serving or selling establishments near churchs all over the Country.

In Memphis, there are a few church’s within say, a few blocks of Beale Street (and other bars densely packed all around). It didn’t have a negative impact on my membership, or my wedding.

While every state is different, in my state one can’t serve alcohol in their business without getting a liquor license, and that has to go through a public hearing process. From the article, it appears Knoxville is similar.

Recently a Hooters tried to open in my area. The local civic association opposed the liquor license application. One of the reasons they gave was that it was in the same shopping center as an ATA Karate school. They ultimately lost and Hooters got the license, but for the first six months it was open it was barred from alcohol sales while their liquor license was being challenged.

The owners of the mosque are just exercising their rights to oppose a planned liquor license. I just pray the Knoxville Beer Board makes a decision that is consistent with their previous decisions and the laws of the area.

As has been said elsewhere in the comments, business owners do not have a “right” to serve alcohol on their property. They must have a license to do so, and in this area, the “local beer ordinance establishes a 300-foot buffer zone around churches and other similar institutions for a beer permit but waives the requirement if the establishment is granted a liquor license by the state of Tennessee.” Your headline is misleading as is your take on the article. Out of curiosity , would you have written on this article or linked to it if this was a Christian church attempting to block the liquor license?

As I understand Islam, it cannot function without the symbolic, non-intrinsic gestures expressed in the control of others. A Muslim cannot be whole as long as a non-Muslim cartoonist draws pictures in any variety of sorts that might disparage the god, apparently instantiating him on paper and destroying him. A Muslim cannot stay calm if the image of Piglet is present. A Muslim cannot be stable and avoid turning into a violent sexual predator if a women is clothed with anything less than head to toe concealment. Alcohol cannot be resisted when it is present and others, especially non-believers, must be forced to hide its presence in entire neighborhoods around where a Muslim might be present. Indeed, every demonstration of faith and the resistance from temptation cannot possibly be carried out in the mind of the Muslim. Instead, others must be made to remove those temptations regardless of their faith because a Muslim is took weak, too cowardly to grapple with his faith directly.

One can see why it is hard to take this as a valid religion, as it requires no practice and self-discipline from its male worshippers. It actually relaxes any attempts to control onesself, encouraging its men to attack others (reverting to a natural brutish state), treat women as insubordinate meat, have sex with children and carry out violent acts against others. Reasonable persons would regard Islam as non-religion because it encourages a male brute and removes all requirements that he exercise self control.

This is just another addition to the long list of freedoms that we have let go, re: laws to restrict activities some don’t agree with.

Seems too often too many of the “conservatives” have no problem with committing the sin of taking away a man’s choice.

I can tell the depth of the conservative commitment to freedom through the support of measures to restrict activities they don’t agree with. When a county that is 75% registered Republican can vote 60%+ to tell restaurants owners whether or not the owners can allow smoking inside, that tells you something.

“But, that’s smoking, no one wants to smell smoke while they are eating. Sure it’s not my house but, I have a right (pounds table) to enjoy my meal when I go out to eat.”

Or how about support to zone sexually oriented businesses out of business?

“But that’s those dirty perverts, who cares? They could never change the zoning and run me out of business.”

Sure, right. Keep telling yourself that. Supreme Court has already addressed that. Guess who lost? The property owner. City gave him 5 years to shut down where he was and move and the robes said, “That’s reasonable, fair.” Kelo was just the frosting on a cake that’s already 7/8 eaten.

The machinery of government has been turned against us. We must get inside and turn it around.

As to the original post: Dollars to donuts you will find a so-called Republican council member or P&Z board member who will introduce and/or support a measure to expand the buffer to 200 feet (w/ no grandfather clause). “For the children” or “the morals of the community” or some other such nonsense. And it will all be perfectly constitutional.

Alcohol is only sold via state-run liquor stores (expect beer in grocery stores, which is restricted in Alcohol % by volume). There are many laws restricting what restaurants can serve and how. For example, I cannot enjoy a flight of Whiskey or Grand Marnier after a meal, because of restrictions on the numbers of glasses that can be served. Bartenders must walk drinks around the counter at the bar in restaurants due to restrictions on the service of food and alcohol.

I could go on.

You get one guess as to what the unary influence resulting in this policy is.

What’s good for one religion is good for another, no?

(And to be clear, I don’t approve of purely religious reasons affecting any secular law)

and one can see how this issue revolves around the macro issue of regualting morality.

My two cents worth deals with man and law. For a society to operate in the manner Mark Levin calls “ordered liberty” laws should be clear, concise and as few as possible. That should include zoning laws and other regulatory regimes.

If the restaurant was there first too bad to the mosque (or church or synagogue) The serving of alcohol “next to” or in close proximity to a place of worship will have no affect on religious liberty. Making this restautant owner stop serving alcohol negatively impacts his economic liberty. I would hold the same view if the opposite was to occur (restaurant opens close to existing church)

I often use the theory of Occam’a Razor and it may not be appropriate in this case but sometimes common sense can prevail.

I applaud Warner’s post because it is important that as a society we weigh in on these debates. If you look at what has happened in parts of Denmark it is something to be aware of.

Looking at google maps (insert disclaimers), it appears that the 191 feet must be as the crow flies door to door. Not sure what the little side street does, but if you have to walk down sidewalks on the two main streets to go from one to the other it looks like several hundred feet.

BTW I wonder if the guy serves any pork dishes.

that prohibit certain establishments from being built next to churches, schools, libraries, or elder care facilities? I would imagine it is illegal, for instance, to build a liquor store, adult video store, or strip club next to a church, school, or public library. How is this case different? Is it because this is a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol as one of the many services it provides while a liquor store is built to exclusively sell alcohol?