Businesses & Personal Rights

[bollerman]

This morning's news here in Indy is talking about banning smoking in bars and other privately owned businesses. I thought that private businesses had the right to allow or prohibit what it saw fit.

So, my thought is, that if the Govt can order a privately owned facility to disallow something for the public good, one would think that same govt can order that same business to allow our constitutionally guaranteed rights to be armed.

Does anyone know where the actual separation lies as far as the rights of the individual vs. the privately owned business?

If I have the right to breathe smoke-free air in a restaurant and that right is protected, should my right to arm myself also not be infringed?

 

[abnk]

Your question is subjective and there is no clear demarkation of lines. If you're asking if the state can prohibit firearms in a business, the answer is yes, they already have.

 

[Expat]

I think the smoking bans are a clear infringement on property rights. The rule should be, my property, my rules. You have no right to come on my property and conduct activities that I forbid. There are way too many people here and in society, who are willing to allow government to trample on property rights for their own selfish reasons.

 

[ATOMonkey]

We have allowed ourselves to make commercial property quasi public property, through various laws regarding working conditions, how many minorities should be hired, health care, etc.

This is just another step on a road long traveled.

 

[netsecurity]

The government knows what's best for us.

 

[MagicKev]

Just for arguments sake...

Let's say second hand smoke is proven to be bad for you. What about the employees that are exposed to second hand smoke? What about their rights?

Let's say I'm a property owner and run a bar or store. Let's say my bar has asbestos in it and I don't want to clean it up. Should I be forced to clean it up? What if I put a sign in the window that says 'asbestos in this building, enter & drink at your own risk'. Why would that be frowned upon?

Bottom line...there are ALWAYS exceptions, there are ALWAYS unintended consequences, there are ALWAYS lines you draw in the sand, yet cross daily.

Your thoughts

 

[hornadylnl]

Business owners can't use their property as a weapon against its customers and employees.

 

[Expat]

Just for arguments sake...

Let's say second hand smoke is proven to be bad for you. What about the employees that are exposed to second hand smoke? What about their rights?

Let's say I'm a property owner and run a bar or store. Let's say my bar has asbestos in it and I don't want to clean it up. Should I be forced to clean it up? What if I put a sign in the window that says 'asbestos in this building, enter & drink at your own risk'. Why would that be frowned upon?

Bottom line...there are ALWAYS exceptions, there are ALWAYS unintended consequences, there are ALWAYS lines you draw in the sand, yet cross daily.

Your thoughts

The employees do NOT have a right to work on my property. If they don't like the conditions, leave.

The asbestos situation, same thing. If he is giving a warning then it is enter at your own risk. If you don't want some asbestos in your beer, don't go in there.

 

[MagicKev]

The employees do NOT have a right to work on my property. If they don't like the conditions, leave.

The asbestos situation, same thing. If he is giving a warning then it is enter at your own risk. If you don't want some asbestos in your beer, don't go in there.

Good luck staying in business while the local government shuts you down and fines you daily.

 

[Expat]

Good luck staying in business while the local government shuts you down and fines you daily.

Because local government can do that, does not make it right. Government at all levels are constantly infringing on our property rights.

 

[MagicKev]

Expat...so I assume you feel that your stair wells wouldn't need hand rails, that you wouldn't need to sanitize dishes. You obviously wouldn't own a slippery when wet sign. How many more ridiculous examples should I give before you realize your argument is full of holes?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Asbestos in your beer isn't that bad. It's inhaling fine particles that gets you.

And even then it only shows up much later in life when your lung function begins to diminish.

Asbestos is an extrodinary material. Too bad it has respritory problems.

 

[Expat]

Expat...so I assume you feel that your stair wells wouldn't need hand rails, that you wouldn't need to sanitize dishes. You obviously wouldn't own a slippery when wet sign. How many more ridiculous examples should I give before you realize your argument is full of holes?

If people fell due to no hand rail, the place would be sued and eventually go out of business. It also doesn't help a restaurant business if their customers are constantly getting sick. How long will they stay in business doing that? Not long. There are remedies in life besides getting the little dictators involved.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Expat...so I assume you feel that your stair wells wouldn't need hand rails, that you wouldn't need to sanitize dishes. You obviously wouldn't own a slippery when wet sign. How many more ridiculous examples should I give before you realize your argument is full of holes?

Your argument assumes that people are so stupid that they'll eat in a filthy dangerous restaurant, and not only that, but continue to do so in perpetuity.

 

[Loganwildman]

Re

This line of thinking crosses all lines of thinking. If it truely is the business owners right to allow or disallow at his discretion, then said business owner has the the right to not allow females to work in his estabolishmnet or not allow jews or whites or hispanics or ......

If a business owner did ban any of the above, the media would be all over it and there would probably be law suits for discrimination etc. That would be discrimination right? Well what is the difference between the examples above and allowing smoking or knowingly going into a building with asbestos etc.

People today think they can go where ever and do what ever they want with no consequences and they will sue or prosecute anyone that prevents that. The coffee suit from McDonalds some years ago is case and point. Coffee is a beverage that is almost always served hot so why would a person blame McDonalds for their own clumsiness in spilling a hot beverage on themselves. If a business doesn't allow guns, that is their right as a business owner. Do I sue them, no, I just don't give them my business. Am I missing out on something by going elsewhere? Probably not as I lived without what they offered all my life.

Maybe it goes back simply to the people not wanting to hear the word NO... and no one wanting to accept the consequences of their own actions.

Ok, Rant off.

 

[MagicKev]

Your argument assumes that people are so stupid that they'll eat in a filthy dangerous restaurant, and not only that, but continue to do so in perpetuity.

Or work in said place? So the people that worked in ship yards full of asbestos were stupid? They needed the government to come in and clean it up instead of quitting and finding work elsewhere and letting simple economics put the company out of business?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Regarding McDs coffee lawsuit. The point of contention was that the coffee was hot beyond reason, in that it caused very serious injury. This was a well documented problem for that restaurant.

I agree with the rest.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Or work in said place? So the people that worked in ship yards full of asbestos were stupid? They needed the government to come in and clean it up instead of quitting and finding work elsewhere and letting simple economics put the company out of business?

We did not know asbestos was bad until "recently." People who worked there before it was public knowledge deserve some sort of compensation, especially if the employer is found to have known that asbestos had health risks associated with it.

If you continue to work in an unsafe environoment when you KNOW it's unsafe, then yes, you are stupid, or desperate, or a combination of both.

 

[Loganwildman]

Regarding McDs coffee lawsuit. The point of contention was that the coffee was hot beyond reason, in that it caused very serious injury. This was a well documented problem for that restaurant.

I agree with the rest.

Agreed that their coffee was hotter than most, but we knew it. When I know that something is extremely hot, am I dumb enough to put it between my legs....no I personally enjoy MickeyD's coffee, but because it is very hot, I would let it cool before attempting to drink.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Agreed that their coffee was hotter than most, but we knew it. When I know that something is extremely hot, am I dumb enough to put it between my legs....no I personally enjoy MickeyD's coffee, but because it is very hot, I would let it cool before attempting to drink.

She had 3rd degree burns and needed skin grafts. That's more than just your normal "hot" restaurant coffee.

I will admit that I don't place hot beverages in my fun region, to avoid just those kinds of injuries.

I have spilled hot coffee on myself before and it did not cause 3rd degree burns.