smoking ban-property rights - Page 3 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-09-2012, 11:29 PM   #41
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, Tn
Posts: 1,038
Total Cats: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
agreed 100%
So you support someones right to smoke in their own house?

Again is it "stare decisis" that if your "private business" serves the "general public"...it isn't PRIVATE.
TNTUBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 11:30 PM   #42
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 6,020
Total Cats: 175
Default

^I was trying to be funny, but the revolution isn't as far away as you think. The more the gov't gives my money away to poor people who are poor because they're stupid and like it that way, the more I want to lead the charge.
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 11:33 PM   #43
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTUBA View Post
So you support someones right to smoke in their own house?

Again is it "stare decisis" that if your "private business" serves the "general public"...it isn't PRIVATE.
as i have stated already
privately owned public place
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 11:33 PM   #44
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTUBA View Post
So you support someones right to smoke in their own house?

Again is it "stare decisis" that if your "private business" serves the "general public"...it isn't PRIVATE.
This is an interesting tidbit that I'm going to have to research on.

It may potentially change my stance significantly on this. Businesses open to the general public occupy an interesting position legally.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 11:34 PM   #45
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

tntuba are you trying to tell me that if i start a business that the government owns the property?
edit
i open it to the public to enter if they wish
im not forcing anyone to breathe second hand smoke
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 11:38 PM   #46
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, Tn
Posts: 1,038
Total Cats: 157
Default

Again...there is LONG standing legal precedent that if your "privately owned public place" serves the GENERAL PUBLIC you don't have the same rights as you would if the property were say your home. The ONLY way you can keep those PRIVATE rights is to make the place a PRIVATE CLUB. I.E. You can choose not to let African Americans into your home...you CAN'T chose not to serve them in your PUBLIC restaurant.

Your argument that the owner of "privately owned public property" has the same rights as privately owned private property is simply wrong.
TNTUBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 11:40 PM   #47
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, Tn
Posts: 1,038
Total Cats: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
tntuba are you trying to tell me that if i start a business that the government owns the property?
edit
i open it to the public to enter if they wish
im not forcing anyone to breathe second hand smoke
Clearly the government does not own your property...but if the use of the property is to serve the general public they DO make the rules.
TNTUBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 11:44 PM   #48
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

After some research on it, TNTuba's right on this.

I need to do a lot more than the cursory research I've done, but yeah. TNTuba's right.

Research has changed my stance. Short of ignoring supreme court decisions, I have no way of justifying earlier statements about a business open to the public that is not age or otherwise restricted.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 12:02 AM   #49
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTUBA View Post
Again...there is LONG standing legal precedent that if your "privately owned public place" serves the GENERAL PUBLIC you don't have the same rights as you would if the property were say your home.
Yes there are precedents but they are bad.

Business owners' property rights should be respected. If they choose to make their bar a smoking bar, that's their choice. Anyone who doesn't want to breathe 2nd hand smoke (like me), will go spend their money in a non-smoking bar instead.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 12:05 AM   #50
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
If you do not fight for your rights TODAY, the government will not stop here. The nanny state will continue to expand and invade all of your private property, including your home and your car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The email is classical alarmist tripe.
But the point is correct. Statism creeps forward relentlessly. We're like the frog slowly being boiled to death. It's 2 steps forward and 1 step back for statism. The only way to prevent the relentless march is to fight it every step of the way.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 12:07 AM   #51
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
But the point is correct. Statism creeps forward relentlessly. We're like the frog slowly being boiled to death. It's 2 steps forward and 1 step back for statism. The only way to prevent the relentless march is to fight it every step of the way.
The legal basis behind this is individual vs. property rights, Jason.

The point may in general be correct, but if you want to get people up in arms over something like this....

Do it for something that matters, something that is important. Like SOPA. That piece of ---- shouldn't even be considered. But this law? Small ------- peanuts compared to the insanity that is SOPA. THAT is everything the OP says and more. This law? Meh. It's not even an attack on "rights" (based on supreme court decisions) as the OP claims, it's just a simple interpretation that individual rights trump property rights.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 12:09 AM   #52
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, Tn
Posts: 1,038
Total Cats: 157
Default

The "good or bad" of those precedents was not the matter of debate in this thread and are a very subjective matters of opinion. The simple fact is we DON'T live in a totally free society...and I dare say VERY FEW would want to live in a totally free society anyway. Again wither these precedents exist is a matter of fact, their merit is a matter of opinion with no right or wrong answer.
TNTUBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 08:55 AM   #53
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTUBA View Post
Again is it "stare decisis" that if your "private business" serves the "general public"...it isn't PRIVATE.
Thank you Mr. Kagan
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 10:55 AM   #54
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Portales, NM
Posts: 837
Total Cats: 2
Default

Hope this goes through nationwide.
jbrown7815 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 10:56 AM   #55
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Portales, NM
Posts: 837
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTUBA View Post
Again...there is LONG standing legal precedent that if your "privately owned public place" serves the GENERAL PUBLIC you don't have the same rights as you would if the property were say your home. The ONLY way you can keep those PRIVATE rights is to make the place a PRIVATE CLUB. I.E. You can choose not to let African Americans into your home...you CAN'T chose not to serve them in your PUBLIC restaurant.

Your argument that the owner of "privately owned public property" has the same rights as privately owned private property is simply wrong.
qft
jbrown7815 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 10:59 AM   #56
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown7815 View Post
qft
You can also argue that your property is "public" with the same argument because there is a list of laws which dictate what you can do in your home.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 11:39 AM   #57
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Queens, NYC
Posts: 201
Total Cats: 3
Default

pft, smokers have been 2nd class citizens in nyc for as long as I remember. People here make a big scene when I smoke odorless e-cigs indoors.
bigx5murf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 12:01 PM   #58
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The legal basis behind this is individual vs. property rights, Jason.
Are you talking about the smoking ban?

Why does a customer have the "individual right" to demand that a given bar be smoke-free? That's like demanding that the beer is $1 each. The relationship between bar owner and customer is voluntary on both sides. Deal or no deal. If the bar owner prefers to attract smoking customers then non-smokers can simply take their money elsewhere.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 12:04 PM   #59
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,293
Total Cats: 180
Default

smoking is gross and it IS for second class citizens. booya
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 03:57 PM   #60
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Are you talking about the smoking ban?

Why does a customer have the "individual right" to demand that a given bar be smoke-free? That's like demanding that the beer is $1 each. The relationship between bar owner and customer is voluntary on both sides. Deal or no deal. If the bar owner prefers to attract smoking customers then non-smokers can simply take their money elsewhere.
I've explained the legal logic behind it at length in previous posts in this thread Jason, and supreme court decisions support the logic given that private businesses open to the general public are not private property.

Like I have said repeatedly, I don't like the law, but it's not the OMGWTFINVASIONOFRIGHTS that SOPA is.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help - Stock Balancer and Fastforward overlay pulleys Frank_and_Beans Supercharger Discussion 13 09-12-2016 09:17 PM
Someone help me with AE ihiryu MEGAsquirt 33 10-08-2015 05:56 PM
Back to Stock Part Out!! Turbo Parts, MS2 Enhanced 01-05, Suspension, and MOAR! StratoBlue1109 Miata parts for sale/trade 16 10-02-2015 10:39 AM
Odd Steering issue interestedofold Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 09-29-2015 02:42 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 PM.