0

Sunday sales passes in Gwinnett, Buford by wide margin

LAWRENCEVILLE — Two-thirds of Gwinnett voters gave the go-ahead for beer and wine sales on Sundays.

Four months after city voters approved referenda throughout the county, the measure sailed through to allow Sunday sales in the unincorporated portions of the county.

According to unofficial results, 53,923 people voted in favor of the referendum, compared to 25,734 no votes.

It also passed in the city of Buford by a vote of 269 to 191.

Snellville man Roy Robinson said he is a conservative Christian, but he felt the issue didn’t have moral implications.

“I didn’t understand what the real harm is in having it,” another day of the week, he said, adding that the prevalence in local cities means a no vote won’t restrict people from getting wine and beer. “It’s already most everywhere. You can drive 10 minutes and buy it there.”

While the measure sailed through in 13 cities last November, the yes votes in Gwinnett and Buford means it will soon be available at any local grocery store on Sunday.

“I think it’s been an archaic law that’s been on the books for too long,” Robinson said. “One more day isn’t going to hurt.”

Comments

Karl 2 years, 1 month ago

Thank you Gwinnett voters for showing the self-righteous folks that their religious beliefs can not be imposed upon the citizens any longer.

2

logos 2 years, 1 month ago

It's not about so-called self-righteous people imposing their belief on someone anymore than it is about voters who want the sale of alcohol imposing their belief on the so called self righteous. The so-called self-righteous could just as easily argue that its the ones voting for the sales are the ones who are imposing their values on them!

It's the nature of any free election that one side is "imposing" their desires on that of another.

2

Karl 2 years, 1 month ago

logos, I see you have studied neither logic nor debate. Your argument is spurious.

2

logos 2 years, 1 month ago

Karl, I have studied logic. You say my argument is spurious but don't give a reason why. Please tell me what is illogical about my argument that whoever wins a free election is imposing their will on another who votes differently. Thank you.

0

logos 2 years, 1 month ago

Karl, I've studied logic and "debate" but that is irrelevant. Educated people make errors in their area of expertise all the time, so it's not one's educational level that makes an argument valid or not.

You state my argument is spurious but fail to provide a reason why. What logical fallacy did I made? My argument is as follows:

  1. The choice on the ballot receiving the most votes is the choice that becomes law.

  2. Those who did not vote for the most popular choice must abide by the law.

  3. Therefore, those whose viewpoints represent the most popular vote have the right under the law to impose their viewpoints on those who lost.

0

jack 2 years, 1 month ago

The passage of the referendum allowing Sunday sales has imposed noones viewpoint upon anyone. It merely allows freedom to choose where before there was none. Those who opposed the measure may still execise their right not to purchase alcohol under no penalty of law.

1

logos 2 years, 1 month ago

But of course it imposes a viewpoint. You have the viewpoint that sales should be allowed while someone else has the viewpoint they should not. Now you may not agree with their viewpoint, but if your viewpoint succeeds over their viewpoint then it is an imposition.

If I say child abuse should be allowed on Sunday and you say it should not, then using your logic I could say that you're imposing your viewpoint (restriction) on me.

Their will always be an imposing viewpoint with a law.

0

jack 2 years, 1 month ago

I guess I question your definition of impose. If you like wearing black socks all the time to the point you get legislation passed requiring everyone to wear black socks, then that is an imposition on those who do not wish to wear black socks. If those people get that restriction overturned legislatively, there is no imposition upon you; you can still wear black socks. If the only imposition upon you is the inability to impose, then I would submit this becomes a circular argument.

0

logos 2 years, 1 month ago

Jack, I think you might be confusing the imposition (having one person's way over someone else's way) of a viewpoint with the result of a viewpoint.

One might have a good reason to think banning Sunday sales is good for the community, and someone else might have a different viewpoint that sales on Sunday would not harm the community. For example, one might have the viewpoint that it's safer to have fewer people drinking and driving on the roads on Sunday - i'm not asking you to agree with the premise, I think it's debatable, - it just that it may be one's viewpoint.) I'm trying to point out that religion or morals could have nothing to do with the reason why one wants to ban sales.

The people who have the viewpoint that Sunday sales are good and what is best for society is the viewpoint that is now imposed on those who disagree, The people who disagree now have to submit to what they may consider a more dangerous roadway (again, I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with the premise).

Therefore I still submit that every law has a consequence - someone who wants something wins and the ones who lost now have to abide by the opposing law. Again, the reason for having no sales on Sunday could arguably be for safety concerns, and smart people may disagree with that premise. So it's the imposition of one viewpoint over another viewpoint that occurs when a law is passed. The result of the imposition of a viewpoint (e.g., I can now buy alcohol on Sunday) is a different animal altogether.

0

QsMom 2 years, 1 month ago

Karl,

I feel you have made a blanket statement regarding "the self-righteous folks" and their "religious beliefs" imposed upon citizens regarding Sunday beer and wine sales when clearly Mr. Robinson (a Conservative Christian) agreed with it.

It's people like you who give Christianity a bad rap and put every person who loves the Lord in the categories you so describe.

How would you feel if something you felt passionate about was placed in a box? Just because I mimick a dog barking doesn't make me a dog. Pedestals aren't just for "religious folk."

1

Karl 2 years, 1 month ago

If your belief, as a Christian, is that Sunday sales are ok, then I'm not refering to you. The folks I'm talking about know who they are.

2

RiggaTony 2 years, 1 month ago

Sad day for Gwinnett and Buford. The slide into secularism continues. I'm sure Obama is pleased...

0

jjbod1 2 years, 1 month ago

Sorry, but that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read on here. Can we get this man a "dunce cap" and find him a corner to sit in?

0

NewsReader 2 years, 1 month ago

RiggaTony, you really are a sanctimonious pompous windbag of a Troll. For it is people like you that Christianity is met with resistance and comes under attack. That glass house you're living in? I'd certainly consider putting the stones down instead of tossing them across the street. If it is people you are seeking to save, you certainly are going about it the wrong way. Spare me, and the rest of us for that matter, your self-righteous bible beating pulpit preaching. jjbod1, you provide the dunce hat and I'll provide the stool.

0

FordGalaxy 2 years, 1 month ago

Those who wanted drinks on Sunday could buy them by the drink in restaurants. Would you have preferred it stay that way, so that someone gets drunk and then tries to drive home? I'd rather a person who wants a drink be able to get it and take it home and not be on the roads.

And I'm also a conservative Christian, but sometimes I think I understand something other conservative Christians dont. You CANNOT legislate morality. You cannot use the rule of law to impose religious beliefs on anyone.

4

Sandykin 2 years, 1 month ago

I don't believe that the dry laws are perpetuated solely by the Christians. I think there are non-Christians who believe strongly in abstinence from alcohol for any number of reasons. The "no" voters could be alcoholics, or family or the friend of someone who is an alcoholic, who simply want to remove the temptation for themselves or their loved one. They could be parents of teenagers struggling with alcohol consumption. They could be someone who lost a loved one to a DUI driver, or a cop that dealt with a few too many DUI related deaths.

DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. WE ALL KNOW WHAT ASSUMPTIONS MAKE.

0

Sign in to comment