Kooiker - 5/23/2026 18:17
OntarioCanuck - 5/23/2026 13:44
Instead of forcing their beliefs on everyone else I think they should have purchased it and then they could control what was served.
I notice the board that looked at the proposal agreed to ignore the oppressive rule and allow the restaurant to serve beer but politics moved in and over pulled the boards decision and imposed religious beliefs on the resaraunt owners and their customers.
that was what I was pointing out is how others should not impose their religious beliefs on others.
Time to change the rules so religionists can not force others to follow their beliefs.
Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.
They’re not imposing anything on anyone. You have no clue about why the zoning ordinance exists and neither do I.
Well the by law is centred on the church where apparently the members, unlike many other religions, believe alcohol is 'evil' and should not be served within 1,000' of their temple/church.
If it was 1,000' centred on the feed supply then we really would not know why it was in placePut your hate for Christians and Christianity aside for a minute and realize that the law is the LAW until it is changed through the proper procedure.
Hate? i don't hate i just think people should stick to evidence and not just believe in things, especially things that are outside reality but if that makes them happy I don't do anything to stop them from continuing to just believe in what there is no evidence of existing. I do object to people expecting others to follow rules that are in place to support their belief and stop others from living as they wish.
Yes it is a law and fro the original post the restaurant owner followed the rules and asked for variance to let him sell beer to his customers who obviously would like to drink the beer or else he would not be able to sell to them. However the politicians apparently over ruled the decision of the committee they appointed and changed the rules that every had followedEnforcing the existing law is the correct thing to do in a law abiding civilization.
Don’t like the law? Work on changing it.
as i understand the post the rules of the existing law were followed when the owner of the restaurant asked for a variance and got the agreement from the committee BUT the politicians over ruled their committee and changed the decision.
I wonder if any of the politicians attended the meeting to voice their concerns before the committee made the decision or did they just jump in after and counter the decision after it had been made with info from those who objected?
Church vs. Pizza Joint
