Tattoo Parlors are guaranteed by the Constitution?

[Luissa]

Move to a suburb where they have non commercial zoning laws. Only way to solve your problem.

I have never really agreed with zoning laws when it comes to non residential areas. And tattoo shops are not titty bars, and should never be compared to them. My generation likes tattoos, and the art of tattoos has been around forever. I also say if you can pierce your tongue at the mall, you should be able to get a tattoo across the street.

 

[Father Time]

NIMBY. Yes, if I don't like it, build it elsewhere. I don't want to live near a titty bar, a methadone clinic, a nuclear power plant or a halfway house for convicts either. Only crazy people would.

Like I said Heaven forbid you ever have to deal with things you don't like you selfish prick.

But it's nice to know that you're so full of compassion that you also oppose building things that will actually help people, if they happen to be in your town.

[youtube]43Egm0j_p1A[/youtube]

 

[Father Time]

Therapy is bullshit.

And what exactly do you base this statement off of?

 

[Father Time]

Why the hell should we force tattoo parlors to stay away from churches anyway? Or for that matter bars and porno shops? What makes churches so fucking special that we have to accommodate their tastes?

And how exactly do tattoo parlors harm children? Are the children suddenly going to be scarred by seeing a drawing of a skeleton riding a motorcycle?

 

[chanel]

It's called community standards. We have a tattoo parlor in the next town over that is hangout for bikers and drug dealers. That town doesn't seem to mind.

There was a big controversy about a methodone clinic moving into town. They agreed to move to an area that's pretty much in the middle of nowhere. Win/win.

You might not want a church in your town, but our town has no issue with it. See how that works?

The court stating which businesses are "protected" can interfere with local zoning issues. That's why I posted the OP.

 

[editec]

The question about zoning against tatoo parlors comes down to this:


ALL zoning laws (regardless of what they actually prohibit) violate the freedom of the individual.

So the question is: Does the community have that right?

 

[chanel]

Yes it does. City planners must act within the state's and municipalities' best interests. There are many factors to consider in residential and commercial development - environmental impact, economic impact, traffic, social services, property values, etc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes it does. City planners must act within the state's and municipalities' best interests. There are many factors to consider in residential and commercial development - environmental impact, economic impact, traffic, social services, property values, etc.

Who gets to decide what's in "the best interest" of your community?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I put up with a lot of activities I don't like. Don't need anymore thank you. A tattoo parlor in town would lower property values. I don't support any stupid choices by other people that affect my pocketbook.

A tattoo parlor in town does not lower your property values. A tattoo parlor next door to your house might.

 

[Cecilie1200]

NIMBY. Yes, if I don't like it, build it elsewhere. I don't want to live near a titty bar, a methadone clinic, a nuclear power plant or a halfway house for convicts either. Only crazy people would.

I would suggest, then, that you look for all of those things BEFORE you buy a house. Looking for an entire town that doesn't have any of those things, though, is a bit unrealistic.

 

[Charles_Main]

No problem with this ruling. As long as they are regulated and inspected for sanitary conditions and practices it is just like any other business, like hair salons, or barber shops. People have the right to screw up their bodies if they want from tattos, piercings and even chopping fingers off. They have to live with it the rest of their lives. The pursuit of happines, right?

Vaya con Dios !

The people that wanted them gone are claiming that they attract criminal types.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No problem with this ruling. As long as they are regulated and inspected for sanitary conditions and practices it is just like any other business, like hair salons, or barber shops. People have the right to screw up their bodies if they want from tattos, piercings and even chopping fingers off. They have to live with it the rest of their lives. The pursuit of happines, right?

Vaya con Dios !

The people that wanted them gone are claiming that they attract criminal types.

That's about as logical as claiming that preschools attract pedophiles.

 

[zzzz]

No problem with this ruling. As long as they are regulated and inspected for sanitary conditions and practices it is just like any other business, like hair salons, or barber shops. People have the right to screw up their bodies if they want from tattos, piercings and even chopping fingers off. They have to live with it the rest of their lives. The pursuit of happines, right?

Vaya con Dios !

The people that wanted them gone are claiming that they attract criminal types.

