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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:10 PM
 
2,930 posts, read 4,447,623 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
Freedom in its truest form causes issues for one simple reason - we're human and humans are far from perfect. There has to be a line drawn where one man's (or business's) freedom harms another man's freedom (or in this case, health) in one way or another.
You have no natural right to harm another person. We all agree upon that. You have no right to take or ruin my property.

However, if you choose to come on to my property, you can choose to leave that property if you disagree with any of the actions on that property.

Someone coughing presents a health risk, especially to those with weakened immune systems. Should we next mandate that private property owners require all individuals to wear medical safety masks to control the spread of viruses and infections?

Quote:
The smoking issue comes down to one person's right to smoke and another person's right to be healthy. Non-smokers want to enjoy all of the same restaurants and food that smokers do without putting their health at risk. Smokers don't want people telling them where they can and cannot smoke - and they argue that businesses shouldn't be forced to disallow smoking. But why should smokers dictate what businesses non-smokers can patronize simply because they don't care about their own health?

When your lifestyle poses a threat to the health of others, you're leaving yourself open to seeing regulations imposed that may prevent you from doing some of the things you enjoy. Find a habit that doesn't harm the health of others. I'm still waiting for them to reverse the law that makes speeding on the freeways illegal.
When you choose to go on to private property, you choose to give up the right to tell that property owner how they rule that property. It's as simple as if you don't like it, leave.

It has nothing to do with smoking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:19 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,522,588 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommabear2 View Post
How ironic. Your "feelings" on the matter influences your own opinion and I respect that as well but you can't subject other people to smoke because you "feel" they are being unreasonable or unfair for not enjoying an irritant. Yes, it is an irritant to many people - just because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems for others. Anyone ever have their eyes burn when they walk into a smoky bar? Yeah, that's a right all smokers should have... the right to make other people's eyes burn...

No, my feelings are irrelevant to the issue. Now you could attach "feelings" or subjective claims at the core level of "rights" if we were talking at that core level, but we are talking at a layer well above that. Our rights have already been documented, fought for and bled over. We have a history of documents of the founders describing exactly what they meant concerning citizens rights, even specifically property rights (federalist writings have some very detailed information on what they meant by "private property").

Also, outside of the "rights" issue, there is the science issue. Each one of my arguments can be quantified within the grounds of that evidence. That is, though I argue a side of position, I argue the evidence of the case through measurable means. You can look at my reasoning and add it up through the rules of a logical construct.

When I say subjective in your case, you speak of how you "feel" about it and I can not measure that. I have no way to validate it or verify it. It is what you want it to be. That is subjective. You may have a valid point from your own feelings, but as I said, I am not concerned with peoples feelings, only what they can prove or provide evidence to.

To get to the point. If you think you have the right to force a private business to serve you, then show me in the Constitution or even through the founders documents where you think this right is established. That way, I can verify your claim.

If you want to say "it is harmful", then provide me with valid quantifiable support that shows why you are correct. This I can also verify as support for your claim.

If you want to just tell me, it should be because you "feel" it should be and that's that, like I said, you have every right to your subjective opinion on the topic, but if you can not verify it or validate it, then it is nothing more than you telling us how you feel and in an argument where validation is needed, it really is kind of useless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:24 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,522,588 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I've been known to deny service to people in uniform. Cops, firefighters, if you're in an official uniform, I didn't serve you.
As long as you are the owner of the place or he agrees, you can do that. Though didn't you say you worked for Subway? You do realize if you can be fired by your owner if he disagrees with your approach or if he agrees, Subway can pull its franchise licensing of the owner if they don't directly own it themselves. All actions I described would be perfectly within their rights to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:29 PM
 
Location: CO
1,598 posts, read 2,082,922 times
Reputation: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by KantLockeMeIn View Post
You have no natural right to harm another person. We all agree upon that. You have no right to take or ruin my property.

However, if you choose to come on to my property, you can choose to leave that property if you disagree with any of the actions on that property.

Someone coughing presents a health risk, especially to those with weakened immune systems. Should we next mandate that private property owners require all individuals to wear medical safety masks to control the spread of viruses and infections?



When you choose to go on to private property, you choose to give up the right to tell that property owner how they rule that property. It's as simple as if you don't like it, leave.

It has nothing to do with smoking.
True, but that logic does open the door to situations like racial and gender discrimination in restaurants if used that way. If it's a matter of allowing the business owner to decide on every acceptable behavior in a place of business, wouldn't we open the door to some things that we have made moral progress on throughout the years?

That makes me wonder about another situation - can private schools legally deny students based on race? I honestly don't know the answer to that. It seems that it would be a similar situation. Why should they be forced to allow all races to enroll if they didn't want to? I know that there are boys schools and girls schools - are they legally required to accept both genders?

It poses a lot of questions. But in the end, I don't think there is one good answer, just more room for debating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,238 posts, read 26,001,894 times
Reputation: 10559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
As long as you are the owner of the place or he agrees, you can do that. Though didn't you say you worked for Subway? You do realize if you can be fired by your owner if he disagrees with your approach or if he agrees, Subway can pull its franchise licensing of the owner if they don't directly own it themselves. All actions I described would be perfectly within their rights to do so.
He wouldn't make ANY business decisions, he left that to those of us actually working there.

The only thing he did with the business was come in for about 10 minutes a day to pick up the money. He didn't hire, didn't fire (most people quit), didn't order inventory. He was just the cash collector, and we did all the work.

So the decisions were OURS.

