What's causing the collapse of American civilization. Really.

Quote:

Originally posted by Swiss407

[reply=kennyMan2000]

I missed the part were it say that citizens have the right to smoke in the constitution. Maybe its in the bill of rights?

Bars are public areas. Second hand smoke has been proven to be harmful (not saying I agree). Small children, people with asthma, small children with asthma might be particularly vulnerable to second hand smoke. They have a right to be in public areas and the right to live. Those rights outweigh the bar owners rights. (I’m not saying I’m for/against smokers).

Nerboy is right

Absolutely wrong. The constitution just says that we're free to make our own choices, it doesn't need to specifically say smoking. Anyone can choose not to enter a bar if they disagree with the bar owners policy, so the the bar owner should be allowed to choose his policies, not forced to cater to people he doesn't want as customers. The bar owner has a right to run his business anyway he pleases as long as he's fair to his customers that CHOOSE to be his customers. If you don't like smoking, then don't come in, it's that simple. Why should he have to accomodate clientelle he doesn't want to accomodate? After all, he started the business, funded it himself and OWNS it. Your point about kids is just plain stupid, we're talking about a bar here not a Chuck E Cheese's, kids shouldn't be there anyway. You are the type of person that's making our country suck, because you want everything to be regulated. You want people not to have a right to CHOOSE what we do but rather be TOLD what to do just cause because the government deems it inappropriate. Don't be surprised when we can't log onto WBW anymore because of people just like you who feel we shouldn't be allowed to choose anything and want porn illegal because scientist have also proven that porn can trigger psychotic dillusions in people who are pre-disposed to violent crimes. Such as rapists and serial killers, almost every single one has listed porn as something they were almost obsessed with before they went out killing people. So I guess you would agree that because porn could negatively influence some people and make them want to rape and kill that none of us should be allowed to choose to view porn. Freedom is about making your own choices, the more we allow the government to control our choices the more we lose our freedom. If you give them an inch they will take a mile every single time, and though you seem to not care about smokers rights eventually they'll get on to something you do care about.
[/reply]




I was being sarcastic.
"I missed the part were it say that citizens have the right to smoke in the constitution. Maybe its in the bill of rights?" = sarcasm
(sarcasm gives an alternative meaning to a literal phrase)

What if the bar owner chooses not to serve minorities?
Children aren’t allowed in bars, true. But they are allowed in public areas which is what I said.
For the record I am not for or against the bans on smoking. However it seems to be a good ban if only for the reason it is widely followed in the areas it is adopted in. There are literally on a handful of citations given out in California to enforce the ban since its enactment.
I don’t know how you came up with those other assumptions about me. Earlier I was just stating why you can’t smoke in some bars. Not sharing an opinion but the reality. America is the freest nation in the world and I want to keep it that way.

Quote:

Originally posted by kennyMan2000

I think you mean that privatly owned bars aren't public property. It is however a public area. Any citizen can go into a bar becuase of the rights protected by the constitution. Your home however is not public property. You a free to restrict access to it. Got it? Understand? good

And Nerboy was mostly right about his second point.

A privately owned business is private property and a private area. The public is allowed access at the owners discretion. This has been upheld time and time again by the courts which allow owners to restrict access based on a myriad of reasons. There is no right to enter anothers private propery in the Constitution. Got it? Understand. I doubt it since you seem to think private property and public area are the same thing. Read the Constitution and you will realize that it does not bar a business owner from restricting people based on sex or race either. Although most states and the federal government have passed laws that ban such conduct. The Constitution is a set of rules for the Federal and State governments, not businesses or individuals.

Fuck this

That Boys a Chatty Cathy!!


not too righteous!

damn thats too much text to read, Iam sure its quite fascinating , but i gotta weigh whats more important to me, reading this post, or looking at boobs.....hmmm what to do?

Boobs win!

i was not saying one way or the other on the issue of whether the bar owner was right or not. for the record i think the bar owner was perfectly right in exercising his option of making jeff leave with his dog (most places it is a health code violation anyway). i just think that the reason that he said the dog had to leave was stupid.

when i said that your rights end where the other person's begin i mean that you don't have the right to choose to do something that is probably going to infringe on someone else's rights. it was just a general statement.

Laws pertaining to what you can and can't do affect businesses negative. In the past 2 years Florida, where I live, passed a law banning smoking in any businesses, the exception is that smoking is still legal in bars/clubs that make less then 10% of their revenue to food sales. The result was people just stopped going to them when they weren't allowed to smoke there anymore. A few went out of business and all were forced to change the way they did things. Either they had to cut the food off of their menus or they had to ban smoking and force out their long time customers. Most of them just got rid of the food and added large signs in the windows saying "WE WELCOME SMOKERS". Why should the government be allowed to force a business owner to ostracize the MAJORITY of their customers and cost them the business they worked hard to build? When people could just go somewhere else if they don't like the place for whatever reason. Same as I refuse to go to Wal-mart because I disagree with their policies. The farthest the law should be allowed to go with stuff like this is forcing the owner of the store to post notices about what their policies are, they should not be allowed to force the owner to change their policies against their will and at the expense of losing a great deal of business.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreewor

[reply=kennyMan2000]
I think you mean that privatly owned bars aren't public property. It is however a public area. Any citizen can go into a bar becuase of the rights protected by the constitution. Your home however is not public property. You a free to restrict access to it. Got it? Understand? good

And Nerboy was mostly right about his second point.

