Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TN_Chief
For the same reason that legislation is needed to create non-smoking places: because if someone had created a non-smoking restaurant (in the absence of laws designating it as non-smoking) then a smoker could have gone in and smoked there because it's a public place and there wasn't/isn't any legislation protecting it as a non-smoking area. An individual that operates a public place can't unilaterally ban (or unban) anything.
Get this through your thick heads...private ownership means nothing when the establishment is a public place. That cuts both ways. An owner that wanted a smoke-free establishment (pre-legislation) wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on if he/she had tried to enforce the non-smoking nature of the place and would have been wide open to a lawsuit from a smoker that was denied service or ejected. The only answer in either case is to be a private club.
|
I've stayed out of this because nobody's mind is going to be changed in this debate. But this has got to be the dumbest argument for a smoking ban I've ever seen. A business owner is private property(in a public place). He has the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses as long as it isn't a protected class(minorities, etc.). A smoker would have no legal right to sue for not being allowed to smoke in a business. It goes along the same lines as clubs with dress codes, or convenience stores that require shirt and shoes.