People will have different restrictions based on religious, moral, ethical, faith-based or even philosophical principles and beliefs. Each should be free to establish their own interests including business interests, without being pressured to bend to the will of another group, though they may make claims of “feeling” left out or otherwise refused an active, participating role within that organization.
It is morally and ethically wrong to demand that a Jewish or Islamic restaurant begin serving pork chops or that their delicatessens begin serving pulled pork sandwiches simply because another location does. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason” should not be some hollow placard on a wall, but the right of each and every business owner and, to the extent allowed by the owners, for employees as well.
Furthermore, no business should be sued merely for refusing service to someone, no matter why. If a large enough segment of the population is concerned about such affairs, they can vote with their wallets and such business interests will not last for long in an open market society.
As long as the activity taking place within the establishment is lawful under the current social standards of norms and abnormalities and whatever law has been established within the community development, the activities taking place in that establishment should be considered to be lawful in nature. If a person owns a bar and they choose to allow for the lawful consumption of tobacco products in the form of cigarettes, that should be the option of the owner of the business establishment alone.
If someone is “offended”, they are always free to open up their own non-smoking establishment and allow the consumers to decide where they prefer to dine or drink. No laws should be made preventing the lawful activity within any business conducting business within the confines of that establishment. This does not mean however, that laws cannot be made that impact what the business does outside the confines of their business establishment.
In this particular case, if the community development has deemed that smoking is an obnoxious behavior and/or a health risk and is unlawful in public spaces, the establishment shall restrict such activities to the inside of that business interesti. Such activity would not be allowed outside as it posed a potential risk to passers-by and/or the community as a whole.
The laws of the Community Development should not regulate the internal business interests any further than as a means to establish community standards of cleanliness and hygiene and insofar as there is a direct and critical impact on the customer and/or client, to ensure minimal standards for training and qualifications to prevent any adverse impact on the customer and/or client base and/or consumersii. Thus, standards of cleanliness would be enforceable by law, but an establishment that wished to allow or ban smoking, or one that wished to allow or ban certain foods … or even one that wished to ban certain people, would not be regulated as a matter of law.
Oftentimes there will be gatherings for people whose proclivities are considered by some to be more deviant in nature. Blue Laws, insofar as they may prohibit public acts or exhibitions of such behavior, should not regulate such activities when they are conducted indoors in what is for all intents and purposes, in “private”iii. This may include convention centers, hotels with a sufficient “hall” or other facility to house such a venue in a more private and controlled setting outside of the view of the general populace.
Such laws may also restrict graphic public displays for advertising as well. Advertising would be rightfully and justly allowed for such a gathering but would not be allowed to post graphic displays of what is, by any current standards, deemed to be pornographic in nature. Such behavior as should be restricted to the privacy of the home and between consenting adults should remain within the limitations of private spaces and not put on public display.
Equally important is noting what these laws should not be allowed to do. There are locations throughout the world where people walking down the street holding hands is considered to be offensive behavior and is in fact, illegal in some locations. The PDA or Public Display of Affection is not something that should be regulated or made illegal by these Blue Laws to the extent that these displays do not devolve into exhibitions of unacceptable behavior.
In much of Europe and Asia it is common for males to walk down the streets holding hands with other males, sometimes in a personal relationship, sometimes as a display of friendship. The same of course, can be said for females as well. Such behavior is not even noticed for the most part in many of these locationsiv.
Though some may hold these actions to be in bad taste, there is no reason to see such behavior as threatening in any way or as creating an unsafe environment and as such, should never even be considered for criminal action or to be regulated one way or another. Conversely, if they are seeking to procreate, such matters are better suited for a more private location and may be pursued from a legal or civil standpoint.
Some people will contest that these matters are no different than a display of religious or other faith-based symbolism and seek to have one, the other or both banned and often seek government enforcement to ensure the “criminality” of these behaviors. In fact, these behaviors are both very distinct and should not ever be equated.
One is the free expression of faith or religious beliefs or principles put on display for the world to see. The other is behavior that current social standards do not see as beneficial for the public good. Not many people want their young children exposed to graphic displays of BDSM (Bondage and Discipline and Sadism and Masochism) or other behavior that is best conducted in private. Conversely, nobody wants to regulate what goes on behind closed doors as long as it is consensual behavior between adults and not in any other way unlawfulv.
The whole issue with “Consenting Adults” is relevant as well. Bestiality would not be allowed merely because it is, at this time at least, impossible for an animal to provide any kind of consent whatsoever. In the days of the Christ, it was common for women to be betrothed at eleven or twelve and wed at twelve or thirteen. In the eighteen hundreds, a woman was considered to be an “Old Maid” and virtually impossible to marry off if she had attained the ripe old age of sixteen without finding a husband.
In some periods of history, it has been common for men to kidnap and enslave women for the purposes of expanding the blood line for the tribe or local communities. These moral issues will change over time. Such activities, would, in accordance with currently accepted social mores and values, be considered inappropriate and even illegal for a reason. As social morals, values and ethics may change, so too shall the ability of the people within the community developments, to hold their governing body to account, and to ensure that the local laws reflect the social mores of the time.
Subject to the terms of societal standards today, none of these practices would be allowed. It must not be the job of the government to arbitrarily define morality and/or ethics but there also needs to be some means of deterrence in place and some means to ensure that the will of the people is kept in regards to societal standards. It is equally important to remember that the standards will change based on geographical locations, cultural differences, evolving societal standards and other considerations that can not be foreseen at the time of this writing. However, no matter how the ethos of the community development may change, it is important that the rights of the individual to conduct otherwise lawful behavior, must not be hampered or infringed upon when conducted in any locations that may reasonably be construed to be private and/or a private businessvi.
