7 ms·

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. As I recall, this is precisely how British Columbia got Sunday shop

• tuckerconnelly 4y ago
  Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?
  • egberts1 4y ago
    Does it matter?
    • Sunspark 4y ago
      For some it might. What if one is a practising member of a religion that has their Sabbath on Friday or Saturday? They are put at a competitive disadvantage if they are forced to be closed for 2 days instead of 1.
      • kevviiinn 4y ago
        That argument is just absurd, why should that matter Is it the responsibility of the government to protect the profit opportunities of some specific people who choose to be a certain religion?
    • zenexer 4y ago
      Yes: if it’s the sabbath, that’s an argument with which I’m familiar. My counter-argument is that I don’t want to be forced to practice someone else’s religion. If your religion already imposes those rules on its followers, why does it need a secular government to assist? If it’s not the sabbath, then I’m intrigued and want to learn more.
      • nonethewiser 4y ago
        That isn’t forcing you to practice a religion.
        • thwarted 4y ago
          If there's a fine for operating your business on Sunday because Sunday is the Sabbath, then there's a tax on not practicing a religion.
        • causality0 4y ago
          It's literally forcing a tenet of a religion on everyone. It's like making it illegal to sell beef on Fridays during Lent or making alcohol illegal in an Islamic country.
      • tsimionescu 4y ago
        Somewhat pedantic, but I would note that Sunday isn't the Sabbath, Saturday is. Most Christians don't observe the Sabbath (citing Jesus's defense of the woman who was supposed to be stoned because she had collected wood on the Sabbath). Instead, they rest on the Lord's day, commemorating Jesus's resurrection the day after the Sabbath, while still recognizing that their god rested after creating the world on a Saturday.
  • wongarsu 4y ago
    Not OP, but I think having one day where nearly everyone (except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services) has off is good for family cohesion. It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together.
    • A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      << except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services Does cohesion of those families matter less?
      • Dylan16807 4y ago
        Is that a real question? You didn't split out essential services, and it seems dead-obvious to me that shutting those down would cause more harm than good even when you value all families exactly the same. There's no way they're saying the families of essential service providers are less important. And it seems pretty clear they're grouping those other things in with essential services, which you could disagree with, but is a very different thing from saying those families are less important.
        • A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
          << Is that a real question? I am genuinely curious how a person reconciles two seemingly opposing views: "It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together." where everyone is everyone except: "except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services". I could easily give in on essential services, because a lot will ride on how broadly they are defined, but if the goal is 'family cohesion' building for everyone then as few groups should be excluded as possible ( which also means that businesses that people, who usually have even less leisure time than most of us -- restaurants, attractions, hospitality -- can recharge ). I will be honest. For me it the line drawing always tends to be the most interesting piece, because it tends to indicate what the individual really values. In this case, and this is not a shot, because it is very human thing to do, they value 'their family cohesion' and 'their ability to participate in various leisure activities' over those who have to serve them, while they bond with their loved ones. For the record, the line listed by parent is not unreasonable, but can you give me an argument as to why it is not amazingly selfish way of looking at society ( Sunday for me, but not for thee ).
  • ipcress_file 4y ago
    What irked me was that a lot of major corporations got together to subvert the law out of self-interest. If the people wanted to change the law, fine. Call a referendum.
• 14 4y ago
  I am from BC and the Sunday no shopping was a bit before my time but my dad talks about how stupid it was. If you had a problem and needed something in an emergency well too bad. Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. Like you say eventually people realized the fines were actually just the cost of doing business. Those who opened up sundays made a killing because that is what the people wanted. I know a guy who did the same for opening a marijuana shop. Did it just before it was legal and was getting a $150 fine each day from the city. He said just a cost of business as he was making several thousand or more each day.
  • scoot 4y ago
    > Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. Probably not the best example, because it's not like a sandwich is the only lunch option (the lazy one for sure), but I take your point. Migraine and no painkillers, period and no pads, sex and no condom, alcoholic and no alcohol (with risk of lethal DTs)? Too bad...
    • libraryatnight 4y ago
      The logic you use to dismiss the sandwich example extrapolates to your own examples. "Shut off the lights and go to bed or go to the ER" "Stuff a cloth in your underwear" "Don't have sex" "Don't you have any sterno or mouthwash?!" Why even do this to someone if you understood their meaning and more or less agree?
