Do you support restrictions on when alcohol can be sold?

[angus]

No.

North Carolina has Option 1, which is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

How's it a clear violation of church and state?  Not clear to me that it is.

MS and MA have similar laws, no booze sold except between 9 am and midnight Monday through Saturday.  As you might imagine, this creates massive congestion on IH93 to New Hampshire on Sunday mornings during NFL season.  CA, as I recall, allows the sale of beverages 24/7.  TX and FL were in between, with hard liquor and wine sold 6 days a week, and beer only on Sundays.  I also lived briefly in New York, and it's a bit complicated.  Grocery stores sell only 5% alcohol products, so you have to go to package stores to get liquor and wine.  But, while they're not open 'round the clock, they are open seven days a week, as I recall.  So it's less fexible than CA, but more flexible than MA.  It's certainly a patchwork of laws out there, and till recently (circa 1986) a patchwork of different drinking ages.  (e.g., 18 in one state, 19 in another, and 18 for beer/21 for hard liquor in some, etc.)  Nowadays, that's all cleared up:  21 for all. 

As an aside, to add to the patchwork, bars have different opening times.  They were generally open till 2 in TX, CA, MS, and FL, till 1 in MA, and till 3 or later in parts of NY.  Also, the MS state supreme court recently overturned a state law regulating the temperature at which beer can be sold.  In some cities you could only buy room-temperature beer, not cold beer.  This was not the case in Columbus, and I've seen cold and hot beer for sale everywhere, and there's no shortage of filthy drunks in this town, but it was the law, apparently, for a long time in many counties.  The state, this summer, was challenged, and the state SC decided it was against the state constitution to place such restrictions.  Counties could either allow for the sale of beer, or not.  The result is that you can now get cold beer legally in, for example, the county in which Harry attends university.  Americans do like their beer cold, after all.  Also, the US Supreme Court recently visited the issue of interstate wine sales.  Prior to this summer, in places like MI and NY state, you could not buy wine legally on-line, as it violated state tax laws.  Now you can, legally.  Of course, it doesn't make it feasible, since paying $2.50 shipping on a seven-dollar cabernet sauvignon doesn't make much sense. 

anyway, I vote no, for practical reasons (decreases interstate driving by drunks on football season sundays) and for conservative/ideological reasons (I'd like to see a much smaller role for government vis-a-vis business transactions, and would like to see less restrictions in this area in general) and for personal reasons (when I've lived in states in which booze isn't sold on sundays, I found that I always had to remember to stock up on other days.  this is a major hassle, since Sunday would be the most convenient day to shop for booze otherwise.)  24/7 worked best for me, as I recall.  This was one thing I liked about living out west.

[angus]

No, obviously not.  If you’re Christian and don’t want to drink on Sunday, that’s great!

what christian wouldn't want to drink on sunday?  after all, most practicing christians who take communion do so at high mass (sunday) and not at folk mass (saturday evening)  I'd thought, if anything, the separation to which nclib erroneously referred was the "...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof..." part of that amendment, and not the establishment clause.  I'd contend that if you're the monsignor and you live in an area in which booze isn't sold on sundays (e.g., Boston) then you make sure you have a stock on saturday.  Anyway, I'd agree with anyone who wants to write his legislature asking that this law be revisited, as it certainly shouldn't sit will with the conservative (pro-free market) set, but you can't expect any legal mind to buy into the idea that it prohibits the free exercise of religion.  The blue laws only say you can't sell sacramental wine on certain days, but they do not say when you can serve them.  After all, that'd clearly be a violation.  Now, if you want to try to argue that making mescaline consumption illegal (and the government has done just that!) you'd have a case, as many indigenous religions require the consumption of peyote cactus buttons for "visions"  By the way, in those South Texas and New Mexico counties in which indigenous people do eat mescaline-laced peyote, the cops usually turn a blind eye.  Seems like a reasonable way to handle the situation.  It allows those who are so paranoid that they like to keep addictive substances illegal to have their way, but still respects the religious practices of the people.  I think it's the same when a seven-year-old goes to first communion.  No one balks that a priest is serving wine to a minor, and everyone understands that to do so is tantamount to prohibition of free exercise of religion.  Still, I disagree with the restrictions of alcohol sales on conservative ideological, practical, and personal grounds.  And those grounds make a much better legislative case than the indefensible position that it somehow interferes with religious practice.

[angus]

Most of them couldn't care less what day they get off.

haven't met many football fans have you?

[angus]

I'll vouch that every catholic mass I've ever attended used wine.  nasty wine.  I'll also vouch that Jewish congretations that I've attended used no wine.  (no surprise there)  And that the only mormon church I've attended used grape juice.  I've also been inside Buddhist houses of worship but don't recall anything that was supposed to represent the "blood of christ" inside them either (no surprise there).  I've also been to some prot services but didn't take communion with them so I can't comment on it.  Walked up to the door of a mosque and peered in, but out of respect for the worshippers inside did not go in.  (My impression is that mosques are places for true monotheists, and not necessarily for curious folks with cameras.  Kind of like a native american Kiva, which I've never been inside either.)

but this is far beyond the point of the thread.  the point is that these laws rub me the wrong way as well.  If I thought they didn't suck I wouldn't give a damn about nclib's confusion.  But precisely because I disagree with laws putting restrictions on private businesses, particularly those that sell products I consume, nclib's total brainfart becomes important.  If I pinned my hopes on someone to make the case for me that these laws should be changed, I'd want someone with a clue to make that case.  I can't imagine that any lawyer or judge in the known universe would buy that temporal restrictions on alcohol sales violates the establishment clause.  But I can imagine that state legislators could be convinced, either by moralizing, personal reasons, conservative ideological reasons, or practical reasons, that they should revisit these laws.  After all, it's clearly a matter that the US constitution leaves up to the states, so your job is to convince state legislators.  And most of them are lawyers, so trying to blow smoke up their asses by saying it's a matter of church/state separation is a poor strategy.

[angus]

This joke doesn't work that well outside a U.K context, but I like it anyway:

"A man ran through a crowded train looking very agitated, calling out, "Is there a Catholic priest on board?"

When he got no reply, he ran back up the train shouting, "Is there an Anglican priest on board?" Still no reply.

By now becoming more desparate, he ran down the train shouting, "Is there a Rabbi on board?"

Eventually, a gentleman stood up and said, "Can I be of any assistance, my friend? I'm a Methodist minister."

The man looked at him and said, "No, you're no bloody good. I need a corkscrew!"

works well enough.  seems you have a tacky sense of humor after all.  good show.

It's also good to know you're not the sort of leftist that would protest the Notre Dame mascot for perpetuating negative stereotypes.