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

To: mewzilla
Restaurants are supposed to be for the public. It appears to me that they are more "private" now, that they do not and cannot accommodate the entire "public." Pity.
8 posted on 09/05/2001 10:52:41 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: SheLion
Restaurants are supposed to be for the public. It appears to me that they are more "private" now, that they do not and cannot accommodate the entire "public." Pity.

Restaurants are private property. If we were still living under the U.S. Constitution, owners of private property would be able to choose who shall and shall not be allowed on their private property.

Applied to the particular situation, you'd have smoke-free restaurants booming to cater to that segment of the population, leaving the old-smoker restaurants to cater to that niche. And it would all happen without coercion ... and without regulation.

Unfortunately, liberals couldn't wait for free people and free markets to react ... and instead decided to impose regulations on owners of private property to cater to only a specific segment of the population - the non-smoker.

BTW, I am not a smoker.

32 posted on 09/05/2001 11:43:36 AM PDT by VoodooEconomist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | 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