Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge extends smoking ban in VFWs
The Columbus Dispatch ^ | 05-15-07 | James Nash

Posted on 05/15/2007 5:35:05 PM PDT by GOP_Lady

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: GOP_Lady

        Judge David E. Cain

21 posted on 05/15/2007 8:18:21 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear; Doc-Joe
I’ve donated more to the ACS than to any other organization... They’ll never see another dime from me.

They all can kiss my patoot!



22 posted on 05/15/2007 8:20:29 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl; GOP_Lady
I don’t know if it was used in this case, but in other ones, the legal angle was that private clubs still cannot expose their employees to secondhand smoke.

NO one is forcing a non smoker to work in a Vet Club that allows smoking!

The way around that is for clubs to not have “employees”, but instead to have “shareholders”, rewarded for work in shares redeemable for money. The club owner retains 51% of shares.

I believe that this is already covered.  Vets pay DUES!  Therefore, this should make them a "shareholder."

23 posted on 05/15/2007 8:24:02 PM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

As I said, it was the legal issue. I agree with you that there should be no limitations of this kind places on private clubs; however, those individuals who want to force private clubs to conform are determined by any means to get what they want, and so are always looking for an angle—which right now is by attacking club employees.

To do this, they would try and find an ex-employee who was fired and disgruntled to sue his ex-employer for “exposing him to secondhand smoke”, demanding huge damages. It is a purely harassment lawsuit.

Also, there is a distinction between club membership and shareholding. The former pay non-refundable dues and receive club services in exchange; shareholders do not have to be veterans, do not pay dues. This is all very important for tax purposes, and has strict rules.


24 posted on 05/16/2007 7:36:37 AM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SheLion; Grizzled Bear; Doc-Joe

Don’t forget their partners in crime-the ALA and the AHA. I haven’t contributed to any of those three orgs. for over 12 years. Tired of them using billions for smoker bans rather than to treat or find cures.


25 posted on 05/16/2007 3:36:09 PM PDT by The Ghost of Rudy McRomney (It's always open season on RHINOs(yes, I use an "H" in it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Risky-Riskerdo

You said: VFWs are private. That judge has no Constitutional standing, but then, this country ditched the Constitution a long time ago.
***

This isn’t a constitutional issue. I would not support a smoking ban on private property of any kind, including public restaurants and bars, but it isn’t a constitutional issue. Prostitution and drug dealing shouldn’t be legal in VFW’s either. (Note: I am NOT equating smoking with prostitution and drug dealing.)


26 posted on 05/16/2007 3:51:59 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson