Quote:
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
Still, there's a substantial difference between places on private property that are open to the public and those that aren't. For example, it's legal to say you won't allow any black people in your private home on private property, but it's illegal to say you won't allow any black people in your open-to-the-public restaurant on private property. Another more related example is that it's perfectly fine to have rats and cockroaches in your kitchen when you prepare your own food which wasn't properly refrigerated, but a restaurant can be shut down for having the same situation itself.
|
Yeah, I know there are differences like these. But I honestly think they shouldn't exist. It's still their property and their right to be a racist asshole or an unsanitary slob. I fully support the government making them be
very upfront about whatever 'standards' they hold, but as long as the general public knows what they're getting into, such an owner should be allowed to extend the invitation for people to enter his property.
The invitation is, after all, what makes it public-accessible private property as opposed to private property, no? As long as the offer isn't deceptive, they should be allowed to make it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasereth
This isn't about laws
|
Sure it is. The topic began with a smoker's rant. Related laws, smoking bans in particular, fit just fine within the scope of the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasereth
The debate that needs to be argued is how many smokers (most in this thread) think it's ok to make me stink and have a hard time breathing.
|
They
aren't 'making' you stink. I maintain that this is one of the biggest illusions running through the thread. You have a choice in the matter: don't set foot on private property, public-accessible or otherwise, that allows smoking, and you won't stink.