A privately owned business is private property and a private area. The public is allowed access at the owners discretion. This has been upheld time and time again by the courts which allow owners to restrict access based on a myriad of reasons. There is no right to enter anothers private propery in the Constitution. Got it? Understand. I doubt it since you seem to think private property and public area are the same thing. Read the Constitution and you will realize that it does not bar a business owner from restricting people based on sex or race either. Although most states and the federal government have passed laws that ban such conduct. The Constitution is a set of rules for the Federal and State governments, not businesses or individuals.
[/reply]



Are you really that dumb? A privately owned business is private property and a private area. TRUE however a privately owned business can be private porperty AND a public area such as BARS and resteraunts.

You are arguing that bars and restaurants ARE NOT public areas (though they may be privately owned)??!
Cite something to support that rediculous claim (goodluck).

Now if you all lived in canada, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Can't bring your dog in a place? no big deal, he can wait outside. It just seems to me that alot of people get worked up about nothing.

Everyone needs to just relax a bit, not people on this forum, EVERYONE in general.

too


much



reeeeading!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by kennyMan2000

Are you really that dumb? A privately owned business is private property and a private area. TRUE however a privately owned business can be private porperty AND a public area such as BARS and resteraunts.

You are arguing that bars and restaurants ARE NOT public areas (though they may be privately owned)??!
Cite something to support that rediculous claim (goodluck).

Find me the right to be in a private business in the Constitution first.

It has been held many times that laws that require public access to private property are considered a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court itself has held that "if the government effects a permanent physical invasion of the person's property, for example by requiring the owner to allow public access to the property, this constitutes a taking." Here is one such case http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Lloyd_Corp_v_Tanner

In this the SC held that the invitation to do commercial business on the premises is not tantamount to the business becoming public property and therefore any government regulation requiring access to the public at will would violate the fifth amendment rights of the business owner. I have found no cite that shows that bars or restaraunts are considered any diferently than any other business. Find me the cite to case law and I will conceed the point.

What's causing the collapse of American civilization. Really.

short answer - People have to much time on their hands and amuse themself by bitching about everylittle thing and usually they win -_-

shit i got tired after jeff's post.. i sure as hell aint going threw the rest..but latino made a good point.. as a few others did.. my solution.. is people need to get the fuck off a high horse.. stop bitching and cowboy up.. suck it up.. what ever you wanna say.. bottom line..shit happens FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.. you arn't gonna be happy all the time so your gonna sue b/c you cant get your way.. society sucks because of this.. some people need to be blegded over the head in the middle of the city for all others to see then they would shut the hell up... and damn if i didnt make a jeffish post ..fuck (sues self)

I made it as far as bringing your dog in a bar...

I didn't take all these posts in but most of them seem to be thought provoking and intelligent. I should note that the bar owner can indeed keep anyone he wants out of his bar so long as it's not for reasons of sex, nationality, religion, creed or sexual orientation. Other than that, you can be kicked out or kept from bringing your dog into a bar just because you're wearing a green shirt and the owner doesn't like green shirts. There is no law that says he has to allow me in with my dog. They could not write one and have it stand up.

Of course the main cause of al this is that we have too many damn lawyers with nothing to do and they need to make a living. We have more lawyers than any society, per capita, could ever possibly need, yet even the best law schools just keep churning them out like there's no tomorrow. Used to be the American courts were respected institutions where people sought justice. Now they're used (all too often) to generate money.

There is something called "lack of legal merit" that judges can use to throw ridiculous lawsuits out of court. They could also just stop awarding ridiculous sums of money. I love it when, once in a great while, someone sues somebody for not holding the door open for them, the trial takes days, then the judge awards the plaintiff something like $1. Shows those fuckers, but not often enough.

lets put it this way, if there was a war between police and lawyers, I would back the police...Lawyers are money grabbing thiefs

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff613

There is something called "lack of legal merit" that judges can use to throw ridiculous lawsuits out of court. They could also just stop awarding ridiculous sums of money. I love it when, once in a great while, someone sues somebody for not holding the door open for them, the trial takes days, then the judge awards the plaintiff something like $1. Shows those fuckers, but not often enough.

I partially agree. The real problem is juries. Lack of merit is a hard standard to meet as most cases have at least enough merit to warrant the case going to trial. Doesn't mean the case has a leg to stand on, just that the legal argument as within the bounds of law. Juries get involved and that is when the real shit hits the fan because they are a jury of your peers. When the person filing the lawsuit is a money hungry ass, the jury may well be also.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreewor

I partially agree. The real problem is juries. Lack of merit is a hard standard to meet as most cases have at least enough merit to warrant the case going to trial. Doesn't mean the case has a leg to stand on, just that the legal argument as within the bounds of law. Juries get involved and that is when the real shit hits the fan because they are a jury of your peers. When the person filing the lawsuit is a money hungry ass, the jury may well be also.

please excuse my ignorance, but as far as i know.....we dont have a jury system here in Australia that is involved in shit like this, i really dont see why their time would be wasted. Ive only known jurys to be involved in large cases here.

Is this a common thing in the US were jurys are used in cases where youre being sued or suing someone??? that just seems to be totally ridiculous and a waste of peoples time.

Sorry. Since we were speaking of the US I went with our system. The Constitution gives us teh right to trial by a jury of our peers. That has been extended to civil cases also. I disagree with the notion in most cases because civil cases normally hinge on obscure legal arguments and normally people who actually would understand those arguments are dropped from the jury at selection by the plaintiff so they can have jury of half-wits. I would prefer medical cases be heard by a jury of experts in the field, digital rights cases by experts in that field, etc. One benefit to juries is that they help keep one rogue judge from bending the law to his or her will. But they also allow idiotic things like millions of dollars for a coffee burn that was self inflicted.

Humans suck. I wish I was a stick or a blade of grass. I'd rather take the chances of being eaten by a cow. Besides, think about all the hot plant pussy...er...pistils.