      • scoot 4y ago
        So your argument is that no shopping is an inconvenience, not an imposition? I ask because you did the same thing you're arguing against, and yet failed to provide any counter examples.
        • libraryatnight 4y ago
• dboreham 4y ago
  Same in England. In Scotland there were no strong laws against Sunday shopping, apparently because nobody thought any shop would even think about opening. So when they did, and everyone went shopping, folks in England complained that they wanted what Scotland had.
  • gerdesj 4y ago
    Are you sure? It sounds vaguely convincing but unlikely in practice: Scotland - Largely Presbyterian ie rather more Catholic than us southern softies wot do Church of Eng. Your Catholic is rather more concerned about Sabbath behaviour than your Protestant except when they don't. Mind you we have some laughable nonsense available regardless of denomination - for example otters were once classed as fish hereabouts for Fish Friday. lol! It is quite hard to get more than 50 miles away from the sea in Britain. We also have quite a lot of rivers/streams/brooks/burns/cultured waterways - canals. Those ribbons of water contain quite a lot of fish. Yes, the UK might be quite as mad as you imagine it - we seem to require mammals to be classified as fish to ensure we make a God happy (one day in seven). I recall shopping on Sunday becoming a thing here around the late 80s/early 90s but hours were not too conservative here in the UK compared to the rest of europe. We never had formal lunchtime closing for example, which is bloody annoying. I lived in W Germany for a few years back in 70s-90s and it was tricky buying stuff around 1200-1400 depending on where you were and the time. Nowadays I note that Italy, Spain, Portugal int al still have some pretty patchy midday work practices. That's fine but caveat emptor!
    • pauby 4y ago
      In Central Scotland, during the 70s and 80s, lunch time closing was the norm. Half day Wednesday was also very popular in some trades (butchers, grocers etc.) as it allowed working on a Saturday morning. Back then, nothing was open on a Sunday. In some parts of Scotland (the Western Isles for example) doing any work, hanging your washing out, cutting your grass etc. on a Sunday, to be violating the Sabbath. No laws. Just peer pressure from your neighbours. As you'd expect this is stronger in smaller villages than larger towns.
• FpUser 4y ago
  >"I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work." I actually do agree with it. Same reason as jury nullification. If enough people (jury members in this case) believe that the law / particular application is unjust then fuck it. In nullification the government must give in. I do not see why it should be any different in general. The key here should be what constitutes "enough"
  • nonethewiser 4y ago
    This has a name. Mob rule.
    • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Not doing this has a name, too. Slavish obedience. The jury is not supposed to be robots. They're there because there's supposed to be someone with judgment.
    • FpUser 4y ago
      Alternatively we can call it restraining our masters when they run amok. They're the same mob that we are. If the law goes against common sense / justice then the fuck with it. Why should we suffer a consequence of some lunatic with damaged brain.
    • Timwi 4y ago
      That's just a derogatory term for democracy.
• SideQuark 4y ago
  Listing a place a law was broken to advocate for repeating it is not good advice. The proper metric is to see how many times laws are broken and how often that works out for the lawbreaker. IA is learning the difference, unfortunately.
  • ipcress_file 4y ago
    I didn't advocate for breaking the law. I said I disagreed with the whole thing. I was pointing out that the approach had worked in the past, because the previous poster had argued that "breaking [the law] before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good."
    • SideQuark 4y ago
      The previous poster made a more defensible statement given the totality of outcomes when breaking the law. If I told someone smoking is bad forr their health, would you follow with "I know a person that smoked till 98" as reasonable advice? This is the same argument. And in this case, the actions of IA may well end them for all of us. That's not such a good outcome for breaking the law, is it?
      • ipcress_file 4y ago
        This is a faulty parallel. Someone who smokes until they're 98 is not engaged in a quest to change the general outcome of smoking for all others.
        • SideQuark 4y ago
          Not many lawbreakers are doing it to change the law either. And we're seeing the IA possibly going to end because they wanted to break the law, and not completely for some moral cause, but because breaking it helps them. There was plenty of reasonable calling out Brewster's ignorant and self-serving choices on this issue for some time. He didn't need to do this, and he put the entire operation at unnecessary risk, as his critics claimed would happen. This is what lawbreaking generally does.