The private vs public debate is worthwhile.

[frustrated_lefty]

Set Rand Paul aside for a while. We're all pretty much agreed he's a racist piece of shit who turned to the "guns" part of "guns, god and gays" which provides the meat of republican politics.

Let's set aside country clubs, where the well to do manage to achieve segregation through financial means. Ya know, those places where you're not welcome if you don't have the cash?

For the sake of debate, I'm going to raise two issues where the private and the personal collide. One, should a private business specifically allow smokers? Two, should a private business specifically allow breast-feeders? Or, is there really no such thing as a private business?

[safeinOhio]

1. private business, open to the public. n/t

[sandnsea]

2. should a restaurant allow mice and roaches

Yes all business is subject to regulation and yes that regulation prohibits discrimination and I am just fine with that.

[Dr Morbius]

3. A private business has employees, and those employees have rights.

Their rights include the ability to avoid known carcinogens like second-hand smoke. However, breast-feeding does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Now, if you are your own private business, smoke up. The minute you take on an employee, you have to respect his or her rights.

[frustrated_lefty]

6. It could be argued that public breast-feeding is a moral infringement

on others. Hell, I'll guess it has been argued that way.

This is an ethical question for me. For example, a doctor or pharmacist swears to do their best for the health of their patient. That includes abortion or plan B. Any doctor or pharmacist refusing to honor that oath simply sucks and should be put in jail. It's a known part of the job.

Throw out the smoking argument, because that raises separate issues.

Are there not some venues through which to share thoughts with like-minded individuals to....

ok. I get it. Any group can form, just not to the exclusion of others?

[FarCenter]

4. I would think that a libertarian should argue that:

1. if a premises allows entry by the public, the grounds for removing someone for trespass should be as narrow as possible, (i.e. race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, cannot be grounds for trespass. Only things that significantly damage the business or accommodations, such as commission of a crime or misdemeanor, would be grounds for the legal use of force to remove a trespasser), and

2. any person who cannot be removed for trespassing is entitled to the same accommodation and service as any other member of the public.

Therefore, a smoker can be removed from a restaurant or a breast-feeding mother can be removed from a restaurant only if they are committing a legal offense. Note that the restaurant manager doesn't have any duty to remove them -- this can only be done by law enforcement. In fact, if the restaurant manager attempts to remove them, the manager would likely be guilty of assault.

[Warpy]

5. I love false equivalencies that are this stupid

Smoking is forced on all unwilling people in a smoker's vicinity, even those who are made physically ill by that smoke.

Breast feeding is forced on no one. Even the kid does it voluntarily. It is also a fundamentally necessary human activity, unlike smoking.

The only business that should allow smoking, IMO, is a tobacconist shop.

Hey, if you're addicted to tobacco, have fun. Just set fire to those things outside and downwind and we'll get along just fine.

[frustrated_lefty]

8. Get over yourself

As I said above, forget the cigarette analogy because it clouds the issue.

[izquierdista]

13. Shouldn't you forget breast feeding?

Or are you just milking it for the sake of argument?

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. People who conflate race, gender, sexual orientation and disabilities with behavior...

... should be publicly flogged.

[dkf]

9. The military has the largest no gays sign out of anyone private or public.

The hypocrisy of the outrage is sad.

[frustrated_lefty]

10. and people who are incapable of carrying on a polite debate

belong at the bottom of the food chain?

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Civil rights don't pertain to behavior.

There is no civil right to smoking anywhere you damn well please.

[miscsoc]

11. the answer is pretty obvious:

they should allow breastfeeding because it is a public health issue and doesn't actually harm anyone at all, although it helps people (i.e. the infant) a lot. They shouldn't be obliged to permit smoking (although I think they should be allowed to) because it's reasonable to not want to be exposed to the health risks involved with passive smoking, or to dislike the smell, and so on.

Common sense, man. The difference is that if you don't want to share a room with a woman feeding her infant in a natural and healthy way or with a bunch of black people, you are an idiot and a child. Whereas there are legitimate reasons for not wanting to share a room with a smoker, and you should be able to go to a non smoking bar or whatever if you want to.