Tag Archives: Amusement park

A Governor Involved in Trivial Pursuit

Posted on by

California has problems. Governor Newsom is being recalled for various reasons (probably a good thing, only the last time California recalled a governor, they wound up with Arnold Schwarzenegger). But Governor Newsom is currently doing some things that might help businesses in the state that have been negatively impacted by his shutdowns.

Gregg Jarrett is reporting the following today:

California theme parks will reopen April 1, but with one caveat: shouting and screaming must be limited. How fun! California Attractions and Parks Association (CAPA) executive director Erin Guerrero said in a statement, “California’s amusement parks are excited to responsibly reopen under the recently released state guidance…these guidelines do not require parks to prohibit screaming.” However, that seems to be exactly what will happen.

The theme parks must abide by Governor Gavin Newsom’s updated Blueprint for a Safer Economy. Although Governor Newsom does not himself follow his own guidelines, he will demand the citizens of California to.

The anti-fun police are at it again. Let’s look at this a minute. The at-risk population for the coronavirus is the over-60 crowd or those with certain health issues. How likely are they to be on roller coasters? Can’t the state protect those at risk and let the people who are not at risk enjoy themselves?

The article notes:

In the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, California businesses must limit shouting and raised voices because, well, they are “known” to cause an increased spread of COVID-19. So, while Guerrero used empty words, “the California Attractions and Parks Association Responsible Reopening Plan addresses the need to limit shouting, screaming and hollering on roller coasters, thrill rides and other theme park attractions” reports The OC Register.

CAPA represents Disneyland, Universal Studios, Knott’s Berry Farm, Six Flags Magic Mountain, SeaWorld San Diego, Legoland California, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom and California’s Great America. Don’t expect to have too much fun there as “CAPA proposes the theme parks can ‘mitigate the effects of shouting’ through the use of mandatory face coverings and modified seat loading patterns on amusement park rides.”

Good grief!

Religious Discrimination Is Still Illegal In America

Posted on by

World Net Daily posted an article yesterday about a recent court case in Jacksonville, Florida. The case involved The Church of Our Savior in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. The church had been renting space to meet, meeting in homes, etc. and finally bought a piece of land to build a permanent place to meet.

The article reports:

Members bought land for a permanent meeting site, but city officials refused permission, citing the character of the neighborhood.

A court eventually ruled that the city, under federal law, must allow the church to use the land it bought. And now the Alliance Defending Freedom has announced an agreement in which the city must pay “$290,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses the church incurred to defend its constitutionally and legally protected freedoms.”

The interesting part of this article is that fact that the city officials claimed to be protecting the ‘character’ of the neighborhood.

The article reports:

The church’s property is adjacent to an amusement park that offers water attractions, miniature golf and laser tag, and the plan was for a 7,400-square foot, one-story building for an estimated 200 worshipers.

The city’s Planning and Development Department had recommended permission be granted for the church to build.

But several neighbors objected, and one member of the planning commission “expressed his belief that the church was not consistent with the character of the neighborhood,” leading to a 5-0 vote to reject the plan.

I see nothing wrong with putting a church next to an amusement park–I think it is a great idea–encourage people to bring a change of clothes to church and visit the park afterwords. This could actually be a really good thing for the amusement park and for the neighborhood.

One thing I would like to note that the article mentioned:

“A city’s zoning restrictions cannot be used to single out churches for discrimination, so we are pleased at the outcome of this case,” said Daniel P. Dalton of the Michigan law firm Dalton & Tomich, an ADF affiliate.

He cited the court’s ruling that the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act meant the city couldn’t interfere with the church’s plans to build a facility.

Our laws protect Christians against the kind of discrimination that this city attempted. All of us need to be aware of our rights under the law.

In the past, anti-religious groups have used lawsuits to drain the finances of religious groups. Since the religious groups could not afford the legal costs, they often lost the rights the law gives them. In this case, because the city was forced to pay court costs, other groups may reconsider before attempting to infringe on the rights of Christians.