I think someone is being too tempted by the dildos driving home everyday.

Doesn’t sound like you actually believe your first sentence.

If you require porn & adult toys in your life, drive a few extra miles toward the perimeter. As a poster mentioned previously, I am sure you wouldn’t want to “shop” around in your own city anyway. What you do in the privacy of your own home is up to you, just keep that filth from being sold in Johns Creek. We are trying to make a great city here. Our tax dollars could be better spent on parks, schools, etc. and not not trying to get rid of filth which is not wanted anyway.

To the person who has that link to a poll, it is so easy to set up something like that and keep voting or tell a few people who support your cause to keep voting on it. Nice try.

Good riddance Love Shack! We do not want you here!

Art: Son, are you a Christian?

Kid: No sir, I am a Baptist……

The results aren’t scientific, but they sure are overwhelming.

Does “First Amendment” really apply here? Cornetta is a retailer, not a writer, or even a publisher. No one is restricitng his right to say, write or publish whatever he wants, only to sell certain materials in a specific area -in this case, across the street from a kids’ dance studio in a neighborhood.

——————————————————————————–

Mr. Hassinger just to clear a few things up, not to stir them up. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects more then just publishers and or writers, which by the way I am both. I publish three adult publications have for years. But case in point, the US Supreme Court has said that
“Non-obscene But Sexually Explicit and Indecent Expression.– There is expression, either spoken or portrayed, which is offensive to some but is not within the constitutional standards of unprotected obscenity. Nudity portrayed in films or stills cannot be presumed obscene nor can offensive language ordinarily be punished simply because it offends someone. Nonetheless, government may regulate sexually explicit but non-obscene expression in a variety of ways. Legitimate governmental interests may be furthered by appropriately narrow regulation, and the Court’s view of how narrow regulation must be is apparently influenced not only by its view of the strength of the government’s interest in regulation, but also by its view of the importance of the expression itself. In other words, sexually explicit expression does not receive the same degree of protection afforded purely political speech.”
None the less, thank god that Americans are allowed to view, think, read and paint what they wish, to a degree. So by all means my Johns Creek store is a First Amendment issue as well as a Fourteenth Amendment issue. Now Johns Creek and Fulton will say it is just a zoning issue and therefore can be considered a time, place and manner issue rather then a constitutional one. They have to as they have no other case. The fact is however, that at the time that store opened, it was opened legally and in compliance with all Fulton County and Georgia laws. The question remaining for the courts besides damages is simply, did the store operate even for one minute legally and in compliance with Fulton County ordinances or did it not. I can assure you it did as I helped draft that ordinance in a way by defeating the previous one. If for some strange and outrageous reason the courts were to find that the store was not operating legally, that still does not spell the end of that store. It would just mean that now that store has to comply with Johns Creeks Ordinances ( which by the way we currently are ) instead of being grandfathered in under Fulton’s ordinance. Either way it is a win / win for us. We would of course rather have the all out win, but the alternative for us is not gloomy. Oh, also a privately owned dance studio does not count under either ordinance, or for that matter any ordinance I have ever read anywhere. Only public schools. I wish you all the best.

Regards,

John Cornetta

“Restriction on free thought and free speech
is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the
one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”

William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1939-1975

they probably got enough sense

to get their stuff

…..mail order……………

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say you were making a joke. Please tell me I am right. I would not want a porn shop in my area but I think the idea you are pushing would cause trouble. You’ll end up having some fanatic either burn the place or shoot someone. I could also see a scenario where a church and for lack of a better term an “ACLU” type group constantly fueding and bringing an even more negative image upon the city. Let the church protest, picket, whatever, but don’t sit there and make a website listing names and posting pictures. Besides, like someone else said, if the owner did a roll comparison, some names would indeed pop up twice.

On an offtopic note, you only mention Baptists. Where are my fellow Methodists at on here

Get over it, we’re just playing around. I’ve been a Baptist my whole life.

The best thing a Baptist Church could do in this situation is preach the truth about Bible principles on sex and stay out of the fight. If church members live according to the Bible they claim to believe and follow, they wouldn’t be found buying pornographic materials from this place.

We all know so-called Baptists shop in the Love Shack probably everyday. No church is perfect. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone …” So, who’s throwing next?

And I seem to recall a list of all businesses -adult and otherwise- being in a government registry that determines which ones can go where, and how far away from residential areas they must be. I think they’re called “zoning laws.”

But I do agree that stalking the pornophiles is a bad idea.