Why not allow the same businesses to lobby for a state wide ban ?
It is amazing that you continue to assert that it is proper to use government as a tool to be used by some people to deny the rights of others.
You cling to the notion that people's rights are subject to the whims of the majority. That we live at the pleasure of others, kings or groups of thugs.
Amazing that such a person would even pretend to represent conservatives.
That's answering a quetsion with another question, but I'll try to answer anyhow. They can lobby all they want, but whether such a ban should be enacted is a different matter entirely. Just because 50% + 1 of restaurant business owners want such a ban does not mean that such a law is allowed.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, we're a republic not a democracy. In order for such a ban to be enacted, it should have to pass muster based on the state constutition. If the state constitution gave the legislature such a power over restaurant business, then I would agree that a ban like that would be allowed. Not the right thing to do, mind you, but allowed.
Now that I've given a shot at answering your question, please take a stab at mine. What's wrong with letting the restaurtant owner decide if his establishment is to be non-smoking, have a non-smoking section, or allows smoking? Isn't this the free market in action?