As for me, I’m weary of the weird trend that morphs people’s right to freely associate with others of like mind into one which requires everyone to be of like mind so they can all freely associate. In a phrase, if you want to live surrounded by so-called adult entertainment venues, move to Los Vegas. If you want to live far, far away from them, move to Midland or Odessa or San Angelo (et cetera).

I could say more, but I think that hits the high points.

There's a very distinct difference between enforcing the law and using "selective" over-enforcement to harass otherwise legal businesses.

I'm always very troubled when law-enforcement and their adjuncts start bragging that they're going to apply existing laws on a case by case basis to achieve a non-legal objective (non-legal as there currently isn't any law prohibiting such businesses).

That reeks of corruption and should have no place in an American city regardless of its size.

Nor am I reading too much into the situation. Mr. Shorre and Sheriff Painter have made their position quite clear. If the law doesn't give them the power to restrict such businesses, they'll mis-use the power they have to do so themselves. You asked, "If he's overstepping the legal boundaries, as one commenter claims, well, let's see some evidence."

Isn't the open admission of these men, evidence enough? Their stated objective is not to enforce the law as part of their job but to selectively (over) enforce it in such a manner to shut down otherwise legally compliant businesses.

One of the very principles of American jurisprudence is that the law apply equally to everyone. That means also it is enforced equally and on the basis of statute, not the subjective opinions of those in authority.

If the residents of Midland want to keep SOBs out of their area, then draft the necessarily restrictive ordinance. The law will prevent such businesses from opening in the first place. But if there is no basis in law, then law-enforcement is mis-using its powers to impose restrictions which otherwise don't exist.

That's wrong. The ends don't justify the means. Perhaps the commentators on the Jessica's Well blog are, in fact, revealing their personal contempt for the religious beliefs of Sheriff Painter.

The same, however, can not be said of me.

At present, there is no legal basis for shutting down an SOB in Midland, Texas.

Both Mr. Shorre and Sheriff Painter have gone on record saying that they will use their power in a manner that will do so. It doesn't matter if the motivation of these men is religious, or ethical. What does matter is that they are going to use their authority to achieve an end that has no basis in law.

It does not matter that they are mis-using their authority because they hold what you call, "strong convictions of moral obligation". That's an elegant way of saying they're using their authority in this manner because they feel morally right in doing so. Every opressive government feels justified in what they do.

There's no question that legal SOBs invariably will attract crime, notably prostitution. If the community of Midland recognizes this, then ordinances should be passed restricting the size and location of such businesses. But until they are law enforcement has no right to enforce rules that don't exist outside of their own personal bias.

Since you mentioned it, profiling is a prime example. You called it "going where the action is, or is likely to be." Until there is "action" (i.e. documented criminal activity), people are innocent until proven guilty (or at least they used to be). That means in the eyes of the law, four black men in tacky clothes driving in a car late at night are no different then four white men in business suits. Similarly, if a woman wants to wear cheap clothes and saunter around, that's her business. She's not a prostitute until she propositions someone.

Profiling is a great evil because it implies that some people are essentially "guilty until proven innocent". That goes contrary to every legal principle this country was founded upon. In reality, victims of profiling are "guilty" of nothing more than having the wrong skin color, the wrong clothes, the wrong last name, the wrong accent.

Even by your own admission, "the Sheriff is picking on SOBs".

Frankly, I'm surprised you would be so enthusiastic for government-endorsed extra-legal harassment. On several occasions you've made references to the persecution Christians face at the hands of foreign governments. It's true, that does occur. Christians are persecuted in those countries because the government dislikes their beliefs and what they do. No doubt, Communist Chinese authorities feel that they, too, have "strong convictions of moral obligation" to stamp Christianity out entirely.

I doubt you'd dismiss that government's on-going harassment with a sarcastic crack like, "the Commies are picking on the Christians. So what? Newsflash: It's Not Illegal." In China it isn't illegal, either. If the government "picking on" selected groups is not illegal, it must be morally right then, yes?

I suspect you'd be downright irate if a Chinese official was on record telling a Pastor opening his church, "We're going to be on you like ugly on a gorilla."

In essence, the same is occurring here. Midland's law-enforcement apparatus is using its power not to enforce the law equally to all but to persecute these businesses in particular. Why? Because of the personal dislikes of those in authority and for no other reason.

Anybody want to write a haiku for Matthew 7:12?

Am I missing something? Perhaps I misunderstand. If erotic dancing is speech, and protected from government controls under the First Amendment, they can’t very well “prevent such businesses from opening in the first place.” Can they?

Daniel, you're right, of course...there is no legal means of preventing such businesses from opening (AFAIK). But there are ways to make the regulations so painful as to convince them to seek more pleasant locations.

The issue is whether you can get such regs in place before such a business opens, because there are legal implications of trying to implement them after the fact.

And, to your previous comment on this post...Odessa is already home to a number of SOBs, and has been for years. They're the example that Midland is hoping to avoid emulating. The issue of how much business those SOBs draw from Midland is a legitimate one, and does tend to foster a certain amount of cynicism about this whole situation.

Mr. Freen, it's obvious that this issue is a bit of a hot button for you, and you've done your usual excellent job of highlighting issues in a clear and logical fashion. And, frankly, we aren't at odds in as many areas as one might conclude from reading my post and your reaction.

But, I believe that many of your points, while correct in theory, are just not relevant in the situation we're facing in Midland. I don't intend to try to match the length of your comments, but here are some "bullet points" by way of summary:

1) There are no SOBs operating in Midland today. Thus, the accusation that law enforcement officials are somehow bending the law to their own will is moot.

