Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

[kstater]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

A restaurant or bar owner has no legal right to refuse service to anyone as long as they (the patrons) are not breaking the law. Pre-legislation a smoker wasn't breaking the law...therefore a business couldn't refuse them service legally.

You're wrong here. This is from California, but Federal Laws apply and I'd be willing to bet that most states' are pretty similar.

"The Right to Refuse Service: Can a business refuse service to Someone because of appearance, odor or attitude?
Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is . . . it depends.

Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability."

http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-artic...icle13721.html

It goes on to say that a restaurant can refuse services to people not in a protected class as long as it's not overly arbitrary. You'd be hard pressed to find a jury to say that if a business owner didn't allow smoking, it is arbitrarily refusing service.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by kstater

You're wrong here.

You probably should have read a bit more of that article:

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

In other words, the restaurant owner would have to prove that the smoker effected the safety, wellfare and well-being of other patrons. Good luck with that.

FWIW, my g/f is a lawyer and she assures me that a restaurant owner (in the absence of specific legislation) would likely get laughed out of court for trying to bar a smoker from his/her establishment.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

You probably should have read a bit more of that article:

In other words, the restaurant owner would have to prove that the smoker effected the safety, wellfare and well-being of other patrons. Good luck with that.

FWIW, my g/f is a lawyer and she assures me that a restaurant owner (in the absence of specific legislation) would likely get laughed out of court for trying to bar a smoker from his/her establishment.

Just curious, a bartender can cut off someone who is obviously drunk. They don't have to be causing an issue for this to occur. How does this compare to our discussion of smokers? I know the bartender can be held liable for a drunk person actions after leaving the bar (another bunch of nonsense, IMO) but I don't know that there is a law specifically allowing them to stop serving someone.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

Just curious, a bartender can cut off someone who is obviously drunk. They don't have to be causing an issue for this to occur. How does this compare to our discussion of smokers? I know the bartender can be held liable for a drunk person actions after leaving the bar (another bunch of nonsense, IMO) but I don't know that there is a law specifically allowing them to stop serving someone.

I suspect that since they can be held liable that gives them the legal right to refuse to serve them alcohol. But IIRC it's fairly narrowly defined (you are allowed to refuse someone only if you can see they've had too much) and you can refuse them alcohol..but not coffee, food, etc. (unless they're violating one of the other standards that would allow you to boot them entirely...starting fights, etc.).

Alcohol impairs judgement and contributes to death via drunk driving. Smoking cigs doesn't impair judgement that I'm aware of, and it does not have the same immediate cause-effect relationship to deaths that drunk driving does.

*when the g/f gets back from the gym I'll ask her about the "don't server the drunkard" thing.