“Hey, check out the new ‘Prince William’ model that we just got in. It has 5 speeds!”

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11198&sid=46

I don’t believe that this business could locate in the MP city center.

City Center is, according to the zoning map I looked at, located in zone MU, mixed-use.

According to the Code of Manassas Park, for the MU zone the following is permitted:

(2) All commercial uses permitted in the B-1 zone district plus the following: amusement places (except satellite wagering facilities) or theaters, banks, loan and credit offices, hotels, bed and breakfasts, nightclubs and restaurants providing live entertainment, automotive service stations and/or maintenance facilities (only if all garage doors do not face a public street), and restaurants with drive-through facilities.

So we must look at what commercial use is permitted in B-1:

(17) Stores or shops for the conduct of retail business, including the sale of accessories, antiques, appliances, beverages, carpets, clothing, drugs, fabrics, food, furniture, garden supplies, groceries, hardware, hobby supplies, office supplies, paint, sporting goods, stationery, and similar stores, but not including adult book stores or adult mini motion picture theatres, or massage parlors. No shop may occupy more than eight thousand (8,000) square feet of floor area.

The only way I see this being permitted in MP city center is if this type of business does not fit the definition of an “adult book store” or “adult mini motion picture theatre”, which are uses specifically noted above as not being included in the permitted uses for B-1, and therefore not included for the permitted uses of MU.

FROM DOJ:

The right of ordinary citizens - and of the press - to speak out and express their views is one of the greatest strengths of our Country, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscene materials and federal law makes it a felony to use the streams of commerce for trafficking in obscenity. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “This much has been categorically decided by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 (1973). Enforcement is necessary in order to protect citizens from unlawful exposure to obscene materials. The welfare of America’s children and families demands the vigorous enforcement of obscenity statutes, as traffickers in illegal adult obscenity employ advancements in technology and marketing to extend their unlawful and harmful influence.

The Task Force is drawing upon its expertise to pursue innovative solutions to the threat posed by those who violate obscenity laws and is mounting a determined effort to coordinate resources at all levels of government to give people the protection the laws are intended to provide.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether material is obscene. The test was developed in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The resulting three-pronged test to adjudicate obscenity is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); and

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and

Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Any material meeting this definition may be found to violate the laws of the United States and anyone convicted of distributing such material may be prosecuted and punished by fines and a term of imprisonment.”

The unitarian church is more interested in having gay proms for confused young teens and helping illegals stay around to commit crimes so their support for this cause fits right in.

I am disappointed, once again, in my city.

I suppose in your eyes those are true family values?

I’ve posted this before. I guess it is time for a short refresher course:

BRUU and UUs mission statements and beliefs in their own words:

Political and social activism:

Mission
BRUU has a mission to ourselves, our community, and our natural world.
BRUU Mission Statement
Bull Run Unitarian Universalists (BRUU) exists to nurture ourselves, our community, and our natural world in the pursuit of spiritual and intellectual growth. We give expression to our mission through celebrating our diversity and giving of our talents and resources with justice, equity and compassion. We work toward our goals through an open democratic process, respecting the views of each individual and seeking to protect the interdependent web of life.
Welcoming Congregation
Bull Run Unitarian Universalists (BRUU) is a Welcoming Congregation which celebrates and supports the lives, the relationships, and the individual and group contributions of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender members and friends. We affirm and promote their full participation in the life of the congregation and community. We pledge our congregation’s commitment to continue dismantling the belief that heterosexuality is the only normal, acceptable, and healthy sexual orientation.
Green Sanctuary
Green Sanctuary is a Unitarian Universalist program to build awareness of environmental issues in order to promote personal lifestyle changes and community action, particularly toward rectifying environmental injustice. Green Sanctuary also strives to connect spiritual practice and environmental consciousness. We are the 20th certified Green Sanctuary in the nation.
http://www.bruu.org/index.php?page=belief

How active are UUs on social issues?
While it’s true that those most vulnerable to injustice in our society — the poor and the minorities — are not found in great numbers in the our ranks, many individual UUs are at the forefront of social justice issues. In addition, most churches regularly give their institutional support to many social justice causes.
Although we could hardly be considered a religion of the oppressed, we cannot be fairly criticized as George Templeton Strong said of many 19th century Unitarians, most of them members of New England’s privileged class: “They are sensible, plausible, candid, subtle and original in discussing any social evil or abuse. But somehow they don’t get at it!”
Today, we do get at it.

Views on same sex marriage:

http://www.uua.org/visitors/uuperspectives/59581.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz8omkCTvQA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx33C9gnhhk&feature=related

Views on abortion:

http://www.uua.org/pressroom/pressreleases/22718.shtml

http://www.uunashua.org/100quest.shtml

What is the church’s view on abortion?
“As an institution, we are strongly pro-choice, as are most individual UUs.”

Views on the environment:
http://www.uua.org/documents/aw/090417_board_report.pdf

http://www.uua.org/searchoursite.shtml?cx=007175923080295419477%3Acbowmcgn4uu&cof=FORID%3A11&q=Cap+and+Trade&sa=Search#1279

http://www.uua.org/visitors/uuperspectives/59580.shtml

excerpt from:
http://www.uua.org/visitors/beliefswithin/6677.shtml

“We don’t believe that humanity has the right or moral authority to exploit the environment or other life forms with whom we share this planet.”

http://www.uua.org/visitors/justicediversity/7015.shtml

While UU’s aren’t everyone’s cup of tea 100%, including mine,
they don’t deserve to be demonized. They were here
at the founding of the Republic (Thomas Jefferson and
John Q. Adams) and became a strong force attacking
slavery and, later, segregation.

BRUU owns the building next door to them - and
currently rents it to a coffee shop. Not sure
a group that also has a history of supporting equality
and respect for women’s rights would lease to an
“adult store”.

(The GOP President? Taft - who spoke before
a Peace Jubilee, fifty years after the War Between
the States, on the grounds of the PWC Courthouse).

I still think they should put the porn shop inside the BRUU. They have a lot in common.

BR and JR (the “family values” candidate..ha ha ha) could sell tickets.

Mpresident, thanks for representing real conservatives.

I’m sure Delegate Miller in his capacity as a police officer has seen many crimes associated with pornography. Have you heard of Ted Bundy?

Do you have a pornography addiction? Then you and Ted Bundy have something in common. Ted Bundy in his own words: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5km7v_ted-bundy-s-last-interview_news

You want to lose the Christian Conservatives? Go ahead and Obama will easily win a second term.

Keep your trash to yourself. You look at women as objects and not valuable human beings. Keep it up and you’ll lose the women vote too!

If someone opened a store catering to supplies and equipment for Civil War reenactors….and ONLY hung the Confederate Battle Flag out front….the “Stars and Bars”…would there be an uproar over this business?

Ohhh that cursed flag…the symbol of slavery…yadda yadda yadda (never did buy into all that arguement about it.

Would there be an uproar?