Gretsch Events

ATTENTION! How about we go a Fur Peace for 2017 Roundup? Read and d…

51

There's a difference between having a rule, not a law, for your own home such as no smoking allowed [where it's legal] but anyone who's there is there by invitation of the owner and therefore subject to their rules. A place such as this ranch, while certainly private property, has made itself available to the public, for a fee, to stay there. Now while a no smoking policy may be in effect it is not, I assume, due to the wishes of the owners, is considered a public place and as such fall under State Law. -- Windsordave

No. This is a private establishment which can set its own rules as it sees fit. The only exception is if there is a restraint that violates a Constitutionally-protected right, then the restraint can be set aside. Short of that, you have agreed with him (by contract) that you will not engage in the specified behaviour. State law provides you no safe harbor here.

– Ric12string

Thanks Bob. Okay, so this isn't considered a public establishment in the sense a hotel is, correct? Either way he has the right to set the rules as he sees fit. I understand the issue of a rights violation and that the State Law takes precedence, and Federal Law precedence over State Law.

52

Sounds like y'all will have enough designated drivers, anyway. ☺

53

I grew up literally 20 minutes from Fur Peace, in Gallipolis Ohio. I still drive there several times a year to visit family. If this round-up happens, I WILL be there.

54

Sounds great — though I do enjoy a few beers and such while round-upping. But it's never truly essential. And there's probably a local bar nearby if suds are strongly desired.

Tim, it's likely I'll be heading out to Fur Peace in mid-October to film an interview with Jorma. Can do some on-the-ground reconnaissance while I'm there if it would be helpful.

55

Thanks Bob. Okay, so this isn't considered a public establishment in the sense a hotel is, correct? Either way he has the right to set the rules as he sees fit. I understand the issue of a rights violation and that the State Law takes precedence, and Federal Law precedence over State Law.

– Windsordave

I think that what you are angling at here is the connection of the restraint with the interstate commerce clause because of the fact that it provides a service available to the public. The difference here, Dave, is that the restraint itself is entirely legal. Where hotels and other public service businesses ran afoul of the law was when they began to include restraints that violated the equal rights amendment, etc. So, restraints based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., would all be classifications of restraints that would violate constitutionally protected rights and, even though the business is privately owned, it does involve interstate commerce. So, the Constitution in this country provides protection against such actions.

However, in this case, even though the Fur Peace Ranch does provide accommodations to the public, the restraint is not one that is protected by our Constitution. For example, I could have a ban on anyone wearing pink underwear into my restaurant and there would be nothing unlawful about that. However, if I were to say that a member of a racial minority could not dine there, that would be unlawful because it violates a Constitutionally-protected right.

56

So, in essence, privately owned businesses can legally regulate the behavior of patrons while on the premises, but not to deny service to patrons willing to abide by the behavioral edicts, right?

The old standby "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" can be used to refuse entry to a person who is drunk, smells terrible, or is acting offensively or strangely, or in violation of the establishment's dress code, but not to a person of a particular race or ethnicity, or wearing a Hasidic rabbi's outfit, nun's habit, hajib or turban, or dreadlocks, for example.

Some time back, I heard of a restaurant in New York that had a "smell code." They would refuse entry to anyone who reeked of cigars, clove cigarettes, patchouli oil, or Giorgio perfume.

57

I assume that the alcohol and drug ban is primarily based upon a philosophical decision for a sober lifestyle preference, but wonder if it may also include a business aspect - might they have less of an insurance bill and issues if no alcohol is served or allowed? Less likelihood of related accidents?

Regardless, I agree it's the Kaukonens' place and decision and potential customers need to either accept or move on. I'd be willing to miss a couple of beers for this opportunity.

58

Seems like we have critical mass here. I'll proceed with finding out what needs found out.

Anyone disagree?

59

Fur Peace??? What in the hello kind of place is this? A hippy commune? Cant have something called a ROUNDUP there can you? What do I do with my guns n whiskey?

60

Fur Peace??? What in the hello kind of place is this? A hippy commune? Cant have something called a ROUNDUP there can you? What do I do with my guns n whiskey?

