🚀 go-pugleaf

In <jtbooker.9.2FFEA4D9@nando.net> jtbooker@nando.net (Jon) writes: 
>
>If you would bother to READ what I wrote, you will find NO mention of
REFUSING 
>service to ANYONE! I have merely stated the obvious: if it offends
you--you 
>are not forced to remain or patronize the establishment further. 

I maintain my original position.  You talked about rights of the
restaurant owner.  You base your position on the private ownership
(private enterprise were the words you used) of the restaurant.  I am
just trying to point out the logical conclusion of such an argument. 
If the owner wants to refuse service to men (and why not since it is a
private enterprise) I can choose not to eat there since some of my good
friends of men.  It is a question of how far you go when you give free
reign to a business owner.  If your argument holds for allowing smoking
because it is a private enterprise it holds equally for refusing
service based on an arbitrary designation.

>Like a 
>movie--if you do not like the content, you are free to choose to leave
and not 
>come back. If you do not approve of alcohol, no one forces you to go
into a 
>liquor store--that is your choice. 

There is a difference.  The purpose of going to a movie is to see the
movie (you will note that smoking is not permitted in every movie
theater that I know of).  No activity by the patrons that is permitted
by the onwer interferes with my enjoyment of the movie.  The purpose of
going to a liquor store is to buy liquor.  Again, none of the
legitimate activities in the liquor store interfere with my ability to
achieve my aim (to buy liquor).

I go to a restaurant to enjoy a professionally prepared meal.  If there
is smoking in the restaurant, I am not able to accomplish my goal,
smell being a critical component of food enjoyment.

>Think before you flame.

Gee, and I thought I was just debating the issues.  Maybe you should
relax a little bit and not be so hyper-sensitive.  

Kay