🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3tm62g$24s@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, 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.

I this the argument goes the other way.  Allowing a restraunt owner to 
refuse to server someone because they are smoking could be descrimination.

NOTE that I am all for smoke free restraunts, since I don't smoke and it bothers
me, but Jon didn't say the owner should refuse to serve people not smoking, 
but allow people who do smoke.

-- 
David A. Smith
<smithd@netropolis.net>