– Dr. Titan McKrakus™ (two thumbs up!)

I belong to a private firing range about half an hour away from there. Just save the whiskey for after, k? There's good ways and bad ways to wind up on the news. LOL

61

I think that what you are angling at here is the connection of the restraint with the interstate commerce clause because of the fact that it provides a service available to the public. The difference here, Dave, is that the restraint itself is entirely legal. Where hotels and other public service businesses ran afoul of the law was when they began to include restraints that violated the equal rights amendment, etc. So, restraints based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., would all be classifications of restraints that would violate constitutionally protected rights and, even though the business is privately owned, it does involve interstate commerce. So, the Constitution in this country provides protection against such actions.

However, in this case, even though the Fur Peace Ranch does provide accommodations to the public, the restraint is not one that is protected by our Constitution. For example, I could have a ban on anyone wearing pink underwear into my restaurant and there would be nothing unlawful about that. However, if I were to say that a member of a racial minority could not dine there, that would be unlawful because it violates a Constitutionally-protected right.

– Ric12string

Thanks for the further clarification Bob, I appreciate you going into detail.

Decades ago when living back in Ontario, my Barbershop Chorus had a retreat every fall at a lodge that for the public, closed for the year the weekend before our weekend. There was only around 25-30 of us but another group, from a church, numbered around 40-odd and years back they'd heard us singing all over the place (quartets) and so arranged to come the same weekend as our group. The lodge decided to make the weekend just for the two groups so we had the run of the place and it was great. You could've stocked a small liquor/beer store with what we brought! We had a rousing good time and there was never an incident of any kind involving boisterous behavior or anyone being sick or damage to anything. Our rooms all had small refrigerators too. Now this establishment, in Ontario, could also have had a no alcohol policy but chose not to. They trusted us to treat the place as our own home and we did. Had this lodge had a no alcohol policy, we would've looked elsewhere for a place for our retreat.

I don't like a no alcohol policy on principal, but I respect his decision to run his business in that fashion.

62

I could be wrong, and many times I am, but perhaps the consideration of liability insurance on the property may play a part in the decision as well.

63

Fur Peace??? What in the hello kind of place is this? A hippy commune? Cant have something called a ROUNDUP there can you? What do I do with my guns n whiskey?

– Dr. Titan McKrakus™ (two thumbs up!)

I was just helping a bump in the thread, I dont own guns and I dont drink whiskey on purpose. But I own several cowboy hats and wear leather boots, belt and wallet.

Fur Peace, holy cow what if I died there, on a hippie commune ..oh the irony!

64

Well, I think that would be tragic anywhere but If you have a bucketlist?

65

Can you drink whiksey accidentally?

66

And to think, I still have a brand new fifth of moonshine waiting its turn in the spotlight

67

Can you drink whiksey accidentally?

– Proteus

I did for decades, it was always an "accident".

69

No. If you are a real lonesome cowboy, you cannot drink whiskey accidentally. There'd be adequate proof to that statement, but I'd be stretching it into a pun otherwise ill-intended.

I think the policy comes down to Jorma's wish that the ranch be more about learnin' and playin' than drinkin' and playin' and partyin' ... That and the fact that sloppy/angry/sad drunks are never fun.

I'm in... but what's our story for 2016?

70

We be French-Lickin'. Official announcement pending.

71

Imagine my disappointment when I realized this thread was not about someone's prized merkin collection.

72

I've always wanted to do the Fur Peace thing. Even better to do it with friends. As to the alcohol issue I can do without for a few days to devote to learning the guitar a bit better from real players.

But if anyone one wants to get together for a few beers on the way out of town I'm game.

73

So, assuming this all comes together how would the days/nights actually work? For instance do people setup and tear down each day and take everything back to the room?

74

We be French-Lickin'. Official announcement pending.

– Proteus

Is this official announcement somewhere that I can't find?

75

We be French-Lickin'. Official announcement pending.

– Proteus

FRENCH LICKIN' ???

Is this going to be a Roundup or a European Porn Convention,either way I want in!


Register Sign in to join the conversation