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.

 

^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.

 

as i have stated already
privately owned public place

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Thank you Mr. Kagan

 

Hope this goes through nationwide.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

smoking is gross and it IS for second class citizens. booya

 

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.