Friday, February 01, 2008

Coweta County got a Hooters

Charlie Pharis, from Woodstock, Georgia, tells this interesting story in an e-mail:

I know you know all the anecdotes and evidence about the so-called “full service restaurants” that are just chomping at the bit to come to Effingham (or any other place considering the sale of alcohol). We fought the same battle in Newnan and Coweta County back in the late 1980s – early 1990s. Same arguments…”if we want the full-service restaurants we’ve got to have liquor by the drink”, etc. Well, the referendum passed and everyone waited with bated breath to see these great restaurants that would be beating the doors down. When one finally showed up, it was Hooters! Not exactly the “family-friendly, full-service” kind of places the liquor advocates had envisioned!


Effingham Voter said...

You, your church and your hypocritical campaign discuss me. Pastor Bob everybody knows you eat in Chatham County already at establishments that have bars… . For you to vote against it here in Effingham is hypocritical. If you were truly against “liquor” then you shouldn’t step foot in places like Chili’s, Applebee’s, or Longhorn in Chatham County.

Brother Bob said...

Dear Effingham Voter,
I have heard that "hypocritical" argument before. However, if a person does not drink at such restaurants, I don't see it as any more hypocritical than if a nonsmoker eats at a restaurant that has a smoking section, but the person would prefer not to have smoking in restaurants, if given the choice.

Anonymous said...

It is entirely hypocritical. You said liquor was bad, period. Then is it bad in other counties as it is thought to be in Effingham? If full-service restaurants will create such problems, then why do you support them in other counties? You did not say that smoking destroys families and communities, but you did say that about liquor. The statement about being a nonsmoker in a restaurant that allows smoking is unrelated to the whole issue.

Brother Bob said...

Let's stop and think about what you are saying. Everybody would agree that it is hypocrisy to say one thing and do another (such as saying liquor is bad, but then going out and drinking liquor). But that's not what you are saying. You are saying that it is hypocrisy to say one thing and then associate with other people who do another thing (such as saying liquor is bad, and then eating food, but not drinking liquor, at a restaurant that serves liquor). If that is your definition of hypocrisy, then I dare say that almost every person in the world is a hypcorite at some point.
What if a person believes gambling is bad; is he a hypocrite to buy gasoline at a station that sells lottery tickets? Or if he believes pornography is bad, is he a hypocrite if the gas station has Playboy for sale behind the counter? What if a person believes abortion is bad; is she a hypocrite if she goes to a doctor who performs abortions? And again, what if a person believes smoking is bad; is she a hypocrite for eating at a restaurant that allows smoking? In all of these cases, the person has not said one thing and done another; instead, the person has said one thing while associating with others who have done the other thing. My point is, that your defintion of hypocrisy is one that would make you and every other person on earth a hypocrite at some point in their life.

Anonymous said...

No! It has been said that full-service restaurants will create social problems. If that is true, then why do you support them in other counties? The thing said is that full-service restaurants destroy families and communities because they will increase drunk driving and damage a town's family-friendly reputation.

Brother Bob said...

I think you misunderstood what I have said. I have never said that drinking was wrong; I have consistently said that drunkenness is wrong. I have not said that restaurants destroy families, I have said that liquor destroys families. I have said that I would like to see national chain restaurants come to our town; I said that these kinds of restaurants have come to communities without liquor, which would be preferable, as it would mean less likelihood of drunk driving. I have said that allowing liquor by the drink could lead to having bars, which even the proponents of liquor agree with me, is something they do not want.
You know, I go to Wal-Mart and Kroger to get groceries, and those places have beer and wine for sale. I wish it was not sold in those stores, but in the real world that I live in, things aren't that simple. To refuse to shop there would not reduce their alcohol sales, it would only hurt my own family. You can insist on calling that hypocritical, if you wish, but I simply remind you that if you hold to such a standard of hypocrisy, watch out-- you'll have a hard time avoiding hypocrisy yourself. For example, is a person hypocritical if he says he wants liquor but he doesn't want bars or package stores? Someone might ask, "Who is he to say that liquor is okay in restaurants but not in bars and package stores?"
I think I have made my point and you have made yours; further discussion at this point seems to just create more heat, but no new light on the subject.