Comments on: Talibaptists Defeated in John’s Creek http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/ Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:45:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Hong Phuc http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/comment-page-1/#comment-7365 Hong Phuc Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:29:13 +0000 http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/#comment-7365 Good luck to you Mr. Cornetta. You are a true American fighting for capitalism and the right to own your own business. You are an icon representing freedom to many people. Good luck to you Mr. Cornetta. You are a true American fighting for capitalism and the right to own your own business. You are an icon representing freedom to many people.

]]> By: John Cornetta http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/comment-page-1/#comment-7345 John Cornetta Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:39:49 +0000 http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/#comment-7345 " Talibaptists " how funny. I thank you for a fair and balanced assessment. I am going to start to use the term that I think you coined by saying "Talibaptists" next week after my January 2nd court hearing. Please email me privately if you want credit. Otherwise. Cheers. Talibaptists I have to go sit now my stomach is killing me from laughter.... :-) Regards, John Cornetta “Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1939-1975 ” Talibaptists ” how funny. I thank you for a fair and balanced assessment. I am going to start to use the term that I think you coined by saying “Talibaptists” next week after my January 2nd court hearing. Please email me privately if you want credit. Otherwise. Cheers.

Talibaptists I have to go sit now my stomach is killing me from laughter…. :-)

Regards,

John Cornetta

“Restriction on free thought and free speech
is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the
one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”

William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1939-1975

]]> By: Hong Phuc http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/comment-page-1/#comment-7210 Hong Phuc Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:55:53 +0000 http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/#comment-7210 Thank you for your comment. I understand how it works according to GA law, but I do not believe it should work this way. Let me clarify the point I am making from a foreigner’s perspective. Scenario: The Government says you can’t open your business to Mr. Cornetta. As a consequential action they are saying to his employees, you are not allowed to work. So they are being prohibited by the Government from going in to work. Shouldn’t the Government compensate them for basically pointing a gun at them (through the use of police officers) and telling them they will not go to work? As part of this scenario I am disallowing the use of the free market argument that they are free to go work somewhere else. Why am I prohibiting the use of that argument in this scenario? In a 100% free market economy the discussion of Mr. Cornetta’s business would not be brought up. Therefore if you are not allowing him 100% free market reign then you can not apply that selectively to those in his employ. In short I am saying, what is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander, with regard to the situation. Following a purely logical argument without regard to how the real world works I think the scenario as I have outlined it makes sense. But going back to the free market for a moment, the residents could have pooled some money to buy Mr. Cornetta out rather than abuse the power of government to oust him. Even better yet maybe they shouldn’t have sold or leased the property to him if they didn’t want him there. I’m sure he would not have put that store there for a price. I would have charged around $50 million myself as a buyout not to put a similar store in JC. Why $50 million? That’s just what the Lottery happens to be this week. It’s an arbitrary, but entertaining number. I do like your point on how the city has managed to paint themselves, not into a corner, but totally out of the room. I doubt they would have known in advance that their destiny is going to be decided by someone else. Thank you for your comment. I understand how it works according to GA law, but I do not believe it should work this way. Let me clarify the point I am making from a foreigner’s perspective.
Scenario: The Government says you can’t open your business to Mr. Cornetta. As a consequential action they are saying to his employees, you are not allowed to work. So they are being prohibited by the Government from going in to work. Shouldn’t the Government compensate them for basically pointing a gun at them (through the use of police officers) and telling them they will not go to work?
As part of this scenario I am disallowing the use of the free market argument that they are free to go work somewhere else. Why am I prohibiting the use of that argument in this scenario? In a 100% free market economy the discussion of Mr. Cornetta’s business would not be brought up. Therefore if you are not allowing him 100% free market reign then you can not apply that selectively to those in his employ. In short I am saying, what is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander, with regard to the situation. Following a purely logical argument without regard to how the real world works I think the scenario as I have outlined it makes sense.
But going back to the free market for a moment, the residents could have pooled some money to buy Mr. Cornetta out rather than abuse the power of government to oust him. Even better yet maybe they shouldn’t have sold or leased the property to him if they didn’t want him there. I’m sure he would not have put that store there for a price. I would have charged around $50 million myself as a buyout not to put a similar store in JC. Why $50 million? That’s just what the Lottery happens to be this week. It’s an arbitrary, but entertaining number.
I do like your point on how the city has managed to paint themselves, not into a corner, but totally out of the room. I doubt they would have known in advance that their destiny is going to be decided by someone else.

]]> By: Thomas http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/comment-page-1/#comment-7207 Thomas Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:45:42 +0000 http://www.viet-justice.net/2006/12/21/talibaptists-defeated-in-john%e2%80%99s-creek/#comment-7207 Morning. <i>Next, I asked a few people if the city of John’s Creek would pay the wages of the employees of The Love Shack if the store is closed.</i> Compensation for unemployment would be available to any displaced employee through the Georgia DOL, provided their most recent and previous employers had managed their payroll taxes and deductions properly. Also, Cornetta (or a designated HR manager in his employ) would have to dismiss those employees in a manner that would leave them eligible. It's been awhile, but I think they'd be in the clear so long as their reason for separation was akin to being laid off or down-sized. No matter what the citizens you polled said, the law is the law. The employees would be compensated, most likely. But the responsibility for the livelihood of these employees would not fall on the residents of Johns Creek anyway. Cornetta himself is responsible solely. It's his ethical duty as a business owner to run his business in such a way that stable profit fuels his own payroll. If he makes a poor decision, his employees will suffer. It could be argued that opening a shop in Johns Creek was a poor decision from a strictly business standpoint. What's interesting now is that any appeals from this point forward will be lacking in Johns Creek representation. JC was only incorporated about twelve days ago, but Cornetta was setting up shop long before then. So it is now a pure fight between the business and the county. (I got here via GriftDrift, btw. Cheers.) Morning.

Next, I asked a few people if the city of John’s Creek would pay the wages of the employees of The Love Shack if the store is closed.

Compensation for unemployment would be available to any displaced employee through the Georgia DOL, provided their most recent and previous employers had managed their payroll taxes and deductions properly. Also, Cornetta (or a designated HR manager in his employ) would have to dismiss those employees in a manner that would leave them eligible. It’s been awhile, but I think they’d be in the clear so long as their reason for separation was akin to being laid off or down-sized.

No matter what the citizens you polled said, the law is the law. The employees would be compensated, most likely.

But the responsibility for the livelihood of these employees would not fall on the residents of Johns Creek anyway. Cornetta himself is responsible solely. It’s his ethical duty as a business owner to run his business in such a way that stable profit fuels his own payroll. If he makes a poor decision, his employees will suffer. It could be argued that opening a shop in Johns Creek was a poor decision from a strictly business standpoint.

What’s interesting now is that any appeals from this point forward will be lacking in Johns Creek representation. JC was only incorporated about twelve days ago, but Cornetta was setting up shop long before then. So it is now a pure fight between the business and the county.

(I got here via GriftDrift, btw. Cheers.)

]]>