Iowa is now - SMOKE FREE!!

[AmberDaClown]

And as an owner of a restaurant, or any other business establishment, do you have the right to, say, refuse service to certain people, like blacks, women, Muslims, Jews, etc?

Yes.

Tell me can a man join Curves?

 

[Galahad]

Yes.

Tell me can a man join Curves?

Only a curvy man......

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

Yes.

Tell me can a man join Curves?

Off Topic

 

[legalsea]

Interesting points, legalsea.


Let me ask you this: Is a privately owned restaurant, that is open to the public, a private building or a public building??

And as an owner of a restaurant, or any other business establishment, do you have the right to, say, refuse service to certain people, like blacks, women, Muslims, Jews, etc?

I'm just asking, because it seems to me that just because you "own" a business, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to in it.

I think that privately owned land upon which there is a building (such as a restaurant) that is open to the public for business purposes is, nevertheless, privately owned. It does not turn into a ‘public’ building or land, which I interpret as being owned in common by the people. State parks, etc.

Of course, just because you ‘own’ land does not mean you can do ‘whatever you want’ to in it. For instance, laws against theft, murder, arson, etc., still apply to actions done on private property.

As for discrimination: I distinguish between discrimination against a person due to his or her race, religion, sex, national origin, etc., (banned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964) versus acts of the local governments that tell private property owners that they cannot allow smoking on their property. They do not correlate.

In other words, the restaurant owner is allowing all, smoker or non-smoker, onto his or her premises. The owner is not discriminating against anyone or excluding anyone. Smokers and non-smokers have a choice concerning entering the property.

Recall, while the Civil Rights Act defined ‘public accommodations’ (private property that is open to the public at the invitation of the owner), it did not lessen the owner’s ultimate right in the property. In other words: you, as an individual, sitting on your private property (with no building on it), may exclude people from your said property based on race, sex, etc.

However, when you expressly open your property to the public, then the Civil Rights Act mandates that you allow all of the public access, save in very narrow circumstances. If you build a fancy restaurant on your private property, but do NOT open it to the public, then you may discriminate.

We still have plenty of private country clubs in this country that do not allow membership to people of certain races, religion, etc. They are not open to the pubic, hence they may discriminate.

 

[Galahad]

I think that privately owned land upon which there is a building (such as a restaurant) that is open to the public for business purposes is, nevertheless, privately owned. It does not turn into a ‘public’ building or land, which I interpret as being owned in common by the people. State parks, etc.

Of course, just because you ‘own’ land does not mean you can do ‘whatever you want’ to in it. For instance, laws against theft, murder, arson, etc., still apply to actions done on private property.

As for discrimination: I distinguish between discrimination against a person due to his or her race, religion, sex, national origin, etc., (banned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964) versus acts of the local governments that tell private property owners that they cannot allow smoking on their property. They do not correlate.

In other words, the restaurant owner is allowing all, smoker or non-smoker, onto his or her premises. The owner is not discriminating against anyone or excluding anyone. Smokers and non-smokers have a choice concerning entering the property.

Recall, while the Civil Rights Act defined ‘public accommodations’ (private property that is open to the public at the invitation of the owner), it did not lessen the owner’s ultimate right in the property. In other words: you, as an individual, sitting on your private property (with no building on it), may exclude people from your said property based on race, sex, etc.

However, when you expressly open your property to the public, then the Civil Rights Act mandates that you allow all of the public access, save in very narrow circumstances. If you build a fancy restaurant on your private property, but do NOT open it to the public, then you may discriminate.

We still have plenty of private country clubs in this country that do not allow membership to people of certain races, religion, etc. They are not open to the pubic, hence they may discriminate.

However, once you stipulate that something is a public accommodation then all manner of restrictions are, frankly, perfectly reasonable. You may not allow restaurant patrons to strip down and have at it at the salad bar. Only certain employees may serve alcohol to certain patrons. I'm always amazed that tobacco is the thing around which property-rights libertarians rally. It's like having Larry Flint a spokesman for the first amendment.

 

[poohandwendy]

I am not sure of the laws here. I an't remember the last time I smelled smoke in a restaurant, which is nice.

One thing I don't get is why casinos can still have smoking, but it's unsafe and unlawful in other buildings? That makes ZERO sense to me.

I am totally against banning smoking in open outdoor areas. In an outdoor place where people cannot escape the smoke, that is one thing. Other than that, I think it's ridiculous and unfair.

 

[Rence]

There are lots of restrictions on businesses, so why should smoking be the one thing that the government not be allowed to regulate?

