Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

I'm not even talking about private property....what I said has nothing to do with it. Why are you bringing it up.

Simply why should we cater to one thing but not the other?

That would be considered discrimination.

::looks at the thread title::

::looks at the OP::

::looks at the discussion that's been going on for the last 4 pages of the thread::

Yea, I guess nobody was talking about private property at all in this thread.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: SampSon

I laugh at you.

That's ok, everyone else is laughing at you kid and I really can't take someone who is my much younger siblings comtemporary very seriously.

I am no kid, son.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

I'm not even talking about private property....what I said has nothing to do with it. Why are you bringing it up.

Simply why should we cater to one thing but not the other?

That would be considered discrimination.

::looks at the thread title::

::looks at the OP::

::looks at the discussion that's been going on for the last 4 pages of the thread::

Yea, I guess nobody was talking about private property at all in this thread.

In this thread sure - but in a lot of the comments that is not what I'm discussing. Perhaps that's why you don't get it.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

I'm not even talking about private property....what I said has nothing to do with it. Why are you bringing it up.

Simply why should we cater to one thing but not the other?

That would be considered discrimination.

::looks at the thread title::

::looks at the OP::

::looks at the discussion that's been going on for the last 4 pages of the thread::

Yea, I guess nobody was talking about private property at all in this thread.

In this thread sure - but in a lot of the comments that is not what I'm discussing. Perhaps that's why you don't get it.

All of us have been talking about private propery rights the entire time. Maybe that's why YOU don't get it.

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
fvck that. I'm not visiting new jesery. whats next, your own home?!

fvck that it needs to be illegal to smoke anywhere indoors except your own home.

Hell everywhere needs to make it illegal to smoke ANYWHERE but inside your own home.

I DO NOT want to inhale you bastard smokers' smoke and shiat.

I know I know....you have your "right" to smoke if you want to.

Well my right to breathe smoke-free air superceeds that right so STFU.

All smokers should have to smoke inside a contained suit or something. Shouldn't be able to smoke around other people PERIOD!

Then what was this post about exactly?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

I'm not even talking about private property....what I said has nothing to do with it. Why are you bringing it up.

Simply why should we cater to one thing but not the other?

That would be considered discrimination.

::looks at the thread title::

::looks at the OP::

::looks at the discussion that's been going on for the last 4 pages of the thread::

Yea, I guess nobody was talking about private property at all in this thread.

In this thread sure - but in a lot of the comments that is not what I'm discussing. Perhaps that's why you don't get it.

All of us have been talking about private propery rights the entire time. Maybe that's why YOU don't get it.

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
fvck that. I'm not visiting new jesery. whats next, your own home?!

fvck that it needs to be illegal to smoke anywhere indoors except your own home.

Hell everywhere needs to make it illegal to smoke ANYWHERE but inside your own home.

I DO NOT want to inhale you bastard smokers' smoke and shiat.

I know I know....you have your "right" to smoke if you want to.

Well my right to breathe smoke-free air superceeds that right so STFU.

All smokers should have to smoke inside a contained suit or something. Shouldn't be able to smoke around other people PERIOD!

Then what was this post about exactly?

I was not talking about that post.....why bring it up?

I was discussing a different point.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

I'm not even talking about private property....what I said has nothing to do with it. Why are you bringing it up.

Simply why should we cater to one thing but not the other?

That would be considered discrimination.

::looks at the thread title::

::looks at the OP::

::looks at the discussion that's been going on for the last 4 pages of the thread::

Yea, I guess nobody was talking about private property at all in this thread.

In this thread sure - but in a lot of the comments that is not what I'm discussing. Perhaps that's why you don't get it.

All of us have been talking about private propery rights the entire time. Maybe that's why YOU don't get it.

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
fvck that. I'm not visiting new jesery. whats next, your own home?!

fvck that it needs to be illegal to smoke anywhere indoors except your own home.

Hell everywhere needs to make it illegal to smoke ANYWHERE but inside your own home.

I DO NOT want to inhale you bastard smokers' smoke and shiat.

I know I know....you have your "right" to smoke if you want to.

Well my right to breathe smoke-free air superceeds that right so STFU.

All smokers should have to smoke inside a contained suit or something. Shouldn't be able to smoke around other people PERIOD!

Then what was this post about exactly?

I was not talking about that post.....why bring it up?

I was discussing a different point.

And none of us gives a sh!t about public smoking in a discussion about private property rights and the violation of them.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

I'm not even talking about private property....what I said has nothing to do with it. Why are you bringing it up.

Simply why should we cater to one thing but not the other?

That would be considered discrimination.

::looks at the thread title::

::looks at the OP::

::looks at the discussion that's been going on for the last 4 pages of the thread::

Yea, I guess nobody was talking about private property at all in this thread.

In this thread sure - but in a lot of the comments that is not what I'm discussing. Perhaps that's why you don't get it.

All of us have been talking about private propery rights the entire time. Maybe that's why YOU don't get it.

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
fvck that. I'm not visiting new jesery. whats next, your own home?!

fvck that it needs to be illegal to smoke anywhere indoors except your own home.

Hell everywhere needs to make it illegal to smoke ANYWHERE but inside your own home.

I DO NOT want to inhale you bastard smokers' smoke and shiat.

I know I know....you have your "right" to smoke if you want to.

Well my right to breathe smoke-free air superceeds that right so STFU.

All smokers should have to smoke inside a contained suit or something. Shouldn't be able to smoke around other people PERIOD!

Then what was this post about exactly?

I was not talking about that post.....why bring it up?

I was discussing a different point.

And none of us gives a sh!t about public smoking in a discussion about private property rights and the violation of them.

Then why were you debating it?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SampSon

I laugh at you.

That's ok, everyone else is laughing at you kid and I really can't take someone who is my much younger siblings comtemporary very seriously.

I am no kid, son.

Then I feel very sorry for you.

I remember you since day one, I have a good idea of your age, if only you acted closer to it.

Damn, now it's even later!

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SampSon

I laugh at you.

That's ok, everyone else is laughing at you kid and I really can't take someone who is my much younger siblings comtemporary very seriously.

I am no kid, son.

Then I feel very sorry for you.

I remember you since day one, I have a good idea of your age, if only you acted closer to it.

Damn, now it's even later!

That's nice for you. I do have a tendancy to be rather over the top around here...but hey...it's an internet forum. Just remember that some things do not transition themselves into words, and you should be fine.

You wouldn't even recognize me were you to actually meet me. My personality does not exactly...show through around here. Oh well.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

I think that at that point, the smokers should decide that it would be better to respect those around them than to be selfish and smoke anyway.

They can go outside away from anyone and smoke one, then return. There are better decisions than to just think oh...I have the right to smoke...to hell with the other people here.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

I think that at that point, the smokers should decide that it would be better to respect those around them than to be selfish and smoke anyway.

They can go outside away from anyone and smoke one, then return. There are better decisions than to just think oh...I have the right to smoke...to hell with the other people here.

I'm not asking what the smokers should do. I'm asking should the owner be allowed to permit it?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

I think that at that point, the smokers should decide that it would be better to respect those around them than to be selfish and smoke anyway.

They can go outside away from anyone and smoke one, then return. There are better decisions than to just think oh...I have the right to smoke...to hell with the other people here.

I'm not asking what the smokers should do. I'm asking should the owner be allowed to permit it?

Again - if a person wants to allow smoking in their own residence, fine.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

I think that at that point, the smokers should decide that it would be better to respect those around them than to be selfish and smoke anyway.

They can go outside away from anyone and smoke one, then return. There are better decisions than to just think oh...I have the right to smoke...to hell with the other people here.

I'm not asking what the smokers should do. I'm asking should the owner be allowed to permit it?

Again - if a person wants to allow smoking in their own residence, fine.

With you agreeing on that, I don't see how you could support legistlation to ban smoking and take the decision out of business owners hands when it is their own private property.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

I think that at that point, the smokers should decide that it would be better to respect those around them than to be selfish and smoke anyway.

They can go outside away from anyone and smoke one, then return. There are better decisions than to just think oh...I have the right to smoke...to hell with the other people here.

I'm not asking what the smokers should do. I'm asking should the owner be allowed to permit it?

Again - if a person wants to allow smoking in their own residence, fine.

With you agreeing on that, I don't see how you could support legistlation to ban smoking and take the decision out of business owners hands when it is their own private property.

Becaue it isn't a private residence.

Because I don't think that they should be able to make that decision for a public place even though it may be privately owned.

Should the private owner be able to decide that he doesn't want black people to be in his business?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

I think that at that point, the smokers should decide that it would be better to respect those around them than to be selfish and smoke anyway.

They can go outside away from anyone and smoke one, then return. There are better decisions than to just think oh...I have the right to smoke...to hell with the other people here.

I'm not asking what the smokers should do. I'm asking should the owner be allowed to permit it?

Again - if a person wants to allow smoking in their own residence, fine.

With you agreeing on that, I don't see how you could support legistlation to ban smoking and take the decision out of business owners hands when it is their own private property.

