yes. as long as you have even 1 employee. You can not have a work environment that is detrimental to the health of your employees.
Segregation was perpetuated in large part through the systematic decision of private businesses to exclude black people. The government stepping in and infringing on their property rights in order to stop this was a good thing for America.
yes. as long as you have even 1 employee. You can not have a work environment that is detrimental to the health of your employees.
Actually, no. Segregation was LAW (see Jim Crow). It was enforced by the very thing you advocate: Government regulation of private choices by private businesses.
Without Jim Crow laws, Segregation would have died for the most part just as it would today... This is why the laws were passed, to FORCE segregation.
There are known carcinogens in my drinking water.
You can go through all the textbook answers on what chemicals are where and what causes what.
In the real world, second-hand smoke is *not* detrimental to the vast overwhelming majority of people. It's uncomfortable, but not detrimental.
The real statistics, and I'd have to search around, there was a discussion on the radio I was listening to, is that average exposure to roommate who smokes, it will take you on average over 2,000 years to develop cancer from the second-hand smoke.
You are more likely to develop cancer from using a cellphone than you are from breathing second-hand smoke. Therefore, according to activist nuts like Ironwing, cellphones must be banned from the workplace under OSHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, segregation came in both legal and private business form. Restaurants in many states were not required to be whites only or blacks only, but business owners did it anyway. So, what you wrote is false.
What I wrote is largely true. Only a minority of businesses in non-Jim Crow states excluded blacks. And with passing time, those number dwindled and would have continued to do so. Very few businesses would be able to stay afloat today were the civil rights act repealed and they tried barring people based on race.
Jim Crow was law. Without Jim Crow, the majority of businesses would have allowed blacks. This is why the great migration north occured during Jim Crow laws in the South. The North had far more opportunities because there was no Jim Crow laws, thus most businesses allowed blacks.
Thus your point is moot.
Jim Crow was not a specific law, and it varied by states. There were plenty of businesses that segregated all on their own.
Again, the difference between Jom Crow states and non-Jim Crow states was so dramtic, that it caused a great migration.
Segregation (exclusion of races by businesses) is largely untenable without forcing your competition to do it too. Period. Not only is your point moot, it blew up in your face.
Uhmm, no it didn't. It existed in plenty of states alongside statutory segregation in others until they were all outlawed together by the civil rights act. It's not moot by any definition of that word in English, and as long as we stay in reality as opposed to the made up world you're trying to live in, my point is standing just fine.
So go search around then.
Instead of referencing vague and likely made up things you heard on the radio, go find some scientific studies on second hand smoke that says it doesn't pose a realistic threat to workers or restaurant patrons over the normal course of a lifetime. Then go find a study that shows the cancer rates from cell phone use are equal to or higher than second hand smoking.
Right. For your point to stand, the great migration north would have to have never happened and Jim Crow could not have been the cause because non-Jim Crow states were just as (or almost as) bad.
Pure and utter bullshit. Your example blew up in your face.
No, for my point to stand segregation would have had to exist in places for an extended period of time without compulsion through statute, and it did. The validity of my points are not at all subject to made up conditions stemming from your inability to read for comprehension. It has nothing to do with what place was worse. Absolutely nothing.
It has absolutely everything to do with it. The north desegregated volutarially due to market forces and popular demand. In fact, by the end of the first half of the 20th century, but before the civil rights amendment, the north was desegregated for the most part, while the South was still bound by Jim Crow.
I'm not sure how to say this other than... it really doesn't. The story of segregation in the north is a way longer discussion than I'm willing to have with someone like you, but it doesn't even really matter because the north and the south never even remotely approached each other's viewpoints on race anyway. We fought a war about that, btw.
You're attempting to attack my point by making up bizarre and unrelated requirements for it and then declaring victory. It's silliness.
Segregation was perpetuated in large part through the systematic decision of private businesses to exclude black people. The government stepping in and infringing on their property rights in order to stop this was a good thing for America.
Um, no. You claimed:
I showed that to be false, and the the majority of segregation was enforced by law in the south, and the voluntary/locally institutionalized segregation of the north had largely disappeared before the government stepped in.
So your point was moot. You claimed segregation would not have ended without government force. I showed that it was being perpetuated by government force, and that the private sector, left to it's own devices, was moving away from segregation.
So by describing (inaccurately) the situation in an entirely separate place with views on race so different that they fought a war about it that cost over half a million lives, you falsified my position? Your method of argument is bewildering... and exhausting.
Your position was that segregation was largely a private decision. It was not, and were government to have stepped out and stopped perpetuating it, would have ended on it's own.
I think the history of these bans shows pretty easily that they are quite popular with people in the states where it is implemented, and yet that hadn't led to large majorities of establishments banning smoking in the past. So clearly, the bars aren't that sensitive to that desire.
No, they are regulating workplace exposure to a known carcinogen.
Obviously folks in these states/localities determined it was in their best interests to ban workplace smoking. The free market did not work relative to smoking. It has taken decades of litigation and government intervention to get to the point where we are now, which is modest restriction on workplace smoking in a still limited number of states/locales... which, even if I believed it justified, is entirely unnecessary. People who work in bars know they are going to be exposed to tobacco smoke, and quite a few of them are smokers too. These are hardly the only places they can work, yet they choose to work there.
Restaurants, for the most part, already banned smoking on their own. I haven't been in a restaurant that allowed smoking since... well, probably since I was a little kid. That's 20+ years ago. The free market worked.
Some bars/taverns went smoke-free on their own too, and thrived. Why, exactly, are these smoking bans from local/state governments required, then?