So should a privately owned business not be subject to:

Occupancy limits? Fire Safety Code (number of exits, sprinklers etc.)? Food inspection (It is a private business - so what if they serve unclean food)? Child labor law? Zoning (Your next door neighbor's land is private - why can't he turn it into a nightclub)? Hours for serving alcohol (bars are private - why can't they be open 24 hours)?

We have lots of restrictions on privately owned businesses and smoking restrictions are no different. I can't believe that those of you arguing for the rights of private businesses would do away with all the other existing restrictions on businesses.

 

[legalsea]

However, once you stipulate that something is a public accommodation then all manner of restrictions are, frankly, perfectly reasonable. You may not allow restaurant patrons to strip down and have at it at the salad bar. Only certain employees may serve alcohol to certain patrons. I'm always amazed that tobacco is the thing around which property-rights libertarians rally. It's like having Larry Flint a spokesman for the first amendment.

I think I know what you are saying.

However, I am not stipulating that property with a business located on it is 'public accommodation' and so is fair game for any regulation that government can come up with in idle moments. The Civil Rights Act came up with the public accommodation definition.

If you (since you used 'you', I will too) wish to open a restaurant that allows sex on the salad bar, then I say go for it. I believe that there are 'strip clubs' and such that mix food and desire. Just don't discriminate.

As for alcohol, if a state mandates that no one under age 21 (or whatever) may not drink alcohol, then, as I indicated in an earlier post, simply walking onto private property does not change the law (we are all speaking broadly; many states do allow minors to drink alcohol if with a parent or guardian).

Anyway, 'perfectly reasonable' is subjective and based upon your point of view and circumstances. People with severe allergies to peanuts think that it would be perfectly reasonable to ban peanuts from restaurants, airlines, etc.

Now, instead of "peanuts", insert 'perfume' and read that sentence.

Now, insert the word of your choice and read the sentence. Why not try "sunlight"? " Now "alcohol" (Edgar Allen Poe was actually allergic to alcohol); now "meat". It is a fun game, with no end.

I know a person afraid of clowns. I guess he would think it perfectly reasonable to ban clowns from public accommadations.

 

[daisax]

The legal justification most times is one of employee safety. You don't have the right to expose employees to deadly fumes/chemicals without safety devices no matter that you could probably find somebody who needs the job enough to take it and not care (or realize that one day they'd care very much). You could find somebody who'd work with asbestos without a mask if you paid them enough (or didn't bother to warn them of the dangers). But there are regulations against on the job exposure.

 

[AmberDaClown]

Off Topic

Why? She asked if a business can refuse service to certain ethnic groups and sexes? Very on topic to the question.

 

[Laura]

I know a person afraid of clowns. I guess he would think it perfectly reasonable to ban clowns from public accommadations.

The mere presence of clowns is not a public health issue.

 

[poohandwendy]

The mere presence of clowns is not a public health issue that affects everyone.

You obviously never read Stephen Kings 'It'.

 

[Laura]

You obviously never read Stephen Kings 'It'.

 

[daisax]

The mere presence of clowns is not a public health issue.

They cause stampedes.

 

[Laura]

The legal justification most times is one of employee safety. You don't have the right to expose employees to deadly fumes/chemicals without safety devices no matter that you could probably find somebody who needs the job enough to take it and not care (or realize that one day they'd care very much). You could find somebody who'd work with asbestos without a mask if you paid them enough (or didn't bother to warn them of the dangers). But there are regulations against on the job exposure.

That's exactly it. I had a saxophone tutor who died of lung cancer. I shudder to think how often he'd been exposed to secondhand smoke during his career, playing in clubs, bars, etc. I work in a smoke-free environment, why shouldn't waitresses/waiters, chefs, maitre d's, bartenders?

 

[Christopher Robin]

If I have a garage sale, can I smoke there while others are shopping? According to some, I should not be allowed since I have made my property open to the 'public'. Can someone who supports the ban honestly answer my question?

 

[disneyfam]

Yes second hand sunbathing can be hazardous to my health as there are people that I don't need to see in a thong or speedo!

OH tag fairy!!!!

 

[salmoneous]

If I have a garage sale, can I smoke there while others are shopping?

Do you believe the governement should be able to place restrictions on what you smoke while holding a garage sale? Or any other time in your own home?

 

[Christopher Robin]

Do you believe the governement should be able to place restrictions on what you smoke while holding a garage sale? Or any other time in your own home?

What is it that they say about someone answering a question with a question?

Mine, like yours, I'm sure, is a serious question.
I'd be interested to see a serious answer.

 

[salmoneous]

I'd be interested to see a serious answer.

I don't believe the governement should be regulating such things at all. But if they are going to regulate them, they might as well regulate smoking while opening a business to the public. Including garage sales.