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.
HTownLove, first, did you read the links? The point was that I don't think they're going to start banning fats and salt, they already are banning them, so your canard doesn't hold even a teaspoon of water. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you might simply not have paid any attention to the news since, oh, 2005 at least.
And I don't think the government is out to get me. I think a small, very vocal minority is out to impose their fear-fed will on the rest of the populace, and they're using the legislature to do it. Because fear makes you stupid, and this whole thing is nothing if not stupid. Heck, they're not even able to learn from history.
Yes, I do mean you. The moment that you decide that you get to make the decision whether or not someone smokes in a business that you have every right not to enter, you have decided that you are the one who gets to make all decisions for everyone. And that is simply a filthy, filthy habit to get into.
So much more filthy a habit than smoking will EVER be that it's not funny. Literally.
smoking tobacco is not being banned in a place that is primarily designated as a tobacco shop whether it is cigarettes or cigars. Heck it even says smoking in tobacco conventions are okay.
How come a business owner can not designate his bar to permit smoking, then? The only difference is they serve alcohol as well. So what?
To preface, first of all, I called you "sweetheart" in an earlier post. I sincerely apologize for that. For one thing, I was thinking you are a female, and (2), your earlier post came across very condecending. Regardless though, it was not appropriate. And certainly not meant to be taunting. Please forgive that gaffe of mine. I assure you I meant no disprespect!
Now then...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
you would like to think so, but that is not reality show me where I did.
Just go back and read your original post to which I replied. You have done the same with THL (who happens to be a para-legal) and some others. You seem to think your outlook on the law and the constitution are the only valid ones. I said others of us have had some formal education and experience in the field as well.
Quote:
It is not a case against mine, it is a case against The majority of States in the Us, It is the case against 34 cities in Texas and 70% of the state's residents.
And? Lots of things can be done (and have) in the name of the "majority." This is one reason, as THL and others have brought out, why some things are off limits to majority rule. Or should be, as they go against classical notions of freedom and private property rights.
I don't who said it first, but it is appros here, along the lines of: Democracy can never exist as a permant form of government...as the majority will eventually realize they can vote themselves the public treasury.
You do seem to be flinging that paranoia claim around about others a lot. Did it ever occur to you that insisting that smoking be legislatively banned in a venue that posts it on the door that you are never, ever, ever required to enter for any reason is, in and of itself, paranoid in the extreme? I'd say that there's some serious projecting going on here.
I will acknowledge that I do have a fear. I fear those who, through their own overweening fear that someone else might do something they disapprove of, are willing to throw civil rights and liberties and freedom out the window for their own ends, with no thought to the predictable consequences to themselves and others down the road.
It doesn't really matter what your opinion is, the fact is that by any bit of the law, they are public places.
How many of you arguing that restaurants are private places are versed in the law, or functioning attorneys?
Restaurants are classed as "places of public accommodation", meaning they are neither wholly private nor wholly public. They have more flexibility than truly public property, but nowhere near what a home or similar has. By inviting people into the place of business, they assume responsibility for those people. They must comply with things like the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, whereas a truly private property does not.
Moreover, they require a license to function, and they city can set pretty much whatever conditions it likes in order for them to be able to have a license.
This bill does not affect private property, but instead places of public accommodation.
Nice dodge and hair-splitting, but none of the proverbial cigar.
Do you HONESTLY think the intent of the public accomodations part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was intended to lead to total control of private property decision making? I assume you are aware of the original intent aspect and argument for the passage of Title IX specifically mentioned such? In any event, the important distinction is that NO ONE is being denied service nor being discriminated against in this controversy.
Yep, public accomodation. Which means the place is open to the public on a voluntary basis. Come in if you want, go elsewhere if you want. Not the same as courthouses, hospitals, libraries, etc owned by the tax-payer.
You have yet to give a reason why, if government can disallow smoking within a business in the name of "public health", that it cannot/will not lead to it being so in ones own home. After all, children are affected, and so might be the guy who has to come in and check for a gas-leak.
The reason is, of course, the desire to intentionally blur lines so as to justify what, in a saner day and age, would be considered an outrageous assault on classical notions of freedoms.
In the end, it really just comes down to that there is an ever-growing segment out there who think it is all about them and are not adult enough to take personal responsibility for their own life-choices.
Nice dodge and hair-splitting, but none of the proverbial cigar.
Do you HONESTLY think the intent of the public accomodations part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was intended to lead to total control of private property decision making? I assume you are aware of the original intent aspect and argument for the passage of Title IX specifically mentioned such? In any event, the important distinction is that NO ONE is being denied service nor being discriminated against in this controversy.
Yep, public accomodation. Which means the place is open to the public on a voluntary basis. Come in if you want, go elsewhere if you want. Not the same as courthouses, hospitals, libraries, etc owned by the tax-payer.
You have yet to give a reason why, if government can disallow smoking within a business in the name of "public health", that it cannot/will not lead to it being so in ones own home. After all, children are affected, and so might be the guy who has to come in and check for a gas-leak.
