Gain for anti-smoking movement: No puffs allowed in private vehicles

[KHartman]

Torque wrote:

<quoted text>

You're claiming any reason, they sure can't if it's racially based can they? I suppose they could. Then they'll be open for a whole bunch of lawsuits too.

The owner can legally discriminate on ANY basis EXCEPT against members of a protected class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

"Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes groups of people who are protected from discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:

* Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Ethnicity
* Religion or sect - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
* National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Age (40 and over)- Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
* Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
* Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
* Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
* Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
* Political affiliation"

You'll notice that "smokers" are not included on the list.

[KHartman]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Back to sex-in-vehicles... suppose your teenage daughter (if you have one) and her boyfriend are in his car parked in your driveway, and they're going beyond "heavy petting"... Do you order an immediate Cease and Desist?(With or without the firearm.) Or, because they are "inside" the boy's property, do you no longer have a say in what happens there?

I wish I would have come up with that great example!

I know that you have a stronger view of owner's rights than I do, but on this particular legal issue we are in complete agreement. I'm surprised that anyone could believe in the argument that an owner's rules are negated as long you are in a vehicle.

It would be fun to see someone offer that defense on Judge Judy...

[PicassoIII]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Also with KHartman, may the GOP have mercy on my soul! ;-)

Hey, it's called being principled. It's private property, they make the rules. As assinine as it is when you have diesel ambulances idling round everywhere, there it is. Granted that applies to private not 'county general'.
They will have 'fun' enforcing it and maybe lose some valuable staff. Abbott did that at their compound here in IL,(as if i didn't have enough reason not to want to work for them, have found the pharma industry slimy way before anyway).
Question is are they serious or are they simply putting up a front.

Us Paulistas were sandwiched between some commies and la razas at the 5th anni war protest. Politics can make strange bedfellows sometimes.

[Free America]

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
I wish I would have come up with that great example!
I know that you have a stronger view of owner's rights than I do, but on this particular legal issue we are in complete agreement. I'm surprised that anyone could believe in the argument that an owner's rules are negated as long you are in a vehicle.
It would be fun to see someone offer that defense on Judge Judy...

http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TC1...

[Free America]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Wow.
I have a feeling that, after reading through the many posts on this that have already been made, I am at great risk in stating that I agree with "roffle" here, in this thread.
Also with KHartman, may the GOP have mercy on my soul! ;-)
But this seems very clear to me.
This is not a new law; the government is not dictating that you cannot smoke in your car in the hospital parking lot.
This is the HOSPITAL making this a rule of conduct on their private property.
And since this is the rule of a private entity, it does not need to be "Constitutional"; so any of those type of arguments are moot. The Constitution only applies to restrict the government when it tries to curtail the rights of the citizens.
Look at it this way:
Suppose the hospital made a rule that prohibits sex in vehicles on their property. Would any of you find *that* policy unreasonable, or proclaim that open defiance is in order?
As KHartman was attempting to show, and as "roffle" stated, just because you are *inside* your property on someone else's property, that does not somehow trump the fact that *your* property is on someone else's property.
Back to sex-in-vehicles... suppose your teenage daughter (if you have one) and her boyfriend are in his car parked in your driveway, and they're going beyond "heavy petting"... Do you order an immediate Cease and Desist?(With or without the firearm.) Or, because they are "inside" the boy's property, do you no longer have a say in what happens there?
As ludicrous as it may be to prohibit smoking inside vehicles while on hospital property, it remains the hospital's property to make and (somehow) enforce all such rules.

Why do you think I have stayed out of this one even though KHartman tried to drag me in.

[fun lovin life]

roffle wrote:

<quoted text>
what was the point of all that? maybe i missed something somewhere.

You said, "yet the term anti didn't make it's debut until smoking restrictions started popping up"... I was just showing that it has been aroung for a long time..

=)

[fun lovin life]

roffle wrote:

<quoted text>
so you feel that the chassis and body of your vehicle grants you an exemption from the rules set by the owner of the property upon which your vehicle is parked?

Yep.......anyway - how would they enforce it ? Seeing as how I don't litter them when I'm done.

[fun lovin life]

I look at it this way roffle, if anti's can ignore the constitution and create illegal bans that promote discrimination and bigotry and then not protect "everyones" personal rights and freedoms, then I will smoke in my vehicle anywhere at anytime I want, I am outside after all. There is no one that can or will stop me... They don't care that much about it.

[Free America]

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
Glad to hear that you support Mizell Memorial Hospital, and the other property owners that have decided to ban smoking on their property.
http://www.topix.net/health/smoking/2008/05/g...

That comes up as a dead link, but if its the one about not being able to smoke in your car on their property, then yes, if you noticed I stayed out of that one. I also stay away from businesses that don't allow smoking. Now if you anti's would show the same self control we wouldn't have a problem would we?????

If you notice I answered the question even though it doesn't obtain the results I want unlike you with your hit and run tactics.
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TEO...

[roffle]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

I am at great risk in stating that I agree with "roffle" here, in this thread.
Also with KHartman, may the GOP have mercy on my soul! ;-)

they are having a great deal of trouble trying not to show their double standards here.

they think the chassis and body of their vehicle creates a shield of exemption between them and the rule and regulations of the property upon which their vehicle is parked.

such double standards they have. they cry out that the owners of businesses should be able to decide what activities take place on their property, yet they don't feel that hospitals should have the same rights. this is borderline hypocritical. what would they do? move to enact legislation that the owner of their own property not be allowed to eject an individual from their own property? i think that's what's on their mind.

double speak and hypocrisy on the fundie front for sure. if only they could hear themselves talk.

[Free America]

roffle wrote:

<quoted text>

double speak and hypocrisy on the fundie front for sure. if only they could hear themselves talk.

I think that the fact that you are using these words makes you the hypocrite based on the fact that you chastise others when used against your kind. Maybe you should go back and edit your page on what is allowed.

[PicassoIII]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Also with KHartman, may the GOP have mercy on my soul! ;-)

Goldwater and Paul would agree, dunno bout Reagan tho....

[Free America]

PicassoIII wrote:

<quoted text>
Goldwater and Paul would agree, dunno bout Reagan tho....

Oh come on he was the one that said "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." I think he would be the first in line...LOL

[LARISSA]

you shouldnt be able to smoke in your car!!its not good at all. they dont want more sick people dieing from lung cancer anyways! its unhealthy and i say no smoking in or out of cars at hospitals.

[KHartman]

Free America wrote:

<quoted text>

...makes you the hypocrite based on the fact that you chastise others when used against your kind.

Huh?

[Torque]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Look at it this way:
Suppose the hospital made a rule that prohibits sex in vehicles on their property. Would any of you find *that* policy unreasonable, or proclaim that open defiance is in order?

Unless it's out of sight, sex in your vehicle within public view is illegal.

[roffle]

Free America wrote:

I think that the fact that you are using these words makes you the hypocrite based on the fact that you chastise others when used against your kind.

i am with khartman on this... huh?

[PicassoIII]

Torque wrote:

Unless it's out of sight, sex in your vehicle within public view is illegal.

Hmm, time to get the windows on the station wagon tinted...

[Free America]

roffle wrote:

<quoted text>
i am with khartman on this... huh?

Based on comments in other forums, you are a hypocrite. And add to the fact that you were warning other people that anti's might be called hipocrite I am wondering is that a term that you reserver for yourself or like pot you want the government to ban it but you will do it anyway???

[Non-Cas Fan]

Torque wrote:

<quoted text>
Unless it's out of sight, sex in your vehicle within public view is illegal.

Actually, it doesn't matter how good it is, whether it's "out of sight", or just mediocre.

;-)

The technicality is not the issue there, it is the demonstrated principle.

But, just to change it for you, the kid pulled his car into my garage. Now, proceed with the rest.