Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-27-2011, 09:51 PM
 
6,790 posts, read 8,184,589 times
Reputation: 6998

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Discrimination is discrimination. Bigotry is bigotry. Prejudice is prejudice. It all comes from the same place: A hardened, unloving and self-righteous heart.

It matters not what the object of that discrimination is. To differentiate between "right" prejudice and "wrong" prejudice is to excuse it, to empower it, to embolden it, to justify it.

It saddens me to see that you seem to think discrimination based upon behavior is justified. I can't help but believe you also favor bigotry and prejudice against illegal immigrants, the homeless, alcoholics, church goers/non-church goers or any other behavior you don't happen to like. I suppose you'd favor banning them from certain places too, or taxing their behavior until they quit offending you, or starting threads here for the sole purpose of belittling and reviling them. After all, they don't HAVE to do those things, do they, so prejudice is acceptable for the common good...right?
What you just don't seem to understand that there is no discrimination when the rule is no smoking, and it applies to EVERYONE equally. No one is banning smokers from going anywhere just because they are smokers. I would like to drink alcohol while at the movies, but if I try to bring a bottle in and have a few shots, they will kick me out, is that discrimination? No, it's not, they don't allow drinking in movie theaters period, it's a rule everyone must follow, it doesn't mean they are discriminating against me just because I enjoy a drink sometimes.

I swear sometimes, but if I swear, or talk loudly in a movie theatre I could be asked to leave because that is bothersome behavior, that's not discrimination, if I were to compare that to Aparthied it would be insulting to real victims of apartheid.

The only way it would be discrimination is if you went somewhere and they asked you at the door "are you a smoker?" and you said "yes," then they said you weren't allowed in, but the next person answered "no, I don't smoke" and they were sent right in. That would actually be discrimination, can you see the difference between that and simply being asked to follow a rule EVERYONE else must also follow?

Last edited by detshen; 12-27-2011 at 10:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2011, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,488,465 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Did you actually read the questionnaire this "science" is based upon? It's laughable!
I forgot that a big reason I quit participating in these smoking threads is that when the going gets rough, the smokers start denying science, and mocking it.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-27-2011 at 11:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 02:07 AM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,837,829 times
Reputation: 23660
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
You were denied entrance to a place simply because you are a smoker? Explain. How did they even know that you were a smoker?
What about housing units that won't rent to smokers, even if you smoke outside 100% of the time? I'm not saying they don't have that right, but since you asked for an example - there's one.

I had a landlord once who only listed it as a non-smoking house, which I was more than happy to abide by... then he saw my roommate ad (after I'd moved into the house) stating that I was an outdoor smoker, and called me to say "if I'd known you were a smoker, I'd never have rented to you!" I assured him there would never be any smoking inside, and did keep to that promise for the 3+ years I lived there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 05:32 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Still no cigar. (No pun intended) No customers are being bothered by non-smoking rooms.
As a smoker I would beg to differ.

Quote:
While true that no cusotmoer is going to get lung cancer or any other illness from second-hand smoke in a motel room, requiring employees to be around the stuff all day is defintiely bad for the employees (of the hotel/motel).
There was another thread about nurses not having to perform abortions and I'll say the same thing I said there. You're hired to do a job, if any part of that job does not suit you don't apply for it. Poor air quality is not the exclusive domain of people that work around smokers, if air quality was the concern I'd take the job in a bar over say a mechanic, dry waller or a lot of construction jobs, welder....etc.

Last edited by thecoalman; 12-28-2011 at 05:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 05:40 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
I swear sometimes, but if I swear, or talk loudly in a movie theatre I could be asked to leave because that is bothersome behavior,
Your argument fails, if I the owner of the movie theater wish to cater to people that make loud noises and swear during the show I can do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 05:43 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,491,882 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I forgot that a big reason I quit participating in these smoking threads is that when the going gets rough, the smokers start denying science, and mocking it.
When the going gets rough, the anti's accept anything called "science" without examining the research protocol's if it shows smoking in a bad light.

Who cares if it's true or not, so long it helps keep them nasty smokers in line, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 05:45 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,491,882 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
What you just don't seem to understand that there is no discrimination when the rule is no smoking, and it applies to EVERYONE equally. No one is banning smokers from going anywhere just because they are smokers. I would like to drink alcohol while at the movies, but if I try to bring a bottle in and have a few shots, they will kick me out, is that discrimination? No, it's not, they don't allow drinking in movie theaters period, it's a rule everyone must follow, it doesn't mean they are discriminating against me just because I enjoy a drink sometimes.

I swear sometimes, but if I swear, or talk loudly in a movie theatre I could be asked to leave because that is bothersome behavior, that's not discrimination, if I were to compare that to Aparthied it would be insulting to real victims of apartheid.

The only way it would be discrimination is if you went somewhere and they asked you at the door "are you a smoker?" and you said "yes," then they said you weren't allowed in, but the next person answered "no, I don't smoke" and they were sent right in. That would actually be discrimination, can you see the difference between that and simply being asked to follow a rule EVERYONE else must also follow?

Was it discrimination to tell blacks they could come to the theater, but they had to sit in the balcony away from all the "good" people? Or, to welcome them in the restaurant so long as they used the back door and sat in the kitchen?

What's the difference?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 07:03 AM
 
16,376 posts, read 22,427,722 times
Reputation: 14397
I was a landlord. I discriminated against smokers. I would not rent to smokers....even if they said they would smoke outside. This was perfectly legal.

There are some companies that will not hire smokers, even if smokers do not smoke on company premises.

Smokers are not a "protected class" as far as anti-discrimination laws.

http://consumerist.com/2011/07/emplo...n-smokers.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/human...ry?id=13966882

Last edited by sware2cod; 12-28-2011 at 07:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 07:11 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,491,882 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
I was a landlord. I discriminated against smokers. I would not rent to smokers....even if they said they would smoke outside. This was perfectly legal.

There are some companies that will not hire smokers, even if smokers do not smoke on company premises.

Smokers are not a "protected class" as far as anit-discrimination laws.

Employers Crack Down On Smokers - The Consumerist

Humana won't hire smokers in Arizona - ABC News

Why shouldn't they be, especially in light of the fact that Congress has declared long-term tobacco use as a "chronic disease?"

Could you, or would you, deny your apartments to someone suffering from AIDS?

I wish I wasn't retired and was in the market for an apartment. I'd go to places like yours and, when refused, sue the hell out of you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 07:32 AM
 
16,376 posts, read 22,427,722 times
Reputation: 14397
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Why shouldn't they be, especially in light of the fact that Congress has declared long-term tobacco use as a "chronic disease?"

Could you, or would you, deny your apartments to someone suffering from AIDS?

I wish I wasn't retired and was in the market for an apartment. I'd go to places like yours and, when refused, sue the hell out of you.
You would lose the lawsuit. Smokers are NOT a protected class.

It is perfectly legal for a landlord to deny a rental unit to a smoker simply because the person is a smoker.

Just like it is perfectly legal for employers to deny employment to smokers. Please see the links 2 posts above. Big name companies are denying employment to smokers. They wouldn't do this if it was illegal.

Stillkit....aren't you one of those that said private property owner should decide on their own and not have government specify rules? Now you want smokers to be a "protected class" and have the government force private property owner to accept smokers in rental units?

Last edited by sware2cod; 12-28-2011 at 07:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top