Becaue it isn't a private residence.

Because I don't think that they should be able to make that decision for a public place even though it may be privately owned.

Should the private owner be able to decide that he doesn't want black people to be in his business?

That's the thing. It IS NOT a public place. Even though the public may have greater access to it, it is private property.

People have no control over what skin color they may or may not have been born with. Not only that, it's also illegal, partially becase of what I just said. It's a completely different situation.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

I think that at that point, the smokers should decide that it would be better to respect those around them than to be selfish and smoke anyway.

They can go outside away from anyone and smoke one, then return. There are better decisions than to just think oh...I have the right to smoke...to hell with the other people here.

I'm not asking what the smokers should do. I'm asking should the owner be allowed to permit it?

Again - if a person wants to allow smoking in their own residence, fine.

With you agreeing on that, I don't see how you could support legistlation to ban smoking and take the decision out of business owners hands when it is their own private property.

Becaue it isn't a private residence.

Because I don't think that they should be able to make that decision for a public place even though it may be privately owned.

Should the private owner be able to decide that he doesn't want black people to be in his business?

That's the thing. It IS NOT a public place. Even though the public may have greater access to it, it is private property.

People have no control over what skin color they may or may not have been born. Not only that, it's also illegal, partially becase of what I just said. It's a completely different situation.

Of course it is illegal to discriminate against a person because of race. Why is it then okay to discriminate against a non-smoker?

A business is a public place with public concerns, even though privately owned it may be.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Should the private owner be able to decide that he doesn't want black people to be in his business?

Yes, he should be given the right to serve who he wants to. That doesn't make it "morally" right, but legally it should be. I believe that there is a clause that grants the store to refuse service to anyone they want to.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: OdiN

Should the private owner be able to decide that he doesn't want black people to be in his business?

Yes, he should be given the right to serve who he wants to. That doesn't make it "morally" right, but legally it should be. I believe that there is a clause that grants the store to refuse service to anyone they want to.

Are you sure your username isn't missing a K?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OdiN

Then why were you debating it?

Because what you're saying also involves smoking on private property, which was the focal point of this thread and discussion.

Not to mention you were also using it as an excuse to ban smoking on private property.

Well then let me just sum everything up.

The only private property smoking should be allowed on is a persons home.

To smoke is a privilege and in order to qualify for that privilege one should have to make the sacrifices of being respectful to others about it practicing it.

The people that smoking and secondhand smoke (whether medical or not) adversely affects should not be the ones required to sacrifice, since it is not their bad habbit that is causing the problem.

That is the bottom line.

So people should be banned from smoking in another person's house, even if the person allows it?

No, if that person wants to allow smoking in their place of residence that is fine.

What if that person has other guests in the household that don't like it? Should he not be allowed to permit smoking?

I think that at that point, the smokers should decide that it would be better to respect those around them than to be selfish and smoke anyway.

They can go outside away from anyone and smoke one, then return. There are better decisions than to just think oh...I have the right to smoke...to hell with the other people here.

I'm not asking what the smokers should do. I'm asking should the owner be allowed to permit it?

Again - if a person wants to allow smoking in their own residence, fine.

With you agreeing on that, I don't see how you could support legistlation to ban smoking and take the decision out of business owners hands when it is their own private property.

Becaue it isn't a private residence.

Because I don't think that they should be able to make that decision for a public place even though it may be privately owned.

Should the private owner be able to decide that he doesn't want black people to be in his business?

That's the thing. It IS NOT a public place. Even though the public may have greater access to it, it is private property.

People have no control over what skin color they may or may not have been born. Not only that, it's also illegal, partially becase of what I just said. It's a completely different situation.

Of course it is illegal to discriminate against a person because of race. Why is it then okay to discriminate against a non-smoker?

A business is a public place with public concerns, even though privately owned it may be.

We're going in circles here. I could just use the argument "Why is it okay to discriminate against smokers?" Nobody is discriminating against non-smokers or smokers, and they are not a protected group.

A private busines is absolutely not a public place. You REALLY need to go back and learn the difference between public and private property.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: OdiN

Should the private owner be able to decide that he doesn't want black people to be in his business?

Yes, he should be given the right to serve who he wants to. That doesn't make it "morally" right, but legally it should be. I believe that there is a clause that grants the store to refuse service to anyone they want to.

Are you sure your username isn't missing a K?

In a more idealistic society, I would agree with him. In a more indeal society, people would combat the person's racism by not frequenting his business. Therefore, his business would lose sales, and either be forced to open it's doors to blacks, or be forced to close down.