Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal

ROFLMAO!!!!

If they know, it is intentional.

Originally Posted by Flint

Someone who would keel over and die in the prescence of tobacco smoke is excluded from entering those businesses. They are excluded by their health condition. Same as you. Are you a selfish prick who only cares about yourself? Sounds like it.

It's a good thing there has never been an example of someone who is allergic to tobacco smoke.
If someone asks me not to smoke in their presence I do not.
Fuck off you shit-head. If you want to just sling names you little dickhead, fine, since you cannot string together a coherent argument clearly that is what you need to do to continue this you fucking unfinished lump of wasted chromosomes.

[9th Engineer]

No, the difference is whether they went out of their way to make sure you are accommodated or whether they went out of their way to make sure you cannot gain entry. They did neither. Therefore they didn't "intentionally" do anything.

[Flint]

I'm sorry that this is the level you choose to communicate on, rkz.

I don't think you're a bad person, but your behavior is really poor at the moment.

Oh, and I'm sorry that you didn't catch my edit:

Originally Posted by Flint

You don't want to be a selfish prick who only cares about yourself, do you?

I found that wording to be more appropriate, as it gives you the option of admitting your error.

[Happy Monkey]

Are you being intentionally excluded from the hot dog shop? It sounds to me like they'd be happy to serve you if you came in in an IBOT, or had someone lift your chair up the stairs.

Of course, I think they should follow the Disabilities Act, and become wheelchair accessible but then I also think they should follow zoning restrictions and smoking laws.

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm sorry that this is the level you choose to communicate on, rkz. I don't think you're a bad person, but your behavior is really poor at the moment.

You chose to drag the argument down to that level. I figured it was what you wanted, so I gave it to you.
We communicate how we wish to be communicated with. We treat others how we wish others to treat us.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Are you being intentionally excluded from the hot dog shop? It sounds to me like they'd be happy to serve you if you came in in an IBOT, or had someone lift your chair up the stairs.

Of course, I think they should follow the Disabilities Act, and become wheelchair accessible but then I also think they should follow zoning restrictions and smoking laws.

Yes, I, and everyone in a wheelchair, is intentionally being excluded. They KNOW they are excluding disabled patrons. Every day they are doing so it is intentional, premeditated and wanted.
Edit:
Remember, they remodeled in violation of the ADA. It was intentional.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You chose to drag the argument down to that level. I figured it was what you wanted, so I gave it to you.

[cough]bullshit[/cough]

[9th Engineer]

Am I correct, rk, in reading your posts to say that if a businesses is open to the public, then they must make sure to do everything they possibly can to ensure that all members of the public can enjoy their services equally?

[9th Engineer]

You're jumping my point.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

You're jumping my point.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I deleted it.

[DanaC]

Yes, I, and everyone in a wheelchair, is intentionally being excluded. They KNOW they are excluding disabled patrons. Every day they are doing so it is intentional, premeditated and wanted.

As opposed to those people who own establishments where smoking is allowed who of course don't know that someone with chronic asthma or emphysema would be excluded from their premises?

It's a good thing there has never been an example of someone who is allergic to tobacco smoke.

Unfortunately, though, there are all too many examples of people for whom tobacco smoke is a guaranteed asthma trigger. What's your point? You are not allergic to the steps in a shop, you do however have difficulty in walking up them.

True story: a friend of mine who died earlier this year, suffered for his last few years with a dreadful lung disease. I used to go for a drink with him from time to time. Unfortunately at the time pubs were generally smoky places. There was a section that was 'non smoking' in the pub we drank at, but when the place was full, the smoke from the main area drifted across.

One Friday we went for a drink, me Al, J and Linda. We spent less than an hour in the pub. It was near empty when we entered, but over that hour it began to fill up and the pub began to get smoky. Eventually Al said he had to go. He'd had to use his inhaler and was starting to get very short of breath. He and Linda left and went home. I could tell Al was gutted, not just because he felt rough, but because he was disappointed. It was the first time he'd ventured out to a pub in weeks, having recently had a spell in intensive care, followed by a slow recovery. It was a foolish thing to do, going in the pub, but we'd gone early like we usually did, to avoid the crowd and then got caught up in a heated political conversation and hadn't noticed the place filling up around us.

He ended up back in hospital that night. Another 4am ambulance ride, revived en route. It's possible that the smoke had no bearing on the situation...possible but unlikely. All he wanted, was to go for a drink with his friends, like everybody else does. It was a foolish thing to do...but an understandable one for a man whose social circle was to be found mainly at the local pub. .

So now, you tell me, should a man have to choose between entering a building and risking potentially life threatening symptoms, and excluding himself from places healthy people access with ease?

Perhaps the fact that you have a penchant for interesting tobaccoes is steering your opinion in this instance.

[Undertoad]

Five Guys Burgers serves peanuts in the shell, free, at every table. They have a sign on the door warning people that peanuts are in use.

1% of children are allergic to peanuts. Some people are so incredibly allergic that merely being in the presence of a peanut will trigger it. Being in the presence of so many peanuts would be fatal for someone who was peanut-allergic. 125 people die each year due to peanut allergy.

Five Guys Burgers knows this, but their answer is not to stop serving peanuts. Their answer is to put a warning sign on the door. This is notice that peanut-allergic people are not welcome. They know they are excluding the peanut-allergic. They could serve a different snack, even a cheaper snack. Every day they are serving peanuts it is intentional, premeditated and wanted.

The difference is only one of numbers. Peanut-allergic people are a minority. But they're too small of a minority to have their civil rights violated. I'm not sure I understand it but I'm guessing there is some sort of notion in the law that works out the difference.

Well frankly fuck those peanut-allergic people. What kind of crap is that, that these people would have us not eat peanuts at Five Guys? Fuck them, man, if I saw a peanut-allergic person right now, I would wave my peanut right at 'em. I would not hire a peanut-allergic person -- because what else are they gonna be allergic to? I wouldn't want my sister to marry one -- because what, are you not going to have celery with peanut butter at Thanksgiving? Just because old nut-rasher, Mister PB&Sneeze has an issue with it?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Am I correct, rk, in reading your posts to say that if a businesses is open to the public, then they must make sure to do everything they possibly can to ensure that all members of the public can enjoy their services equally?

I'm curious as well, rkz. Is that what you're saying? If not, what are you saying?

Yup, but you are reading things into it, I am not.
Again, for those who say that smoking in shops should be illegal for those with lung issues there are dozens of businesses that are just as bad and/or are worse that you are going to have to make illegal. I listed them earlier... you just chose not to read that.

can enjoy their services equally?

Can if they choose to.
What I am against is removing that choice.