[Mark]

Ok Right now the nonsmoking clerk we will call Martha works for Sears has a right to work in a nonsmoking environment. Her sister Mary on the other hand is a trained waitress who works for Smokey Bar and Grill, one of two restaurants in town who both allow smoking. Why does Martha have a government protected right to work in a nonsmoking environment while poor Mary isn't allowed the same priviledge ?

You really don't see the evil you support do you? WHY does Martha have a government protected right? Sears has every right to prohibit smoking, but you don't see the government imposition if they tell Sears they have to prohibit smoking. Then you seem to be upset because the restaurant is not forced by government to prohibit smoking. AGAIN, the owner of a business should not be forced to prohibit smoking in their own establishment.

Let's get it simple. One bar allows smoking. Across the street is another bar that prohibits smoking. Customers actually have the freedom(hope that word doesn't scare you) to go to either bar. No Rob Reiner, Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy, or any other of your friends telling the owners how to run their business. No government controls. That's almost like the America I grew up in.

[VRWC_minion]

Given that the workplace smoke bans are now universal you still have given no reason for the application to be different for Mary than it is for Martha.

I'm still undecided about this aspect of it and am really looking for a rational explanation. So far, you have failed to stay on the subject and your responses are variations of shanging the subject to one you feel you can "win". Sorry, I'm not intersted in playing that game. I just want a rational explanatio for why the laws should be administered differently so that one person has to endure smoke while the other doesn't.