People could "with whom to associate". They could freely choose to go there, or to go to some other bar where they might feel more comfortable. Some bar owners would cater to a "white" clientele, and others would cater to a "mixed" clientele.
I know Dan would never agree to such a situation! But can't he see that this is where his libertarian argument is leading?
Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson
Public places are those such as government facilities, parks, public schools, etc. Private businesses are not public places. They are private property, wherein you are a guest. You do not have a right to be made comfortable in a private establishment simply because you choose to enter. Owners and their patrons should be able to freely associate, choose with whom to associate and transact business under circumstances which are mutually agreeable. Therefore, some owners would cater to a smoking clientelle and others would cater to a non-smoking clientelle. . . . Dan McGrath Longfellow
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
