🚀 go-pugleaf

hartmans@ix.netcom.com (Jack and Kay Hartman ) wrote:
>In <jtbooker.5.2FFE088C@nando.net> jtbooker@nando.net (Jon) writes: 
>>
>>I am a non-smoker, but there is a rational way to look at this issue.
>A 
>>restaurant is a private enterprise--if the owner prefers to allow
>smoking, 
>>that is their prerogative. If the presence of smokers offends you,
>take your 
>>business elsewhere. No one is forcing you to dine or remain at the
>particular 
>>establishment you have chosen to frequent.
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't find this to be so rational.  How far to you
>allow this logic to go?  Do you allow a restaurant owner to refuse
>service to people because of their race?  Because of their religion? 
>Because of their gender?  Business owners cannot be allowed totally
>free reign.  Restrictive laws that offer protection to the general
>population are often in order.  I think that smoking is one of those
>cases.
>
>Kay

I don't think ANY restaurant should refuse to serve someone
because they are a smoker...but a restaurant should have the
right to ban smoking within its premises...it's not the person
I find objectionable...it's the smoke which I do not want to
inhale.  I want a smoke free environment.  And if you think I
shouldn't be able to demand it...then how can you expect the 
government to enact and enforce regulations to provide 
porno-free TV in your home to protect your children?  I don't 
have children.  But I have lungs.  I want to protect my lungs.  
It's that simple.

-- 
Reagan whored himself out to the Japanese.  President Clinton 
stood firm and forced
them to play fair in the trading game.  Now who's the real 
American hero?