So some groups are still getting away with blatant discrimination.
but that's the deal with freedom of speech and the concomitant right of assembly- you have tolerate unsavoury ideas and groups of people as long as they aren't committing crimes. if you want to start a poker club with your buddies in the privacy of your own home and you guys decide between yourselves that you hate people with red hair and that you don;t want to be around them, should you be forced to accept a member with red hair as silly and arbitrary as those prejudices may be? that would be an egregious intrusion by the state.
This is why I have a problem with some of these smoking bans......public spots, hell yes ban smoking.....but if I want to open a privately owned club that allows smoking I can't in many of the cities that have a smoking ban.
I'm not a smoker.
Rock: I could be absolutely mistaken but part of what has informed these smoking bans are concerns around labor and safety. Public health guidelines likely mandate that workers in "no smoking" cities have a right to a no-smoke work environment. If your private club employees people, then such an ordinance would also "protect" those workers (even if they consented to having smoke in their workplace).
Whereas, if you ran a private smoking club out of your house, with no employees - no one's going to stop you there.
Comments
And, pray tell, how do you know this?
We can't absolutely know if he meant race or not but I think it's at least open to interpretation.
Rock: I could be absolutely mistaken but part of what has informed these smoking bans are concerns around labor and safety. Public health guidelines likely mandate that workers in "no smoking" cities have a right to a no-smoke work environment. If your private club employees people, then such an ordinance would also "protect" those workers (even if they consented to having smoke in their workplace).
Whereas, if you ran a private smoking club out of your house, with no employees - no one's going to stop you there.