🚀 go-pugleaf

In <jtbooker.10.2FFEFD46@nando.net> jtbooker@nando.net (Jon) writes: 
>
>You confuse discrimination with 
>the right for a business owner to decide the atmosphere of their 
>establishment--and you are arguing for the government to dictate the 
>atmosphere of that establishment. 

I am not confused.  I find the free market argument to be invalid
because it opens doors that should remain closed.

>A more logical conclusion would be for all 
>restaurants to have the same look, rules, and food--no fat (it is bad
for 
>you), no alcohol (you may not be responsible and attempt to drive, and
it 
>is bad for you), etc., etc., etc.And if you disagree with their 
>policies--well, we have the right to string you up because you didn't
follow 
>the rules! 

Now instead of getting excited you should be making the above argument.
This is what I originally expected to see because this argument flows
logically from mine.  I presented an extreme position from your
argument.  You now show the extreme side of my argument.

The difference between these items you list smoking is that if I eat
fat I hurt myself and I do not affect the ability of the people at the
next table to enjoy their meal (their aim in going to the restaurant). 
If I smoke at the table I hurt myself and I affect the ability of the
people at the next table to enjoy their meal.

Kay