Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
And what would happen if the private establishment banned blacks from entering? Apartheid mk III?? The rights to exclusion are nonsense.
|
Private clubs - where you pay membership - can still ban blacks -- q.v. many golf courses (yes, still). Civil Rights Act is the ONLY thing that prevents a bar from banning blacks. Again, the constitution does not disallow me from being prejudice, rather it is a bar to the government making laws that discriminate.
Using fair logic, we make it up to the OWNER of the bar to decide whether smoking is allowed. Then, we BAN smoking outside, where it can affect anyone traversing the public property. This I would be more supportive of. Telling a pub owner what he must or must not allow is a sort of tyranny.
A night club can refuse you entrance if it does not like your shirt or the size/shape of your butt. Living in NYC I am sure you realize this. Now, under the law, it can still do this, but it must not allow smoking inside. This is absolute idiocy. Either the club owner owns his private land or he does not.
[edit] And, the club can still install all the annoying FOG MACHINES it wants!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]You seem to be saying the bar owner should be allowed to do as he likes....somehow I can't see most people saying the owner should be allowed to run a prostitution ring on the floor of his bar or sell cocaine in the back,....those are illegal....well, NOW in NY, at least, so is letting people smoke around the other patrons. Laws are made and changed and even dropped all the time. I guess it just doesn't offend me as it seems to do for alot of people here.
Bars can be held responsible if they let a drunk drive home and injure/kill someone. What's so different about allowing smokers to innundate non-smokers with their smoke? As far as I know, it injures the non smoker- but that's ok..... by a lot of your (that's the general 'your') arguments in this thread, your reasoning is that you don't believe it hurts anyone. The government obviously decided it did....but then some of the arguments here seem to be that the government hasn't or shouldn't have that powere either... I dunno....my head is starting to spin with all this! LOL
Is it infringing on the pimp's rights to make prostitution illegal? Or the dealer's rights to make drug trafficking illegal? ; Maybe... LOL, but you know, I don't sit around assuming that each time a law like, 'all children under the age of *** must be in a car seat when in the car' or 'no smoking allowed in a bar etc', is going to suddenly make my government a dictatorship or assume my right to choose the color of my next car will be taken away. [img]smile.gif[/img] I think that's a little over the top, myself.
I don't buy all the 'explanations' I've seen for why 'smoke won't hurt you' because I know it DOES hurt me and frankly I can't imagine how people who aren't allergic, as I am, don't at least worry about the cancer issues.
Yes, yes.. I saw where some people tried to debunk that too, but I am old enough to remember (if vaguely!) when tobacco was supposed to be "good for you" and tobacco companies lied about adding nicotine to them to make stronger addicts of the consuming public.
OK- in Mod mode here- This thread has been going a long time and the subject matter wanders a bit from time to time, but let's not turn this thread into a KKK debate or a personal feud of any sort. Keep it civil!
Again, if your fuse is short, don't post til you've waited a while and don't post at all if you feel the need to 'retaliate' or 'get even' with someone's comments, that means no BAITING either. It's too easy to toss in a comment you KNOW is inflammatory in the heat of the moment. Don't do it- we'll have to close the thread.
If a person's posts anger you- move on and don't reply immediately or at all.
[ 05-13-2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]