As you said, private business...we reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
2,308 posts, read 3,943,416 times
Reputation: 1886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
No, my feelings are irrelevant to the issue. Now you could attach "feelings" or subjective claims at the core level of "rights" if we were talking at that core level, but we are talking at a layer well above that. Our rights have already been documented, fought for and bled over. We have a history of documents of the founders describing exactly what they meant concerning citizens rights, even specifically property rights (federalist writings have some very detailed information on what they meant by "private property").

Also, outside of the "rights" issue, there is the science issue. Each one of my arguments can be quantified within the grounds of that evidence. That is, though I argue a side of position, I argue the evidence of the case through measurable means. You can look at my reasoning and add it up through the rules of a logical construct.

When I say subjective in your case, you speak of how you "feel" about it and I can not measure that. I have no way to validate it or verify it. It is what you want it to be. That is subjective. You may have a valid point from your own feelings, but as I said, I am not concerned with peoples feelings, only what they can prove or provide evidence to.

To get to the point. If you think you have the right to force a private business to serve you, then show me in the Constitution or even through the founders documents where you think this right is established. That way, I can verify your claim.

If you want to say "it is harmful", then provide me with valid quantifiable support that shows why you are correct. This I can also verify as support for your claim.

If you want to just tell me, it should be because you "feel" it should be and that's that, like I said, you have every right to your subjective opinion on the topic, but if you can not verify it or validate it, then it is nothing more than you telling us how you feel and in an argument where validation is needed, it really is kind of useless.
Okay... fair enough. From the American Lung Association:

"Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4

Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5

Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7

Nineteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Montana and Utah prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants; bars will go smokefree in 2009. New Hampshire prohibits smoking in some public places, including all restaurants and bars. Four states - Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Nevada - prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants, but exempt stand-alone bars. Fifteen states partially or totally prevent (preempt) local communities from passing smokefree air ordinances stronger than the statewide law. Nebraska and Oregon have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken effect yet.8

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9

Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11

In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13

Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14

The current Surgeon Generalís Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15"

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:40 PM
 
Location: ɐpɐʌǝu 'sɐƃǝʌ sɐl
13,943 posts, read 9,557,546 times
Reputation: 6881
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommabear2 View Post
Okay... fair enough. From the American Lung Association:
...
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
I'm gonna make me some popcorn. This is gonna be good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:40 PM
 
2,930 posts, read 4,447,623 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
True, but that logic does open the door to situations like racial and gender discrimination in restaurants if used that way. If it's a matter of allowing the business owner to decide on every acceptable behavior in a place of business, wouldn't we open the door to some things that we have made moral progress on throughout the years?
It leaves the door open for freedom. As I've said before, freedom isn't the opportunity to make good choices alone, it's the opportunity to make choices. Some will make good decisions, some will make poor decisions... but if you force a decision upon someone, you are only forcing tyranny.

The wonderful thing is that we the consumers can decide the business owner's fate for making poor choices. I personally will not, and have not, patronized establishments that have smoke billowing into the non-smoking section. I also refuse to patronize a restaurant that refused to serve a black family one night while I was there... and let the manager and owner know how disgusting that behavior was. I've also made sure to tell everyone I know not to patronize that restaurant as well.

And for a business owner who chooses not to hire people based upon their abilities, they will eventually suffer the fate of their ignorance. Try and compete against me when I hire the best and brightest, while you limit yourself to an ignorant set of critera based upon gender, religion, or race.

Quote:
That makes me wonder about another situation - can private schools legally deny students based on race? I honestly don't know the answer to that. It seems that it would be a similar situation. Why should they be forced to allow all races to enroll if they didn't want to? I know that there are boys schools and girls schools - are they legally required to accept both genders?

It poses a lot of questions. But in the end, I don't think there is one good answer, just more room for debating.
Good question based upon gender. I don't know the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,238 posts, read 26,001,894 times
Reputation: 10559
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommabear2 View Post
Okay... fair enough. From the American Lung Association:

"Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4

Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5

Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7

Nineteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Montana and Utah prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants; bars will go smokefree in 2009. New Hampshire prohibits smoking in some public places, including all restaurants and bars. Four states - Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Nevada - prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants, but exempt stand-alone bars. Fifteen states partially or totally prevent (preempt) local communities from passing smokefree air ordinances stronger than the statewide law. Nebraska and Oregon have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken effect yet.8

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9

Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11

In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13

Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14

The current Surgeon Generalís Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15"

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Aren't they a little biased? After all, if they didn't have this "evil" to campaign against, would they have any purpose in existing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 01:42 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,522,588 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
True, but that logic does open the door to situations like racial and gender discrimination in restaurants if used that way. If it's a matter of allowing the business owner to decide on every acceptable behavior in a place of business, wouldn't we open the door to some things that we have made moral progress on throughout the years?

Those are already protected. You can not discriminate using those bounds. The thing is though, you don't have to give a reason to refuse someone. You can just say leave. Now, if someone was not giving a reason, but specifically going to each black person and telling them to leave, with enough documented incidents, a civil case could be brought up accusing them of discriminating against a protected clause. That would have to be proven though and it would take time to build that as a case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
That makes me wonder about another situation - can private schools legally deny students based on race? I honestly don't know the answer to that. It seems that it would be a similar situation. Why should they be forced to allow all races to enroll if they didn't want to? I know that there are boys schools and girls schools - are they legally required to accept both genders?

It poses a lot of questions. But in the end, I don't think there is one good answer, just more room for debating.
No, they can not. Again it is a protected by the Civil Rights act of 1964. You can not discriminate based on things like that. It is protected. Yet that doesn't mean they have to let you in, it just means they can't use that as a reason.
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 $84,000 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.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top