I think you are missing the point. Where does it say you have to eat/work at a certain restaraunt? We live in a capitalistic society(or so they say) and the Government should not be allowed to intervene with the private sector. The real problem lies with the people who voted FOR the amendment. If those people truly wanted it abolished, they should have stopped eating at restaraunts that allow smoking. How quicky do you think the restaraunts would comply? It wouldn't take long at all. It's a sad day when the government has to intervene because someone basically bought and amendment.
I think you are missing the point. Where does it say you have to eat/work at a certain restaraunt? We live in a capitalistic society(or so they say) and the Government should not be allowed to intervene with the private sector. The real problem lies with the people who voted FOR the amendment. If those people truly wanted it abolished, they should have stopped eating at restaraunts that allow smoking. How quicky do you think the restaraunts would comply? It wouldn't take long at all. It's a sad day when the government has to intervene because someone basically bought and amendment.
- Jul 19, 2001
- 38,572
- 2
- 91
Just had a thought,
Since all you smokers in florida and california will no longer eat at restaurants, look at the good news, you will have more money to buy your cancer sticks and enjoy them in the privacy of your own home, car, or the beautiful outdoors.
Since all you smokers in florida and california will no longer eat at restaurants, look at the good news, you will have more money to buy your cancer sticks and enjoy them in the privacy of your own home, car, or the beautiful outdoors.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
the presence of strong, legal unions is enough to make the conditions where the workers agree to them, no added regulation is required. also, there is far more labor mobility now than the factory towns of the middle 1800s, where there was very little ability to move. i don't like my job here theres lots of companies in the area, and i could move elsewhere easily if i so please.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Some guy around here didn't take care of his lawn last summer and he was ticketed, fined, and ordered to mow it. His private property.
If I own property next door to an elementary school should I be allowed to open a strip club? It's my private proprty.
Can I burn a tree down that's in my back yard? Once again, my private proprty.
Can I paint very large cuss words all over my house/business? Yes, you guessed it, private property.
Why do people get sued for not having a fenced in pool and a neighbor kid falls in? It's private property.
The people (not the govt) of Florida have spoken. They would rather not breath in smoke. Let me quote the Anandtech battle-cry - "If you don't like it...leave!"
If I own property next door to an elementary school should I be allowed to open a strip club? It's my private proprty.
Can I burn a tree down that's in my back yard? Once again, my private proprty.
Can I paint very large cuss words all over my house/business? Yes, you guessed it, private property.
Why do people get sued for not having a fenced in pool and a neighbor kid falls in? It's private property.
The people (not the govt) of Florida have spoken. They would rather not breath in smoke. Let me quote the Anandtech battle-cry - "If you don't like it...leave!"
That is comparing apples and oranges. Enron and Worldcom were breaking the law. The were posting false returns to mislead investors. That is fraud. The board of trustees either didn't catch it(unlikely) or turned the other way. I think they need to be subpoened also. But in Florida's case, the business owners are NOT doing anything wrong. The problem with Florida is that anyone can propose an amendment. All you need is between 5-6 million dollars for advertising and signiture costs and you can pass basically whatever you want. Its a corrupt system.
The common denominator among all your arguments is that in those cases, you are invading their first amendment rights. Now, that's what the law says, I'm not sure which part of the first amendment you are invading, but that's beside the point. In those cases, you more or less can't avoid the "personal rights" attack. You are doing something without the other person's discretion. In the smoking case, people are coming to the restaraunt and complaining about the way they run the business. It would be like me coming over to your house and telling you to paint your walls... I find the current color offensive. I have no right to tell you what color your walls should be. The same thing happened in Augusta National with the women member's issue. That is a private establishment, so as long as they aren't breaking the law, why should we intervene?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
he was probably violating the homeowners association policy which he is contractually obliged to follow
you could, you just probably wouldn't be well-liked. you'd probably be violating home-owners and lease contracts as well. and free speech doesn't cover profanity
because in the US people can sue for anything at any time including not properly handling their own children
and i think florida voters are giving themselves more regulation and cost when a free market solution would work better.
Because have an un-kept lawn lowers property value of sorrunding houses, hence it is very invasive. Furthermore.... I'm certain in my neighborhood there is no law about mowing your lawn, that guy might have gotten a ticket for a homeowners association violation.
I can see that. I doubt someone who lives out in the boonies would ever get ticketed for having weeds.
I'm going to start by confessing that I just don't have time to read the entire thread. I did read most of the first hundred posts though and have a thought... if it hasn't already been raised:
A LOT of people said that the Federal Government has no right telling someone how to run their business or what they can or can't allow. If you REALLY believe in this, do you believe that those same business owners, if they also happen to own an apartment building should be able (PRIVATE BUSINESS) to say that they don't rent to (blacks, Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, lesbians... pick your prejudice)?
If you believe that a business owner should be able to run their business any way they want, then you should agree that they should be able to be prejudicial. If not, then you should examine your beliefs because you also think Gov't should control business, but only in ways you prefer.
Just a thought.