The reason is, of course, the desire to intentionally blur lines so as to justify what, in a saner day and age, would be considered an outrageous assault on classical notions of freedoms.
In the end, it really just comes down to that there is an ever-growing segment out there who think it is all about them and are not adult enough to take personal responsibility for their own life-choices.
I am not splitting hairs. That's the law. Your interpretation of "public accommodation" is not the legal definition. I'm so glad you guys have all these opinions, but they are not legally relevant or accurate.
"Public accommodation" in this case does not refer to the CRA, but instead refers to a place that must abide by it. They also have to abide by the ADA, safety codes, etc. Places of public accommodation must abide by these acts, and have a duty to the well-being of the people inside greater than that of a homeowner or that of a truly public place.
What you think or what you believe isn't what the law is. It appears you people are too attached to what you think it should be to do a simple search and learn what the law actually is.
In any event, it is absolutely within the purview of the government to regulate places of public accommodation in ways that would not apply to a private residence.
You all can keep going on about what you think or believe, but it won't change what the law is.
Private homes are not places of public accommodation. They are not subject to the same regulations as places of public accommodation.
Unless they're apartments (which are private homes, by the way).
Or condos (for which people pay a pretty penny, and which are private homes, as well).
If anyone really and truly believes that it won't extend to private homes next, or that it won't extend to anything other than smoking (when it already has extended to things other than that - look at HB1 that just passed the Texas House last night if you don't believe that and steadfastly refuse to look at the links I posted earlier showing that it's already extended to other things even more intimate than smoking), either I have a truly great mountain-top ocean front property in Kansas that I think you'd love to purchase, or you're deliberately putting your fingers in your ears and singing "Na na na na na na na, I can't HEAR you" because to acknowledge it would bring your whole house of cards tumbling down.
The Nanny Brigade, who view anyone who doesn't agree with them as being children in need of control, will see to that, if they're not stopped.
Who can we contact to fight this tyrannical attack on personal freedom, and the freedom of Texas businesses?
Should we contact our state senators and representatives?
What groups are out fighting this attack on liberty and how can we support them?!
Will Perry sign this bogus legislation?
There are a lot of states that ban this. I think its a wonderful idea. Although, I don't think its an attack on freedom, since you can smoke anywhere but indoors. A ban on smoking in public is an attack, I say.
I am not splitting hairs. That's the law. Your interpretation of "public accommodation" is not the legal definition. I'm so glad you guys have all these opinions, but they are not legally relevant or accurate.
"Public accommodation" in this case does not refer to the CRA, but instead refers to a place that must abide by it. They also have to abide by the ADA, safety codes, etc. Places of public accommodation must abide by these acts, and have a duty to the well-being of the people inside greater than that of a homeowner or that of a truly public place.
What you think or what you believe isn't what the law is. It appears you people are too attached to what you think it should be to do a simple search and learn what the law actually is.
In any event, it is absolutely within the purview of the government to regulate places of public accommodation in ways that would not apply to a private residence.
You all can keep going on about what you think or believe, but it won't change what the law is.
Private homes are not places of public accommodation. They are not subject to the same regulations as places of public accommodation.
You asked earlier how many of us taking a postition different from yours were practicing attorneys? Are you?
Anyway, it is quite obvious you are just splitting-hairs, attempting to drive the debate into a ditch and blur the lines between truly public and private places and avoid the REAL question.
Along with it? Ignore that the public accomodations segment of the CRA was NEVER intended to mean the owner could not control their own premises when it involves a voluntary patronage and violates no public safety laws. Does the "original intent" aspect -- argued in Congress -- mean anything to you?
Essentially, however you might want to disguse it, it seems very obvious that you must blur lines for the sake of your own desires/agenda (either or both! LOL). It is absolutely insane to think that the public accomodations section erased lines between private businesses and those owned by the tax-payer.
Using this logic, there is NO reason whatsover that literally ANYTHING cannot be banned within a private business. Not perfume, fried food, salt, pepper, or cokes or cornmeal. Even though no law forces public entry nor any sign prohibits it on the base of a particular class of people, don't think for a minute it will not come about (THL already gave examples of such in other parts of the country). This aspect is something it seems that some are simply too self-centered to comprehend...
BTW -- you still haven't answered why you can't just go elsewhere if you don't like smoking? Not really you haven't. You hide behind definitions of public and private and obviously need to obliterate the lines to justify your own inability to take responsibility for your own choices.
On a related tangent though...it sorta occured to me. Think on this a minute...
What if this law IS passed and the business owner decided to permit smoking anyway? That is, he/she put up a SMOKING ALLOWED sign on the front door, anyway. In effect telling Nanny State to go climb a tree and when somebody came in who objected, just shrugged said, "hey, I welcome your business, but smoking is allowed in here. Report me if you want."
To continue the hypothetical saga, there was a report made and ticket/fine issued. The owner refused to pay upon the grounds that the law was infringing upon his rights to control his own property when free will was involved on all parties. And he kept refusing to pay the fine levied.
Eventually, should s/he be put in jail? Sentenced to prison? I would like to hear from you and HTlove on this....
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.
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.
show me where I did.
