Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sheltonmac
Not one person was forced to breathe secondhand smoke. Not a single one.

But, but, but....they are supposed t be able to go where ever they want without being offended.....

Bar and restaurant workers didn't have to seek employment in an establishment that allowed smoking.

You are introducing fact here, only emothion is permitted.

Customers did not have to patronize businesses that allowed smoking.

see above

Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Selfishness.

Why do you have to run whining and crying to the nanny state every time you see something you don't like?

Because it is easier.....they do not have to take responsibility for themselves.

264 posted on 08/02/2005 4:07:43 PM PDT by Gabz (Smoking ban supporters are in favor of the Kelo ruling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies ]


To: Gabz

Here's one the great statements defending individual property rights -

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter--but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, in a 1763 speech to the House of Lords


278 posted on 08/02/2005 6:59:11 PM PDT by sergeantdave (Member of Arbor Day Foundation, travelling the country and destroying open space)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson