The recent firing of smokers who indulge on their own time is a different matter, however.
Should employers now be allowed to fire fat people (heart problems), gays (risk of AIDS), sports enthusiasts (various injuries) and women (maternity leave)?
I have no problem with the owners making these decisions......but I am firmly against the government forcing PRIVATE property owners to do so, generally against thier will.
As a smoker I am healthier than most of my collegues. They manage to get sick far more often than I do. And it's not just the flu...we have an amazing number of sports injuries too.
This is bold faced discrimination and if allowed to go unchecked, there will be nothing and no activity safe from the "Weyco" model.
Smoking in a public place is one thing, but surely you can't believe that the government telling a private business owner how to run his business is a good thing.
" The recent firing of smokers who indulge on their own time is a different matter, however."
I agree. I wondered why there was not grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. I suspect we may have not heard the end of that story. I have the same basic problem with the hate crimes laws. Where is our equal protection?
"I am a smoker. I understand and totally agree about the ban against smoking in public places and adjusted very easily to not smoking in restaurants and work etc.
The recent firing of smokers who indulge on their own time is a different matter, however."
Are you really posting on your first day as part of this board in favor of government confiscation of the use of private property, and against a private employer being able to chose who to hire/fire? Why did you join FR?
Yes, of course.
If you have a right to quit a job, then an employer has the right to make you quit. Private property is not the government; it does not owe "equal" treatment to anybody.
This same principle applies to the smoking-ban debate. The real issue here has nothing to do with "health" or "economic effects," or any of that blather. The real issue is the rights of property owners. If I own a piece of property, it is up to me -- and ME ONLY -- to determine what legal activities may take place on that property.
There's nothing "public" about any private property, no matter how successful the left has been at pulling the wool over Americans' eyes for the past half-century. And, yes, that wool-pulling includes many aspects of the Civil Rights Act.
It's disturbing to see that so many conservatives have bought into the entitlement mentality -- "entitled" to a smoke-free environment in a privately owned restaurant, "entitled" to not being fired by a private employer, etc. This place is still called Free Republic, right?
To call it a "slippery slope" isn't even accurate anymore; clearly, the left has won this particular battle in the war to instill socialism in the American psyche.