Mayfair wrote:Ty Webb wrote:
So far, the only anti-smoking ban argument that holds any water rhetorically, logically, and ethically is that you can create non-smoking bars and allow free market choice to decide rather than mandate of law (ie, if you don't like it, go somewhere else). I think that argument also has its weaknesses, but I'm too goddamn busy at my goddamn job to get into it.
No, I disagree. Separate but equal does not work in most cases. I couldn't open a bar and say no blacks or gays or jews or handicap people since there are places for those folks to go instead of my place.
You're falling into the same specious analogy trap. You could not reasonably assert that you made the decision for your business because being black, gay, or Jewish poses an unavoidable hazard to the health of your customers or the public at large. Being a smoker is not an inalienable right nor is it intrinsic or otherwise covered by the Bill of Rights. Being Jewish and black are (sadly, I wish I could as easily and confidently being gay is).
This isn't about free expression. It's about public health. They're two different rights.
As for just not going into a smoky bar or restaurant...where do you go if they're all smoky?