“One’s public deportment is free and personal until it inflicts a disruption of enjoyment of the same space by others.”
Just wow! What a society of soap bubbles we have become. Now we can not tollerate any “disruption of enjoyment.” I see that the movie “Demolition Man” was much more prophetic than I could have imagined at the time.
The fact of the matter is that in order for you to have your “enjoyment disrupted” by cigarette smoking in a restaurant or bar, you must voluntarily enter onto property owned by another. You have no expectation of any particular enjoyment, except what the property owner is willing to offer you, or by extension me. If that property owner wants to offer you a completely smoke free environment by banning tobacco use, then he is free to do so. If he wants to offer me a venue to enjoy the use of tobacco while I imbibe on his other offerings, he should be free to do so.
“What’s your particular sensitivity?” I have a very hard time tollerating tyranny.
“That you don’t like to have your beliefs or deportment criticized or limited?”
I am more than willing to succomb to the beliefs of the owner of the property. Other than that, I am not very sensitive at all. I am a strong defender of a business owner not being forced to participate in a gay wedding, I am also a strong defender of them being able to set their own tobacco policy.
Freedom goes both ways.
I'm beginning to think that you fail to understand that opening one's property to the public may bring its operation under the laws governing its use, and that is decided, not by the owner as a proprietor, but as a business under license by the city, county, or state; and is no longer free to operate whimsically.
Your argument has value only when the property is operated as a private club, which also has its own rules to which you must agree if you join it.
Actually, privately owned real estate is not sacrosanct, AFIK, but is at least subject to be taken from one by eminent domain, and on the other hand operated according to zoning law, land use regulations, and business licensing. Like it or not, you are your brother's keeper, and his rights as to how to use the property are subject to the laws of the republic, in which we live according to acceptance of the social contract it offers to its citizens and property owners.
I guess I don't want to debate this any longer with you, because apparently your scale of values extends beyond what mutual agreement permits. I see alienation, not cooperation, as underlying the system you are presenting.
I am sort of sure I would not like to have someone with these ideas as my neighbor, if he/she is unwilling to negotiate use of his property that affect me or my property, and vice versa.