So you presume ownership of others property and labor. They're there to serve you and you get to mandate what they can and cannot allow on their property even if it's legal activity.
It's not necessarily "public" business. Just because people can walk through the door doesn't mean they must be served.
Thank goodness we live in a time where more people agree with me than with you.
So take it outside, sorry you're dieing for a smoke, but don't take me with you, on that trip.
I dont own it. My vote was placed to install the rule that the government can regulate it.
I dont own it. My vote was placed to install the rule that the government can regulate it.
How about instead you stay outside if you don't like that people are allowed to smoke inside? What is so hard about that concept?
Entitled folk don't understand this. They feel that everyone needs to bend over backwards for them and that they should never be inconvenienced at any point. Responsible consumerism and free exercise of rights doesn't seem to be a concern.
Well hell let's regulate what you can't do in your home as well. Why stop there? We'll regulate what you do in your car. There is no place private. It's all government controlled.
You're pretending like you own it. Despite not paying any of the bills, not working towards the success of the business, or anything of the sort. You're entitled to use government force against the free exercise of rights by the property owner, that's your argument. You presume ownership of other people's property and labor. You should at least understand the logical conclusions of your position.
I understand that your logic leads to this. My logic works differently.
Your logic results in government force used against the free exercise of rights. The fact is, you have choice and you always have choice. Just because other people choose differently than you doesn't mean you can call down the guns of government to force your way. Responsible consumerism is a non-violent way to influence local business.
And I do that. I dont go to Chic-fil-a or buy Jelly Belly jelly beans, I am not telling any government force to do anything about that. Smoking affects others, I would have no problem banning it entirely.
Smoking only affects others when they are near it. Because you don't want to have to take the time and effort to be informed if it is occurring in a business or because you want to shop somewhere where it is occurring, you (this is the generalized you of the anti-smoking crowd) instead get laws passed to impose on other people's rights to do as they wish with their private businesses. It's really that simple.
And I do that. I dont go to Chic-fil-a or buy Jelly Belly jelly beans, I am not telling any government force to do anything about that. Smoking affects others, I would have no problem banning it entirely.
A business should be allowed to choose what they allow in their establishment. If people dont like it, they dont have to shop their. Consumers influence will drive what is important to people. If most Americans are offended by smoking and refuse to shop at my store simply because of that, I am likely to make changes. Allowing the government to state that severely limits freedoms. Because it is best for society should the government be allowed to tell you what church to go to? What foods you can eat? What car you can drive? Do you think that you should be allowed to make any decisions of your own?
Businesses can't serve drinks to underage patrons
Businesses can't refuse to serve someone because of their ethnic background
Businesses have to maintain a certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen
Businesses have to collect sales taxes
AND - businesses can't allow smoking indoors because of the impact of second hand smoke.
I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Or maybe you also think the other restrictions are unreasonable as well?
re what car you can drive - the cars you drive have to pass certain safety standards; the car companies can't sell you an unsafe car. Is this an unreasonable restriction on their private business? I don't think so. Some of you might.
There is no inherent right to own a business; you have to follow the rules.
Businesses can't serve drinks to underage patrons
Businesses can't refuse to serve someone because of their ethnic background
Businesses have to maintain a certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen
Businesses have to collect sales taxes
AND - businesses can't allow smoking indoors because of the impact of second hand smoke.
I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Or maybe you also think the other restrictions are unreasonable as well?
re what car you can drive - the cars you drive have to pass certain safety standards; the car companies can't sell you an unsafe car. Is this an unreasonable restriction on their private business? I don't think so. Some of you might.
There is no inherent right to own a business; you have to follow the rules.
Honestly yes i do have a problem with most of those things. I dont think the government should be allowed to create laws unless those laws are designed to specifically protect other citizens rights. Murder, assault, theft, ect should illegal and the state/government should have the power to punish people who violate the rights of others. Beyond that it is an abuse of power. I get that some people are too weak willed to make their own decisions, but that doesn't make it right.
The one thing we'll probably agree on is the disgustingness of smoking. With sporting events, about the only restriction I'd go with is the immediate vicinity of the playing area.
That is what I meant. Outside the stadium or in the lobbies is fine. There were times when some person would light up in the stands as we were warming up or competing. That was not acceptable.
I heard in the old days cyclists who competed in Velodromes would smoke before the event; that was because there was so much smoke from spectators in the event building that if they didn't smoke, they would be overwhelmed from the fumes.
Don't know if it's true or not, heard it from a cycling fan.
So glad now that when I go to a sporting event I don't have to worry about the fan in front of me lighting up and sending the smoke my way
Businesses can't serve drinks to underage patrons
Businesses can't refuse to serve someone because of their ethnic background
Businesses have to maintain a certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen
Businesses have to collect sales taxes
AND - businesses can't allow smoking indoors because of the impact of second hand smoke.
I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Or maybe you also think the other restrictions are unreasonable as well?
There is no inherent right to own a business; you have to follow the rules.
That is what I meant. Outside the stadium or in the lobbies is fine. There were times when some person would light up in the stands as we were warming up or competing. That was not acceptable.
Smoking only affects others when they are near it. Because you don't want to have to take the time and effort to be informed if it is occurring in a business or because you want to shop somewhere where it is occurring, you (this is the generalized you of the anti-smoking crowd) instead get laws passed to impose on other people's rights to do as they wish with their private businesses. It's really that simple.
A business should be allowed to choose what they allow in their establishment. If people dont like it, they dont have to shop their. Consumers influence will drive what is important to people. If most Americans are offended by smoking and refuse to shop at my store simply because of that, I am likely to make changes. Allowing the government to state that severely limits freedoms. Because it is best for society should the government be allowed to tell you what church to go to? What foods you can eat? What car you can drive? Do you think that you should be allowed to make any decisions of your own?
And I know my motivation is to help other people, especially the children (see, I played the children card).
What church you go to doesnt affect others around you. What foods you eat dont affect others around you. You shouldnt be allowed to make a decision that affects those around you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?