alt.education

"Jack" wrote in message
news:14182553-a192-473a-bfff-074ccdee59f9@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 4, 12:25 pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
>> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7pgcv3l76mka3k9ak5motdt68q3gmr19pi@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:12:40 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>If only we had freedom from religion. Then we would not have all the
>> >>Blue Laws. The prohibition of select retail activities because the
>> >>day of the week is Sunday is medieval.
>>
>> > We "Had" all those laws because a challenge wasn't
>> > mounted----most of them came from conservative
>> > communities---not a national agenda---until the passage
>> > of prohibition.
>>
>> Most of the blue laws came from the shop keeper wanting to take a day
>> off,
>> not from a compelling desire to regulate your behavior.
>
> Maybe where you grew up but not in my town.
>
>> When a store is
>> open, but one or two products (lines of products) are not sold, then that
>> is
>> a problem because it seeks to regulate your behavior.
>
> This describes how blue laws worked when I was a kid. I
> remember going into department stores on Sunday and sections
> of the store were roped off. They could sell you a shirt but not
> a toaster.
>
>> But when the front
>> door is locked and nothing is sold, then that is not about your behavior.
>
> It is if the door is locked because of a blue law. When the law says
> I can buy shoes but not booze on Sunday that law is about my behavior.
> It doesn't matter if the shoes and booze are in two different stores
> or
> two departments in one store.


You missed the part where I said if the store's owner chose to lock the
doors, he did not lock them because the state told him to.