Joe
A LOT of people said that the Federal Government has no right telling someone how to run their business or what they can or can't allow. If you REALLY believe in this, do you believe that those same business owners, if they also happen to own an apartment building should be able (PRIVATE BUSINESS) to say that they don't rent to (blacks, Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, lesbians... pick your prejudice)?
If you believe that a business owner should be able to run their business any way they want, then you should agree that they should be able to be prejudicial. If not, then you should examine your beliefs because you also think Gov't should control business, but only in ways you prefer.
Just a thought.
Joe
I just don't understand why California did this; I lived there for years and the air in LA is far worse that cigarette smoke in and of itself.
I voted for it, and I am a former smoker. I hate going into restaurants and have cigarette smoke wofting all over me, even if I am in the non-smoking, smoke still spreads around.
they probably didn't understand what the hell they were voting for. The wording could confuse many
they probably didn't understand what the hell they were voting for. The wording could confuse many
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Having been to the LA area a million times myself, I agree with you no joke.Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I just don't understand why California did this; I lived there for years and the air in LA is far worse that cigarette smoke in and of itself.
Unfortunately, the people are unable to blame themselves for the poor health caused by their filthy air condition (if you don't know or haven't been there, the smog in LA is often so bad that it's like a heavy black fog where you can't see more than 100 feet), so they have found an unpopular minority to punish. A pariah group if you will.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I agree, people slowly killing themselves do not make for very unsympathetic victims...just like junkies and winos.Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Having been to the LA area a million times myself, I agree with you no joke.Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I just don't understand why California did this; I lived there for years and the air in LA is far worse that cigarette smoke in and of itself.
Unfortunately, the people are unable to blame themselves for the poor health caused by their filthy air condition (if you don't know or haven't been there, the smog in LA is often so bad that it's like a heavy black fog where you can't see more than 100 feet), so they have found an unpopular minority to punish. A pariah group if you will.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I agree, people slowly killing themselves do not make for very unsympathetic victims...just like junkies and winos.Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Having been to the LA area a million times myself, I agree with you no joke.Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I just don't understand why California did this; I lived there for years and the air in LA is far worse that cigarette smoke in and of itself.
Unfortunately, the people are unable to blame themselves for the poor health caused by their filthy air condition (if you don't know or haven't been there, the smog in LA is often so bad that it's like a heavy black fog where you can't see more than 100 feet), so they have found an unpopular minority to punish. A pariah group if you will.
Which, just like junkies and winos, makes them a very effective group to target for tax increases and other prejudicial action. You know, actions similar to our oh-so-successful War on Drugs (where we are frequently told that crime would not exist with drugs
Blaming a minority for the sins of the whole has been a popular pasttime since the beginning of human civilization.
And everyone is slowly killing themselves, some merely at a more rapid pace than others. Even those who don't want to be killing themselves and try hard to do everything to prevent are still doing it. Who are you or anyone else to judge how quickly someone chooses to embrace the fate that awaits us all?
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Boy you can talk nonsense with the best of them. Is that an aquired skill or did you have to learn it?Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I agree, people slowly killing themselves do not make for very unsympathetic victims...just like junkies and winos.Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Having been to the LA area a million times myself, I agree with you no joke.Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I just don't understand why California did this; I lived there for years and the air in LA is far worse that cigarette smoke in and of itself.
Unfortunately, the people are unable to blame themselves for the poor health caused by their filthy air condition (if you don't know or haven't been there, the smog in LA is often so bad that it's like a heavy black fog where you can't see more than 100 feet), so they have found an unpopular minority to punish. A pariah group if you will.
Which, just like junkies and winos, makes them a very effective group to target for tax increases and other prejudicial action. You know, actions similar to our oh-so-successful War on Drugs (where we are frequently told that crime would not exist with drugs) or the failed Prohibition (sinners! sinners!).
Blaming a minority for the sins of the whole has been a popular pasttime since the beginning of human civilization.
And everyone is slowly killing themselves, some merely at a more rapid pace than others. Even those who don't want to be killing themselves and try hard to do everything to prevent are still doing it. Who are you or anyone else to judge how quickly someone chooses to embrace the fate that awaits us all?
This was a state issue decided entirely by the voters. It seems to me that they are entirely constitutional in this respect because it wasn't handed down by the feds but was instead a state law passed by the people of Florida. You may not agree with it, but that's your choice. A majority of voters in Florida thought that it was a good idea, and that's how democracy works.
really? woo hoo!!! hey what about other states? ugh smokling makes me sick, i'm glad it got banned, its not fair to the non smokers to have to breathe your carcinogenic ciggaretes, woo!!
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,522
- 20,161
- 146
I have never agreed with laws forcing business owners or landlords to do business with anyone based on any reason. First, it's unenforcable (they'll just make up another excuse) and second, it's unconstitutional.
Beyond lawsuits, when was the last time you saw a criminal prosecution for a business or landlord discriminating? It seldom happens, and is a law that the truely bigotted simply sneer at. It's feel good nonsense that carries little weight, but goes a long way towards taking away the rights of individual citizens. You cannot legislate away bigottry, but you can sure make it worse by trying to force people to like each other.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter