🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3tmnfg$8ku@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> hartmans@ix.netcom.com (Jack and Kay Hartman ) writes:
>From: hartmans@ix.netcom.com (Jack and Kay Hartman )
>Subject: Re: Dining Group WWW Site - Feeback To Inquiries
>Date: 8 Jul 1995 19:49:04 GMT

>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
It is obvious you have no concept of debate or what it is to debate. In 
reading your replies, you only serve to strengthen my original position. Like 
going to a movie, you go with the purpose of seeing the movie--THAT is the 
purpose, just as going to a restaurant to enjoy a meal is THAT purpose! And as 
with movies, if there is one you do not wish to see, you may choose to attend 
a different feature at a different theatre; so it is with restaurants--if you 
are not pleased with the atmosphere, there are many more from which to choose. 
As to your "argument" about carrying things to a "logical conclusion"--your 
statement is not logical, nor a conclusion. 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. 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! Get real--the restaurant owner pays for his establishment, 
and so should have the right to determine the type of atmosphere of the 
establishment as long as it does not discriminate against those individuals 
based on age, sex, race, or creed--smokers or non-smokers should not even be 
in the picture, because they have the ability to either leave or alter their 
habit, something the aforementioned have no control over.
Jon