I hope that property rights are soon recognized for bar and restaurant owners on the smoking issue. I prefer non-smoking restaurants, but I support the owner's right to make a market or preference based decision on whether to allow smoking. It just makes common sense.
As I read the Bill of Rights, most of the freedoms are applied to government action, not private action. For example, government has to give due process, but private individuals and businesses don't. The private sector can ban speech under its control, while government can't. We may disagree with private policies that restrict, say, gun ownership by hiring policies or free speech by editorial positions, but these don't rise to the level of constitutional violations since no government action is taken.
Good point.
What about in a situation where the gov't gives preferential treatment to one company, and detrimental treatment to others? And this is the case for ALL large industries, to some degree or another.
Isn't this essentially the same thing as the gov't taking action to deprive civil Rights, especially when the company that benefits is opposed to the Right of Free men?
Consider the airline industry, for instance. If United Airlines announced a policy that would allow all passengers with CCW "permits" to carry on board, do you really think the feds would allow that to happen? No. They would not let United fly. But some folks here are still under the illusion that our airlines are "privately owned".