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.
Then black people not being allowed to use the only swimming pool in town because white's feared they'd contaminate the water wasn't discrimination? They could go anywhere they liked, hang around outside the fence, park in the parking lot. They just couldn't go in the water because of public health concerns.
Yes, that was discrimination. Smokers can go in the pool, they can go anywhere, any hotel, movie theater, restaurant, public water fountain, etc.. they want, there are no separate rules for smokers like there were for blacks, that's why it's not discrimination.
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?
in the industry where I work, if they got rid of all the smokers, I would wonder what the country would do with 23% less power?
after all, I would just love to see the state of new jersey with no electricity at all.
I never understand the people who freak out about not being able to blow their toxic chemicals all over the place.
I have asthma. Please, give me a rational argument over how your right to smoke trumps my right to breathe and stay alive. How is your smoking more important than my ability to breathe air that won't kill me? Because I've never heard one that makes sense.
Yes, that was discrimination. Smokers can go in the pool, they can go anywhere, any hotel, movie theater, restaurant, public water fountain, etc.. they want, there are no separate rules for smokers like there were for blacks, that's why it's not discrimination.
You're just not seeing the big picture.
You remind me very much of myself back in the days before Martin Luther King. I didn't realize I was a bigot until King showed me otherwise. And, I wasn't alone. We whites had to be confronted with our bigotry before we could become tolerant and accepting. Without King to show us the error of our ways, we'd have just gone right on justifying whatever we wanted to do blacks because it seemed logical and that's just the way things were.
Anti-smoking zealots who see nothing wrong with piling on smokers are exactly the same as we were back then and someday, some voice crying in the wilderness about justice, fairness and tolerance, will break through their hardened hearts....I hope.
Should a hotel be allowed to ban people from throwing up on the bed & leaving it there? Is it discrimination to say that's not allowed?
No. B/c the person throwing up isn't banned from the hotel, just the act of throwing up on the bed. That's no different than banningsmoking inside the room. You're not banning the person, or even smokers, just the act of smoking.
I never understand the people who freak out about not being able to blow their toxic chemicals all over the place.
I have asthma. Please, give me a rational argument over how your right to smoke trumps my right to breathe and stay alive. How is your smoking more important than my ability to breathe air that won't kill me? Because I've never heard one that makes sense.
It's not more important. But, if there were smoking and non-smoking restaurants and hotels, you'd be giving up your right to breathe clean air when you went in one, wouldn't you, because you'd have voluntarily chosen to go there.
If business owners were free to service smoking customers if they liked, you and I would both have a choice, the freedom to chose our own atmosphere. As it is now, because of the heavy hand of government and crusading smoke-Nazi's, only you have a choice.
It's not more important. But, if there were smoking and non-smoking restaurants and hotels, you'd be giving up your right to breathe clean air when you went in one, wouldn't you, because you'd have voluntarily chosen to go there.
If business owners were free to service smoking customers if they liked, you and I would both have a choice, the freedom to chose our own atmosphere. As it is now, because of the heavy hand of government and crusading smoke-Nazi's, only you have a choice.
You tell me how that's fair.
the choice should have been left up to the property owner, and have the politicians stay out of a private business for having a legal habit take place.
You remind me very much of myself back in the days before Martin Luther King. I didn't realize I was a bigot until King showed me otherwise. And, I wasn't alone. We whites had to be confronted with our bigotry before we could become tolerant and accepting. Without King to show us the error of our ways, we'd have just gone right on justifying whatever we wanted to do blacks because it seemed logical and that's just the way things were.
Anti-smoking zealots who see nothing wrong with piling on smokers are exactly the same as we were back then and someday, some voice crying in the wilderness about justice, fairness and tolerance, will break through their hardened hearts....I hope.
I am not a bigot, and I suggest you stop trying to imply that I am. The problem here is you simply don't understand what discrimination means, and you are insulting people who have truly suffered under discrimination. The fact that smoking is not allowed everywhere is NOT discrimination, it's a RULE, it's only discrimination if the rule is not applied equally to every person. No one is allowed to smoke in bars or restaurants who employ people in the state of MI, there are no exceptions so there is no discrimination, non smokers aren't allowed to smoke either.
I am not a bigot, and I suggest you stop trying to imply that I am. The problem here is you simply don't understand what discrimination means, and you are insulting people who have truly suffered under discrimination. The fact that smoking is not allowed everywhere is NOT discrimination, it's a RULE, it's only discrimination if the rule is not applied equally to every person. No one is allowed to smoke in bars or restaurants who employ people in the state of MI, there are no exceptions so there is no discrimination, non smokers aren't allowed to smoke either.
cant you see? you are still discriminating against smokers. you are telling them that they cannot enjoy their legal habit. would you rather have your taxes go up by 10%-30% instead of having smokers in your state?
cant you see? you are still discriminating against smokers. you are telling them that they cannot enjoy their legal habit. would you rather have your taxes go up by 10%-30% instead of having smokers in your state?
You can enjoy your legal habit anywhere that it is legal to do so, smoke away! Like I pointed out before I like to go barefoot, but if a place has a rule requiring shoes I put them on without a single complaint about discrimination because I understand that civilized life has rules, I can go home, or outside and be barefoot all day, but when I chose to go somewhere requiring shoes I put them on.
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.
