"Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights"

[ManagingPrime 0]

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm just saying he's a dick and imho dicks like him tend to take the law right to the edge.

Still, in my mind restaurant sanitation and soda size are apples and oranges.

[kallend 2,219]

Quote

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm just saying he's a dick and imho dicks like him tend to take the law right to the edge.

Still, in my mind restaurant sanitation and soda size are apples and oranges.

But you can still die on account of either of them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm just saying he's a dick and imho dicks like him tend to take the law right to the edge.

Still, in my mind restaurant sanitation and soda size are apples and oranges.

But you can still die on account of either of them.

Sure can.

The issue is choice. If I choose to eat unsanitary food or drink unhealthy beverages that is my right. Someone else does not have the right to serve me unsanitary food or unhealthy beverages without my knowledge or consent. See the difference?

[kallend 2,219]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm just saying he's a dick and imho dicks like him tend to take the law right to the edge.

Still, in my mind restaurant sanitation and soda size are apples and oranges.

But you can still die on account of either of them.

Sure can.

The issue is choice. If I choose to eat unsanitary food or drink unhealthy beverages that is my right. Someone else does not have the right to serve me unsanitary food or unhealthy beverages without my knowledge or consent. See the difference?

But you don't have the choice to eat in a vermin infested restaurant - that choice has been taken from you already. Nor do you have the choice to eat in a restaurant that has inadequate fire exits - that choice has also been taken from you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm just saying he's a dick and imho dicks like him tend to take the law right to the edge.

Still, in my mind restaurant sanitation and soda size are apples and oranges.

But you can still die on account of either of them.

Sure can.

The issue is choice. If I choose to eat unsanitary food or drink unhealthy beverages that is my right. Someone else does not have the right to serve me unsanitary food or unhealthy beverages without my knowledge or consent. See the difference?

But you don't have the choice to eat in a vermin infested restaurant - that choice has been taken from you already. Nor do you have the choice to eat in a restaurant that has inadequate fire exits - that choice has also been taken from you.

Yeah. That's been the case for a while. But vermin infested restaurants really have nothing to do with 6oz or 60oz carbonated sodas...unless the bottling plants are vermin infested.

It's a fine line, so I don't expect everyone to be able to see it...especially the older crowd.

[billvon 3,173]

>If I choose to eat unsanitary food or drink unhealthy beverages that is my right.

In general I agree. However, a restaurant/food store does not, IMO, have the right to sell you that food without telling you that it is unhealthy/unsanitary. You can not make such a choice without that information,

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>If I choose to eat unsanitary food or drink unhealthy beverages that is my right.

In general I agree. However, a restaurant/food store does not, IMO, have the right to sell you that food without telling you that it is unhealthy/unsanitary. You can not make such a choice without that information,

I think a better example is smoking

A bar owner should be able to make the choice in his place whether smoking is allowed or not


Those that work there can make the same choice as the patrons. You know smoking is allowed. You can work there or not. Your choice. The gov has no business telling that business owner anything like that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,173]

>A bar owner should be able to make the choice in his place whether
>smoking is allowed or not

A bar owner who runs his own bar - agreed.

A bar owner who employs other people - he can not make breathing smoke a condition of their employment.

>Those that work there can make the same choice as the patrons.

IF they have the option of working in an area where there is no smoking - agreed. If they must work there as a condition of their employment - disagree. Patrons can leave with little penalty; employees cannot.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>A bar owner should be able to make the choice in his place whether
>smoking is allowed or not

A bar owner who runs his own bar - agreed.

A bar owner who employs other people - he can not make breathing smoke a condition of their employment.
No condition. They can chose to work there or not
>Those that work there can make the same choice as the patrons.

IF they have the option of working in an area where there is no smoking - agreed. If they must work there as a condition of their employment - disagree. Patrons can leave with little penalty; employees cannot.

Employess can work elswhere
No employee has a right to work there

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

>A bar owner should be able to make the choice in his place whether
>smoking is allowed or not

A bar owner who runs his own bar - agreed.

A bar owner who employs other people - he can not make breathing smoke a condition of their employment.
No condition. They can chose to work there or not
>Those that work there can make the same choice as the patrons.

IF they have the option of working in an area where there is no smoking - agreed. If they must work there as a condition of their employment - disagree. Patrons can leave with little penalty; employees cannot.

Employess can work elswhere
No employee has a right to work there

Like it or not, government in the US has been setting employee safety standards for workplaces since at least the early 20th Century. That's the legacy of the Trianlge Shirtwaist Company fire case, where many employees died in a fire because exits were blocked, exit doors were locked, no fire escapes, etc. So the govt stepped in and mandated fire doors, fire escapes, etc. Nowadays, of course, all public buildings must have those.

By your standard, one could simply say that if people don't like working in a factory that doesn't have fire doors and fire escapes, well dammit, they don't have to work there. But of course that's not the standard we use; we have evolved the standard, and we enforce it via force of law.

[kallend 2,219]

Quote

Quote

>A bar owner should be able to make the choice in his place whether
>smoking is allowed or not

A bar owner who runs his own bar - agreed.

A bar owner who employs other people - he can not make breathing smoke a condition of their employment.
No condition. They can chose to work there or not
>Those that work there can make the same choice as the patrons.

IF they have the option of working in an area where there is no smoking - agreed. If they must work there as a condition of their employment - disagree. Patrons can leave with little penalty; employees cannot.

Employess can work elswhere
No employee has a right to work there

No employer has the right to maintain an unsafe or unhealthy workplace.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

No employer has the right to maintain an unsafe or unhealthy workplace.

I just said that; but of course, I charge by the word.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>A bar owner should be able to make the choice in his place whether
>smoking is allowed or not

A bar owner who runs his own bar - agreed.

A bar owner who employs other people - he can not make breathing smoke a condition of their employment.
No condition. They can chose to work there or not
>Those that work there can make the same choice as the patrons.

IF they have the option of working in an area where there is no smoking - agreed. If they must work there as a condition of their employment - disagree. Patrons can leave with little penalty; employees cannot.

Employess can work elswhere
No employee has a right to work there

Like it or not, government in the US has been setting employee safety standards for workplaces since at least the early 20th Century. That's the legacy of the Trianlge Shirtwaist Company fire case, where many employees died in a fire because exits were blocked, exit doors were locked, no fire escapes, etc. So the govt stepped in and mandated fire doors, fire escapes, etc. Nowadays, of course, all public buildings must have those.

By your standard, one could simply say that if people don't like working in a factory that doesn't have fire doors and fire escapes, well dammit, they don't have to work there. But of course that's not the standard we use; we have evolved the standard, and we enforce it via force of law.

No that is not my standard

There are basic safety standards but, an owner has a right to run his business as he sees fit

I dont agree that saying, this building is safe but it is your choice if you want to work here or not

Smoking is legal
People smoke
If you smoke and you want to work here fine
If you dont smoke and you want to work here fine

But there is smoke from smokers make your choice

BTW I hate being around smokers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln