Sorry I missed the part where you shared an article with me on a different reply as I'm going through one at a time. Also as I said there on my other reply, its paywalled. I'm not a mass guy I don't subscribe. I appreciate this link and will take a look

Then fucking cite something dude. I speculated this fucking years ago but there has been no traction on it on any official standpoint I've seen.

It's paywalled. Can't read it.

Quote one

Interesting user name in this subject matter

He decriminalized it at least. Dems Hassan and Lynch vehemently said they would shoot down anything. I'm guessing you prefer to ignore that thought with your state voting bit

Speculation at best, stop saying it like it's fact. It could be a bunch of other different stupid reasons.

This keeps coming up about the state wanting to monopolize sale as it does with liquor but it's speculation at best.

Edit: please someone tell me where this has been actually stated officially and I'll happily stand corrected. But you can't.

Well no one ever posts about trying to do something about it.

Exactly my point

Like that darned Maggie Hassan!

This is possible but it is speculation and not fact

Why are people still just finding out about this and making a new post every day is my question

Based on the time I went to Supercuts i left there with the impression they certainly didn't study to cut hair.

Sub seems to get a lot more traffic the last 6 months than it used to, and there's been a bit of a shift in personalities

Pretty sure they would have refused as they slithered away anyhow

All of our politicians seem to get by fine without one

Say what you want, agree or disagree as much as you want, but there are sign laws everywhere.

Let's see what the courts say over us two idiots then eh?

I don't see how that changes anything from a legal standpoint. And I will reiterate the sign is fine and they should adjust the bylaws.

Dude you're 20 years late to make that comment accurate. But for your enjoyment: No cap, fr fr.

they can be more restrictive but not in violation of. FFS you and the sundown laws..

You can prohibit the sale of alcohol in a county or town. That's more restrictive but not in violation of the fucking constitution. What do you not understand? A permanent sign on a business is not protected via the first amendment or the constitution. Good lord.

Your continued correlation of this sign issue to historical abject racism in multiple threads is fucking weird and I am not going to get into it past here. This is not even close from a morality standpoint, and its gross to compare the two like they are equivalent. The people in the town can change the sign law as they all agree on and deem fit. A sign is not a person. Comparing this silly sign issue as a tribulation to those oppressed by sundown laws is fucking disgusting honestly.

well that's not really pointing out a NH law unless you want to source one. Its a completely off the deep hyperbolic statement. State and town laws can be more restrictive than the US or State constitution but they cannot be in violation of it, and as dumb as the people trying to take down this sign are, they're within regulation to do so. The people in the town should change that.

I'm also in favor of donut murals on a donut shop, but lets figure it out so we have laws that make sense and we are in line with what we have all agreed upon.