Smoking, same rights as free speech?

I personally can't stand shrieking kids in a restaurant -- the high pitched sounds damage my eardrums. Maybe we should have shrieking and non-shreiking restaurants. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Actually, you are free to avoid all restaurants. That way you won't be around any shrieking kids.

...you know in major cities....line down the street...

should those club owners have to admit anyone of age to their club in the order they lined up or is it ok for them to pick and choose the "pretty people" or "celebrities" and let them in first?

does the club owner "owe" ugly people some kind of obligation to serve them?

How do you define "public business?"

The Civil Rights Act used the term "places of public accommodation" to mean restaurants, hotels/motels, airports, and the like. There was an employee requirement in order to be subject, or cater to interstate commerce.

And yes I do believe a private business should have the right to discriminate with regard to its clientele on any basis it wants to. I don't think discriminating on the basis of race is right or good business & I would never do it, but I don't think it should be illegal.

You sound like Rand Paul. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

...you know in major cities....line down the street...

should those club owners have to admit anyone of age to their club in the order they lined up or is it ok for them to pick and choose the "pretty people" or "celebrities" and let them in first?

does the club owner "owe" ugly people some kind of obligation to serve them? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

As an ugly person, I sure hope so.

BTW, have you ever seen an "ugly" cheerleader? Especially at a state school that has a premier football team?

Let me ask you this: since you want to make this about race instead of smoker's rights, have you ever refused to represent a minority of any type at your firm? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Conservatives?

Actually, you are free to avoid all restaurants. That way you won't be around any shrieking kids. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The same is true of smoking. That the best ya got?

I don't need anything better. Big difference between smoking and shrieking kids. Guess the line of thought is too much for you.

I personally can't stand shrieking kids in a restaurant -- the high pitched sounds damage my eardrums. Maybe we should have shrieking and non-shreiking restaurants. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Here in Atlanta you can have that. They are smoking bars and restaurants where everybody is over the age of 18.

I'm sure glad you can no longer smoke on airplanes!






Who made that rule????? The government or private industry?

Wrong Liberal Lightweight. If you don't want to provide for your own health insurance, the alternative is for you to suffer (or even die) Originally Posted by pjorourke

No, the alternative is to not pay your hospital bill.

-- i.e., do what you want but take the consequences. Its only when bleeding hearts like you blather that unlimited health care is a "right" that it becomes an issue for others.

Mandating that emergency rooms must treat people regardless of ability to pay is as much an argument that health care is a "right" as anything i'm aware of. Guess which bleeding heart liberal icon signed that little piece of legislation? Hint: His initials stand for Ronald Reagan.

The difference with a tort is that it is something that you did to someone else and you have the responsibility to make them whole. When you don't, its their loss, not yours.

Like when your hospital bill doesn't get paid because you didn't have health insurance?

The same is true of smoking. That the best ya got? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Maybe he just doesn't wanna deal with your fluff.

WOA wait a second! There is no scientific or medical evidence whatsoever that states that eating in the same restaurant with a black person is harmful to your health for one thing and it doesn't make you fat. There is no basis for discrimination. There is a basis for discrimination against smoking due to the health hazards. I think we can agree on that without going over the edge.

And Charles, I apologize, the drinking and driving was a lousy example and your statement regarding it is correct.

All I'm saying is offer people a choice. If you want to enjoy a cig after a meal with your friends, you can go to Bar A. If you want to enjoy a smoke free zone after a meal with your friends, you can go to Bar B. And the peanut allergy thing is a good point. Several restaurants (including Chinese and even Dairy Queen) have signs posted stating that some of their foods contain or come into contact with nut products. Wow, I've been warned. Now I can make an informed decision and if my child has a peanut allergy, I can and will choose not to go to Dairy Queen but instead will go to some other place.

Granted not everything can have an option. Take the above referenced airline situation. It would not be cost effective to have two commercial airlines going to the same destination, at the same time, at the same cost just to have one smoking and one non-smoking. In that case, most definitely I support non smoking and will defer to those who may have health related problems aggravated by cig smoke.

I don't need anything better. Big difference between smoking and shrieking kids. Guess the line of thought is too much for you. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

True, but at least his shrieking kids comparison was better than his blue car nonsense.

No, the alternative is to not pay your hospital bill. Originally Posted by Doove

So free riding on society is your your idea of responsibility. How liberal.

I personally can't stand shrieking kids in a restaurant -- the high pitched sounds damage my eardrums. Maybe we should have shrieking and non-shreiking restaurants. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Shrieking kids won't give you cancer.

And altcomedy, your position for the repeal of the Civil Right Act will be about as popular as Rand Paul's similar position. And in the small town where I live, there were no non-smoking restaurants. None what so ever. Not one.

There are establishments in Texas that allow smoking but ban cigars. So obviously the second hand smoke is not the issue
.
I enjoy a good cigar occasionally, especially after a fine meal and would be happy to retreat to an area, perhaps the patio or a room with a filtration system to enjoy an after dinner smoke. Why should this not be an option?