Yeah like movie stars, musicians and teenagers. Tattoos are the "in" thing these days how many younger people did you see this summer that didn't have tatts?

 

[topspin]

I personally don't like tats, except cute little ones on the small of hotties backs.
Funny how the conservative small gov morons are the ones who want to have a gov ban this.

 

[Father Time]

I personally don't like tats, except cute little ones on the small of hotties backs.
Funny how the conservative small gov morons are the ones who want to have a gov ban this.

Ban, no they just want them zoned away from whatever places in hopes of getting them to go away or at least be out of sight. Of course they probably also claim to like the free market.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I personally don't like tats, except cute little ones on the small of hotties backs.
Funny how the conservative small gov morons are the ones who want to have a gov ban this.

The only thing partisan about this topic would be you and Father Time, projecting your own biases onto everyone else. The article says nothing about it being a particular political group trying to ban tattoo parlors. It says that it's the "Los Angeles suburb of Hermosa Beach". It ALSO says that the unanimous decision AGAINST the ban was made by a three-judge panel, all REPUBLICAN. Wikipedia, patron saint of lazy Internet liberals, tells us that Hermosa Beach is occupied primarily by Democrats, as evidenced by the fact that their state legislators are both Democrat, their Congressmember is a Democrat, and in 2008, Obama won 61% of the vote there, to McCain's 36%. Their Cook PVI rating is D+11.

Tell us again how it's "conservative small government morons" who want this ban. Get your boyfriend, Father Time, to tell us how it's "conservative free market supporters" again. More like rich NIMBY leftists, a la the late Ted "no windmills here!" Kennedy.

 

[Father Time]

No I was referring specifically to chanel, and not at anyone in the article, as that's what I thought top was referring to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No I was referring specifically to chanel, and not at anyone in the article, as that's what I thought top was referring to.

Oh, is that a fact? Let me just repeat the conversation for the audience, hmmm?

Topspin - I personally don't like tats, except cute little ones on the small of hotties backs.
Funny how the conservative small gov morons are the ones who want to have a gov ban this.

Father Time - Ban, no they just want them zoned away from whatever places in hopes of getting them to go away or at least be out of sight. Of course they probably also claim to like the free market.

Now you would like us to believe that you thought Topspin, in talking about "conservative small gov morons . . . want to have a gov ban this", was talking about people ON THE BOARD, rather than PEOPLE ACTUALLY ENACTING THE BAN? So basically, you've decided that having us believe you're an illiterate twerp is better than having us believe you're a kneejerk partisan twerp? I guess I can see how that's preferable.

 

[Father Time]

No I was referring specifically to chanel, and not at anyone in the article, as that's what I thought top was referring to.

Oh, is that a fact? Let me just repeat the conversation for the audience, hmmm?

Topspin - I personally don't like tats, except cute little ones on the small of hotties backs.
Funny how the conservative small gov morons are the ones who want to have a gov ban this.

Father Time - Ban, no they just want them zoned away from whatever places in hopes of getting them to go away or at least be out of sight. Of course they probably also claim to like the free market.

Now you would like us to believe that you thought Topspin, in talking about "conservative small gov morons . . . want to have a gov ban this", was talking about people ON THE BOARD, rather than PEOPLE ACTUALLY ENACTING THE BAN? So basically, you've decided that having us believe you're an illiterate twerp is better than having us believe you're a kneejerk partisan twerp? I guess I can see how that's preferable.

It's real simple when top talked about people wanting to ban them I thought he was talking about chanel who actually talked about wanting to ban this. There's nothing that hints at small government types in the article so my guess was he meant chanel who is a small government type from what I can remember.

 

[chanel]

Chanel is a small FEDERAL govt. type Father Time. I have great respect for the UNPAID VOLUNTEERS who sit on a LOCAL planning and zoning boards and decide what is best for the community. I have no idea whether they are an R or a D. I can't imagine anyone taking issue with FREE representation.

But your generalization that this is a partisan issue is duly noted. Even though as pointed out, the panel in CA were all R's and the people in Hermosa Beach are mostly D's. Community standards are rarely a partisan issue. I imagine senior citizen communities don't like tattoo parlors either.