On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:07:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:19:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:22:20 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:39:29 -0700, wrote:

No, people with peanut allergies just don't go in those places.




Yes. The airlines have in many cases stopped serving them for just
that reason.

Nobody has passed a law banning peanuts. I have no problem with a
business owner banning smoking in his place, That is his right. I just
don't want to the government force it on him, against the will of his
customers.

You talked about people going into places where they serve peanuts as
an example of companies stopping service of them, as though that never
happens. I pointed you to a specific example. Now, you're claiming
there isn't a law about it. So? There could be a lawsuit about it,
might have already been one. Feel free to do the research, since
you're so dedicated. I think I'll feel good about no-smoking bans.

There are no peanut bans, only voluntary agreement not to serve
peanuts.
I have no problem with anyone banning smoking in their business. That
is freedom. The law telling them they have to ban smoking is
oppression.

And, as I said, lawsuits are unpredictable.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,362383,00.html

Yes, there is no limit to the tort abuse a bottom feeding ambulance
chaser will resort to.

Huh? This case has to do with a lawsuit. You claimed that lawsuits
should only be predictable. They aren't. There's no such thing as tort
abuse. That's just a talking point. Tort is "A wrongful act or an
infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal
liability." Tort abuse is meaningless. What you're trying to say is
that there are a few lawyers who engage in frivolous lawsuits.
Typically, they are admonished, fined, or worse.


Smokers are the only minority we are allowed to discriminate against
and I think a lot of repressed bigotry about other minorities that
people can't express in any other way comes out against the one
minority they can malign and oppress.

You have a strange notion of "discrimination." As I said, your rights
end when you infringe on mine.

They do not infringe on you if you read the "smoking allowed" sign and
stay out.


I've pointed out several situations where they do. Sorry if you don't
like it.

It is strange that you can't ask a person on a job application if they
have a history of paranoid schizophrenia, use anti depressants, have
chronic heart disease, diabetes or full blown AIDS but you can ask
them if the ever smoked and refuse employment because you say it will
raise your health care costs.


Why is that strange? None of those things necessarily harm others,
esp. at work. Are you going to claim that someone with AIDS is going
to injure someone at work? How is chronic heart disease going to
affect my health sitting in the cube? Second hand smoke does.

The issue was alleged to be health care costs, not harm to others.

This is a new issue from you. The claim that second hand smoke is
harmless is nonsense. That's the issue.