specifically references signs, or even the "dreaded" banner. Flags are defined, Military flags are defined even better.

Not seeing the Cities concerns unless someone is embarrased at doing a poor job writing the ordinance. And THAT could very well be the case.

Someone mentioned Eddie running for office.
I'd be curious to know what office......

:eusa_whistle:
Look at his website.

I did, after posting....

County Commish, hunh???

:eusa_whistle:

The good ol' boy club don't like intruders
 
Look at his website. He's a non-profit outfit....how do you get non-profit status for a restaurant and bar? He also is endorsing candidates, a big no no for non-profit status, and running for office himself.

Sounds like he's using the military to make money and get publicity.

A rightwingloon entitlement junkie to be sure.

Look at Ravi, the expert in what non profits can, and cannot, do. For the record, there is nothing that prohibits anyone associated with non profits from having opinions.
 
Look at his website. He's a non-profit outfit....how do you get non-profit status for a restaurant and bar? He also is endorsing candidates, a big no no for non-profit status, and running for office himself.

Sounds like he's using the military to make money and get publicity.

A rightwingloon entitlement junkie to be sure.

Look at Ravi, the expert in what non profits can, and cannot, do. For the record, there is nothing that prohibits anyone associated with non profits from having opinions.
It is a violation of tax-exempt status to endorse candidates. I hope the IRS takes a look at this guy. :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top