On 9/13/2011 10:20 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sep 11, 8:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:32:49 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

t That is simply a perversion of the law.

It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.

So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.

That is discriminatory too.

I saw a sign yesterday that said

MEN, No shirt no service.

WOMEN No shirt, Free Beer.

Now that IS FUNNY! But then again, some women they would be ahead to
them give free beer to keep their tops on.

That's like this local pawn shop commercial with three uh, um, "girls"
and the announcer says "these girls are about to lose their shirts" and
I can hear men all over the state begging, please, noooooooooo.... Trust
me, nobody wants to see these girls with their shirts off...