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.
I have no problem with no smoking in restraunts. However, I don't know anyone that works in a bar that doesn't smoke, and I know alot of bartenders and waitresses. The club owners I know have said no smoking would kill their business. They would close down. I would have no problem with bars having to build outside patios for non smokers. They would not have to be large, since 90% of bar patrons smoke. A couple of chairs outside should do nicely.
Well, I don't think many gays feel comfortable expressing their personal freedom in Texas. I highly doubt you see many gays kissing and holding hands there. You have to think of that aspect too.
In Houston they do as well as Austin and Dallas. Most small towns...probably not, but the same would be true anywhere outside of NYC in NY State
Well, I don't think many gays feel comfortable expressing their personal freedom in Texas. I highly doubt you see many gays kissing and holding hands there. You have to think of that aspect too.
Nice generalization. Im sure all Texans ride a horse to work, carry a 45 on their hip, and have an oil well in their backyards, oh wait, on their ranches
The top Texan city they list is Fort Worth. It's a bit above average "gay index."
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitors sites is not allowed
I think the second highest city they list is Miami, which I believe has a pretty strong gay community.
Not that I take this all that serious and I'm not a libertarian. (My conservatism is decidedly non-libertarian albeit not really authoritarian either.)
The argument we've heard against smoking in bars and restaurants here in MN is that the employees are subject to large amounts of second hand smoke, putting their health at risk. Good argument? If yes, would personal freedoms trump workers' health?
I don't necessarily buy that argument either.
Please don't misunderstand me, I don't smoke and I don't like it and I'm not saying it couldn't possibly hurt employees' health.
But, it goes back to the personal freedoms and responsibilities issue again...Does the employee have to work there? Is anyone putting a gun to their head to make them work there? Of course, not.
If you don't want to work in a smoking environment, don't apply there. If I owned an establishment that allowed smoking, and I couldn't get employees there due to that reason, I either change my smoking policy, or in the worst case, go out of business.
I worked as a logger right out of high school. It's dangerous. People get hurt and killed. After doing that for a couple of years, and noting the people with steel plates in their heads, missing fingers, and the random deaths that occurred during that time, I decided I'd go to school and get a desk job that would really lower the odds of me needing a steel plate in my head.
In other words, I didn't like my working environment, so I changed where I worked. I kind of see the employee in a smoking establishment the same way...work there, or don't.
I don't necessarily buy that argument either.
Please don't misunderstand me, I don't smoke and I don't like it and I'm not saying it couldn't possibly hurt employees' health.
But, it goes back to the personal freedoms and responsibilities issue again...Does the employee have to work there? Is anyone putting a gun to their head to make them work there? Of course, not.
If you don't want to work in a smoking environment, don't apply there. If I owned an establishment that allowed smoking, and I couldn't get employees there due to that reason, I either change my smoking policy, or in the worst case, go out of business.
You seem like a very bright guy, as this is how I've always felt on the issue of smoking. (sure you can also tell I'm a very big personal libertarian) Don't get me started on how disappointed I remain with the hypocrites in Illinois' legislature to this day, which first voted for a local control law on smoking restrictions in 2005(and which I felt was a fair compromise, since it was left up to businesses and communities what worked best for each community on the smoking issue), then ONLY 2 years later, removed all local control on the smoking issue with one of the most heavily restrictive state smoking bans in the country. IIRC, only Washington state has a more restrictive state ban.
No wonder for issues like this, Illinois was rated #42 overall on Mercatus' personal freedom study, and 2nd worst in the entire country on personal liberties. I can only imagine if the study was redone for 2009, Illinois may even rank lower, since this one was conducted back when Illinois' smoking ban wasn't in effect. The whole Mercatus study can be seen here:
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Freedom%20in%20the%2050%20States.pdf (broken link)
No, no, no.........
They'd rather help the poor people directly instead of lining the pockets of bureaucrats and authoritarian socialists, who ONLY care about power, and little else.
I consider myself to be borderline libertarian, yet I give quite a bit to charity, and have no qualms with helping my fellow citizen who might be broke down on the side of the road, etc....
Anti-social? Anti-city? Whatever. Get a clue, people.
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.
