Not feasible unless they all "disarm" at the same time. Otherwise they can lose customers.
Number 2 - What about the business man that does NOT request that they be subject to a smoking ban? Are THEIR property rights to be trampled on simply because a majority doesn't want to enter their business if they allow smoking? (Not that I think a majority wouldn't enter simply because a business owner allowed smoking)
Yes, his rights were "tampled on" but they were trampled on using the political process. So long as the laws were followed, he has no recourse.
But lets change the scenario somewhat to "what if all the restuarant owners in SmokeFREE town decided they no longer wished to serve smokers. They have a problem even if they all banned smoking at the same time because they would create a new opportunity for a new restaurant. So they call on their town officials to enact a town wide ban. No existing property owner is harmed.
They would be losing customers BY THEIR OWN CHOICE! Losing customers by your own choice and losing customers by government fiat are two completely different animals.
Yes, his rights were "tampled on" but they were trampled on using the political process
SOoooo, using your reasoning, if a town with a majority of midgets, using the political process, decided that restaurants could not allow people of over 5' to be served, there is no recourse. All the taller people would just be out of luck.
what if all the restuarant owners in SmokeFREE town decided they no longer wished to serve smokers.
By your own description the restaurant owners are ALREADY not servicing smokers.
They have a problem even if they all banned smoking at the same time because they would create a new opportunity for a new restaurant.
And creating a new opportunity for ANOTHER business is a PROBLEM? Where is the problem? ALL customers would have a choice, ALL business owners could allow, or not allow, smoking, BY THEIR CHOICE, the city fathers have another business to tax - WHERE'S THE PROBLEM?