Replies

You hit the button on the head, whether you meant to or not.

My sinuses and throat close up when I am around strong perfume/after shave/cologne as well as cigarette smoke, but I don't go around trying to force the government to ban those things, do I? I choose to avoid the perfume section of department stores and stay away from heavy concentrations of smokers - that's my choice to make.

Most if not all libraries already don't allow smoking in the building. What's next, bar people with BO? I swear that if anything offends my sinuses more than strong perfume, it's bad BO. I don't see any provision in that law barring people with bad Body Odor. As you mentioned - what about passing gas. That is very offensive to many people.

Of course, the way I look at it - if someone feels the need to dump half a bottle of the strongest smelling perfume on themselves to go out in public, they must have other issues to take care of.

There was actually a ruling by a California judge that having body odor and going into a public library was protected by the Consititution.

Here's an excerpt from one of Ann Coulter's articles from a few years ago (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/10-13-00/coulter.html):

Though we won’t have a right to engage in political speech, we will gain a right to stink up public libraries as part of our precious 1st Amendment rights.

That was the ruling of federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin–a favorite judicial appointee among Democrats. Sarokin was first appointed to a Federal District Court in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter (on then-Sen. Bill Bradley’s recommendation). In his second year in office, President Clinton elevated Sarokin to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Recognizing that the Constitution is a document that can "grow," Judge Sarokin discovered that in 1991 the Constitution had sprouted a 1st Amendment right to emit a foul body odor in public libraries and prohibited a public library from evicting a smelly homeless man. You couldn’t make this stuff up. (If you can, you stand a good chance of being nominated to the Supreme Court by Al Gore.)

Our right to free speech, according to Judge Sarokin, protected the bum’s right to harass the library staff, stalk female patrons, talk loudly to himself, stare at people, smell the place up, and generally frighten library patrons away. As the learned liberal judge explained, "If we wish to shield our eyes and ears from the homeless, we should revoke their condition, not their library cards."

(Except the town had tried to revoke this particular homeless man’s "condition." Various community groups had tried to prod him into drug and alcohol recovery programs and had even found him a job. Sarokin rejected both the job and the programs on the grounds that the religious element of the community groups "turns homeless people off.")

So we’ll have a lot of pornography and stinky, menacing homeless people–all part of our precious freedoms under a constitution that "grows."