2) The statements regarding what will happen if SOBs move in, absent any regulations, can be viewed in whatever light you wish. You see it as a threat to the American system of justice. I see it as sending a message to those who want to engage in proven crime-attractive activities for profit; that message may or may not be actually enforceable, but at present, it's just talk.

3) The aggressive enforcement of regulations that ARE implemented prior to SOBs moving in is not grounds for outrage. You may not like the terms used to describe such enforcement, but the idea that businesses governed by such regs will be cut no slack is neither illegal nor an abuse of power.

4) "Innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation for our justice system, but not our law enforcement and crime prevention process. It's superceded by "probable cause." Racial profiling is abhorrent, but applying common sense and experience in identifying probable crime scenes and taking steps to either prevent crimes or quickly apprehend the criminals is (or should be) standard operating practice for enforcement officials. Is there a fine line between the two? Yes, of course. It's often a judgment call.

5) Sovereign governments are entitled to enforce their own laws. Sometimes those laws are immoral and sometimes they aren't. IMO, it's a basic human right to challenge the immoral ones using whatever moral means are available. And you know very well what I use as the yardstick for determining what's moral and what isn't.

6) Finally, your shoehorning Matthew 7:12 into this discussion can cut both ways. I'd like for outsiders (read that as "SOBs") to respect my moral stance and that of my community, and to understand that expecting us to compromise those morals in order to allow them to pursue immoral profits is unreasonable. Now, the counterargument will be that if the community is truly against having SOBs in town, market forces will run them out of business without the need for additional intervention. And if they come in and flourish, then the previous value judgment will have been incorrect. That's a credible argument, assuming we're willing to pay the price as a community to find out. I'd rather not...but it may well come down to that.

Heck, everything is a hot button for me, Eric! ;)

I'll try to be a tad more brief (a near-insurmountable task, I know) in responding to your "bullet points".

1.) There are no SOBs in Midland and there are no laws, at present, to prevent them. The goal of restrictive ordinances is to prevent a bad situation from developing. When local law-enforcement admits it is prepared to mis-use their authority to enforce non-existent laws, that's another bad situation in the making.

2.) It may be just "talk" on the part of law-enforcement, but the message itself is wrong. Law enforcement is an integral part of our justice system. I strongly question the mentality behind such "talk" from its agents.

3.) What you call "aggressive enforcement" is a euphemism for selectively over-enforcing existing laws with the intent to harass. That's not legitimate law-enforcement, that's manufacturing the law in its absence. Harassment most definitely is an abuse of power.

4.) There is no "probable cause" in harassing a legally compliant business because of personal bias. "Probable cause" (that a crime has been committed) gives law-enforcement the justification to intervene. A seedy, though legally legitimate, business has not committed any crime, therefore law-enforcement has no "probable cause" to intervene, much less harass them. Your local sheriff and DA aren't making a bad "judgement call" based on error (where most violations of probable cause occur). Their stated objective is a willful act based on full knowledge of the situation.

5.) The only thing worse than the government enforcing an immoral law is inventing and enforcing "laws" without the consent of the governed. That's the worst sort of totalitarianism. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if the "law" is invented on the spot by some official in Beijing or a sheriff in Midland, Texas.

6.) Matthew 7:12 is particularly relevant in light of official harassment, regardless of where it occurs.

Even the commentators on Jessica's Well haven't advocated a "laissez faire" approach to such businesses. The main post was an endorsement of Coucilman Dingus' proposal to restrict such businesses. There hasn't been one opposing post criticizing Dingus for that initiative. In spite of their uncalled-for religious mockery, their primary objections are, in essence, the same as my own. Law enforcement officials have gone on record saying that they will use their authority to enforce existing laws in a manner which harasses a legally compliant business because of personal bias. That's a dangerous precedent to set on any subject.

In my case, I fully recognize the threat SOBs pose to the community and approve of legal measures which restrict their operations to the point of unprofitability.

Best of all, such laws are drafted and codified by representatives of the community, not arbitrarily invented by a heavy-handed sheriff and his DA crony.

It seems to me that there are two different ideas under discussion in this thread. The first is about the use and abuse of power, not about religious belief. I believe that Osama ben Laden is motivated by greed for power, not religious feeling. I don’t know what beliefs inform Sheriff Painter’s views of right and wrong, and I don’t care. It is his and Shorre’s willingness to illegally use the power of the government, that disturbs me. It is illegal, under the Constitution, to selectively enforce the law. For two of our local law enforcement officials to openly brag about such abuse is amazing.

Eric argues that this is all “theory” and that since no SOB’s are in Midland it is just “talk”. I say that even open “talk” about abuse of power deserves public condemnation. Besides, Odessa has several SOB’s and has had for some time; do you, Eric, think that no one in all these years has thought to open one in Midland? Painter has said that we have none because of his aggression, so it is not just “talk”.

The second idea concerns the desire to control other people. Many of the bloggers here seem to jump automatically from the undesirability of SOB’s in Midland to ways to prevent them by force, legal or otherwise. They seem to assume that all things they find morally wrong should be illegal. I personally hope that our town stays free of SOB’s, but I am unwilling to impose this by force of law on others. I am willing to zone them in such a way as to minimize their intrusion on public life, but not zone them with the desire to make them unprofitable which is another version of making them illegal.

The desire to control comes from the political right and left. Those of us who love freedom must be careful to notice and oppose this desire, because it knows no limit. Someone wants to control every aspect of your life. From “sin” taxes, to laws proscribing certain sex acts between consenting adults, to thought police on our college campuses; you name it and someone wants to control it. The latest craze seems to be controlling our food choices in the name of the “obesity epidemic”.