smoking ban-property rights
01-09-2012, 10:38 PM
#46
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, Tn
Posts: 1,234
Total Cats: 283
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.
Your argument that the owner of "privately owned public property" has the same rights as privately owned private property is simply wrong.
Reply
0
0
01-09-2012, 10:44 PM
#48
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
01-09-2012, 11:02 PM
#49
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
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.
Reply
0
0
01-09-2012, 11:05 PM
#50
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
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.
Reply
0
0
01-09-2012, 11:07 PM
#51
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.
Reply
0
0
01-09-2012, 11:09 PM
#52
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, Tn
Posts: 1,234
Total Cats: 283
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.
Reply
0
0
01-10-2012, 09:56 AM
#55
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.
Your argument that the owner of "privately owned public property" has the same rights as privately owned private property is simply wrong.
Reply
0
0
01-10-2012, 11:01 AM
#58
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
01-10-2012, 02:57 PM
#60
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.
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.
Like I have said repeatedly, I don't like the law, but it's not the OMGWTFINVASIONOFRIGHTS that SOPA is.
Reply
0
0