Law must remain moral and ethical in nature as it depends upon the use of force and the threat of the deprivation of freedom to the individual to compel the individual to obey the laws and to be subject to the standards as established by the community. When these laws are allowed to become oppressive in nature, there is no doubt that they will.
History has provided countless examples of governments actively oppressing the freedom of their people and utilizing often arbitrary laws to fatten the wallets of the governing bodies and/or their members. The laws must not become oppressive or be allowed to enable (much less encourage) partisan political attacksvii or used as a means to generate revenue above and beyond that which is provided by the community in its budgets and official accounting. Excess revenue, if indeed it is generated, should be returned to the community through the funds as have been provided for social assistance programs within the community developments.
Efforts are currently under way to examine a means by which a trial may take place without the presence of the defendant but only their representative counselor in lawviii. When the lawmakers are allowed to make exceptions for themselves, they will ... and when they are given the opportunity to put themselves above the law, they most certainly will. Laws must be applied equally throughout the society for each and every individual without exception. The judicial system must remain blind, without prejudice or bias or any separation by class, creed or other distinction.
Depending on the current negotiations and some other contingencies, the Community Developments may or may not be wholly sovereign in nature. It may be that some will be sovereign, some will be the property/operations of a Faith Based Organization and some may be subject to existing local and/or domestic laws and governanceix. Current governmental bodies presume to hold sway over each and every individual in every aspect of their lives merely as a consequence of birth and the location of that birth.
Civil Birth Certificates, Civil Marriage Certificates and Civil Death Certificates define and predicate the terms by which the individual may be “free” only to such extent as is allowed by the governing body as they make each and every flesh and blood human being a ward of the state or of the governing body. In every legal sense of the words, the flesh and blood man or woman of today is “res” or “chattel”, property of the state and subject to overly oppressive rules and restrictions. The concept of the Community Developments is the establishment of a system that provides Social and Economic freedom to all of the people of the world, subject only to such restrictions as prevent any imposition on the rights of others.
i The overall ethos of the community should be the deciding factor of public behavior and laws and to overrule and nullify such laws as are deemed by the community to be unjust and/or infringing on the rights of the individual(s) within the Community Development.
ii Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Standards and their enforcement in establishments that serve food and the establishment of minimal standards of training for doctors, nurses, healthcare professionals and others who have a direct impact on the life and health of the individual is not seen as being overbearing or oppressive in nature. Furthermore, all of the regulations in place to provide the means to enforce these standards will be subject to review via the Ombudsman Program and the Citizen Review Boards.
iii The idea here is not to be derogatory towards anyone, but to provide a real-world example. The Folsom Street Fair is an annual celebration of BDSM (Bondage & Discipline and Sadism & Masochism). Such behavior is perfectly lawful between consenting adults and thus, the celebration itself should be allowed within the community developments. However, it would have to take place in such a venue as would allow it to be separated in a more private location such as a Convention Center or other similarly private location. Nobody wants to regulate bedroom behavior, but neither do most people want to have bedroom antics put out on public display, openly throughout parks and streets. It should also be noted that this is not to be utilized to regulate “PDAs” or Public Displays of Affection.
iv In such locations, there are commonly same sex “couples” seen walking down the street and holding hands or even hugging. Scarcely any attention is paid to such activities as people who are offended simply turn the other way. The same is true for Beauty Pageants and other activities especially for people who have alternative views. It may make the news because it is a beauty pageant but no social stigma is attached and nobody protests merely because someone else may have a different preference.
v There are additional members who wish to include comments about homosexuality here but it seems rather condescending to try to define someone by their sexuality. (Even if some who are that way do exactly that for the sake of political expediency, it is their choice and not reflective of the Community Developments) It does not matter who someone is or what their particular proclivities may be, there are some things people should not be doing in public no matter who (or what gender) their partner may be.
vi Just as an example: A brothel may be deemed to be socially acceptable and allowed to open as a business. The business inside shall not be inhibited beyond such points as it has a direct bearing on the client/service-provider relationship with the exception of such standards as are set forth herein and as may be decided by the individual citizens of the Community Development. However, given the more private nature of the activities, it may lawfully restrict any activities outside the brothel as would be obvious to those who elect not to participate in the activities of such a location and those (primarily passing children) who may be subject to personal issues from such sights as they may be forced to otherwise endure from outdoor activities at such a location.
vii Justice must remain blind insofar as each and every individual, whether a member of the governing body or a regular citizen must be held to equal accountability for their actions.
viii Ideally, the Judicial System will be established based on the “Common Law” or “Natural Law”. If there is any need for Statutory or Regulatory Law it is preferable, even necessary to keep such legislation and statutes to a minimum and based on the principles that in order for their to have been a “crime”, there must be quantifiable damage and/or an actual victim.
ix Given the unique and evolutionary nature of the Community Developments, an ideal solution would be to have them wholly isolated from the current system in areas of law and governance. The would allow for the establishment of a new and more effective paradigm without upsetting the current balances and systems already in place. Such a societal upset would not likely end well for anyone. This is precisely the reason that the Aboriginal and Indigenous tribes with their autonomous or semi-autonomous rule are also ideally suited for the implementation of such programs. Further consideration has also been given to the introduction of this program as a means to establish global protocols and assistance for the global refugee crisis so prevalent at the time of this writing.
Let us know what you think please!