Salvation--delivered in 30 minutes or less, or it's FREE

It makes me *want* to move there, just to see how I can fuck it up.

Like, I dunno, subscribing to satellite tv and watching porn on a 72" tv hung on the wall right across from my unshuttered, uncovered bay window on the front of my house.

Oh, and maybe a big bowl of condoms on top of the mailbox at the foot of the drive.

And pornographically sculpted shrubs.

This town is just a 1st amendment law suit waiting to happen.

Oh to be a high school boy in a neighboring town, those Ave Maria girls are gonna be sneakin outa the house in their Catholic Schoolgirl uniforms to prowl the surrounding area for the mischeif their forced deprevation will leave them starved for! The kids from this town are going to turn out like the Amish kids in Devil's Playground (is that what it was called?)

Porn on television is such a quaint idea. The Internets are the number 1 provider of porn to American households. Will the town not provide Internet connectivity? Will it demand filters? If so, will The Slog be filtered?

Actually, it would be great to see someone actually follow through on what John suggests above. Think of the implications this would have to all those ridiculous, keep-everyone-in-lockstep suburban "neighborhood covenants" if the Federal courts eventually found the bannings in Ave Maria to be unconstitutional.

I have to admit I'm mostly posting this just to be contrarian. That said: This sounds like more of an organization to me than anything else. If it requires some kind of pledge or financial commitment to "join" (which it seems like it will), then how is that violating anyone's constitutional rights? (I take it back. I'm not just being contrarian, I'm actually legitimately interested in exploring that side of things.)

Hm, well John Williams raises a good point. Housing Associations already do not allow certain activity that would bring down property values.

On the other paw, if one were to go down to town square and begin handing out condoms, then this becomes a matter of first amendment rights. Remember, the article claimed that the drugstore will not sell condoms. Handing them out is not selling them and it is a private action. Could a person sign a contract and be in violation of her first amendment rights? Can one ever sign away those rights in America?

A case could be made that a person could be kicked out if the city were to remain in private hands and the contract was for a private institution. If it's a private institution, then it would not qualify for government grants of any sort, but would be subject to taxation and regulation (how do nursing homes handle this?).

However, if I walk into a public city and hand out the condoms and am not a resident, than I cannot be legally fined or arrested for those actions. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I think you're wrong. It's my understanding that in the South, they don't challenge you in court, instead you just "disapear".

Neighborhood covenants are generally legal, so long as they do not violate the constitution or any discrimination laws, and are consistently applied. So, it is legal to create a neighborhood covenant stating residents cannot park RVs on the street (RV owners are NOT a protected class), but a covenant that says 'no blacks allowed' would be unenforceable. I'm pretty sure a rule requiring residents to be Catholic would be a blatant violation of both the Constitution and the civil rights act.

As an aside, several of Seattle's gated communities (Broadmore, Broadview, etc) originally barred blacks. I believe at least one of them still has it in their bylaws, although it has been unenforceable now for several decades.

Broadmore, reportedly,

Why has this blemish on the moral reach of our fair city been allowed to continue --- need to do an informational picket at the gate just to shake up the R's that live there.

the place looks like a movie set from the early 1950's. Wisteria lane with mildew and cedar trees.

Yes, it is about the only R. enclave in the city.

Fuckers.

But, is there a difference between a 'gated community' and a city?

I mean, yes, I wholly agree if this is a gated community, they have the full right to do whatever they want.

But if this is a city/town, can a private entity 'own' a municipality?

I guess I'm confused by the article. On the one hand, they mention that the Noid bought acres that used to be farmland (which wouldn't be a town, it'd be a community) but on the other hand, they continually refer to it as a 'town.'

I was just going by the 'town' definition.