Subject:
|
Re: Due Process
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:16:40 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lar@NOMORESPAMvoyager.net
|
Viewed:
|
1467 times
|
| |
|
|
Good example!
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > Yet if a private property owner wants to have only smokers in his
> > establishment, that should be up to him.
>
> Certainly, as a privately-owned entity it should be allowed to admit or
> refuse smokers as it sees fit, without being subject to federal heavy-
> handedness (any more than I as a private citizen should be legally required to
> lock my guns in my own home, just to re-connect with the larger debate!).
>
> This brings up another semi-related question for me, though. Recently I was
> passing through a food court at a local mall, wherein I saw a bright yellow
> "Eat-at-your-own-risk"-type sign plastered across the sneeze guard. I sort of
> know the manager of the place, so I asked him about the sign. He informed me
> that the local health department had surprised them with a spot inspection and
> found the place lacking in key areas of food temperatures, storage practices,
> and one or two other unsavory areas. As a result, the health department put
> up the sign, which resulted in an immediate loss of over 80% of their
> business. My question is this: doesn't this seem in some way to violate or at
> least circumvent due process? There was no appeals process, as far as I'm
> aware, just a summary decision and posting of the warning. Any appeal that
> might have been made would have come after the sign was posted and the damage
> done.
> This isn't very solidly connected with the debate at hand, but the
> discussion brought it to my mind.
This sounds like a massive usurpation.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Due Process
|
| (...) Certainly, as a privately-owned entity it should be allowed to admit or refuse smokers as it sees fit, without being subject to federal heavy- handedness (any more than I as a private citizen should be legally required to lock my guns in my (...) (27 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
