🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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 see anything in the post to which you responded that says 
"REFUSES" to allow non-smokers. Do you mean that if you can't have it 
your way the government has to step in and fix it?  Oh yeah, and 
Mussolini made the trains run on time.

RayJ