Smoke Free restraunts and the Pope
Michael D Carey
I find it interesting that some one would complain about the
catholic church attempting to limit free expression and praising smoke
free restraunts. Though both are legitimate actions, petions are
perfectly legal ways to prevent things from happening, they both stiffle a
personal opinion. In the case of the church, if one wanted to go see a
naughty concert, now they couldn't see it. In the case of smoking,
someone wanted to smoke at a restraunt now they can't do it. So let's say
the church's attempt to get people to sign a petition is inexcusible ; but
its fine for a restraunt to limit smoking (which is fine with me) where
does that lead. Now body pierced people can't come into the same
restraunt because they're unappealling to the eye of those at the
restraunt. That should be fine (dress codes already accomplish this).
Now that we did that, jeans are in poor taste at a fine establishment so
we should ban them (plus they incite lustful feelings). Now people can
only wear dockers and no nose rings. Black looks bad in this restraunt
due to the white wallpaper so now we won't let blacks in... It's a
slippery slope that we walk down.. Both the church petition and the
business limiting the physical habits of the customer are reasonable forms
of free expression. The Journal-Sentinel could easily have ran the story.
The concert could have easily went on (and did), suggesting censorship is
no the same as practicing censorship. The catholic church was not
practicing censorship merely suggesting it, a form of free expression with
which there is nothing wrong. In fact whenever parents complain that
there is too much pornography on the web or too many subversive actives,
these merely suggest censorship rather then censor. Now censoring is
another matter entirely; but the easiest way to deal with censorship is to
not let it happen. Form your own newspaper if the Journa-Sentinel isn't
covering you point of view. They are a business and only have to print
what they feel like printing much like a smoke free restraunt only allows
in patrons who agree not to smoke. Newspaper does not equal free from
censorship.
Mike C.
Apuleius
Where do Smoke Free restaurants roast their coffee beans?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Apuleius
== In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.971023...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>,
== Michael D Carey <dre...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
==
== > I find it interesting that some one would complain about the
== > catholic church attempting to limit free expression and praising smoke
== > free restraunts. Though both are legitimate actions, petions are
== > no the same as practicing censorship. The catholic church was not
== > practicing censorship merely suggesting it, a form of free expression with
How about the Catholic Church's censership with the incense?
Are people going to sue them claiming they got second hand smoke lung
cancer from attending church?
DJK
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:59:55 GMT, alg...@Somnifest.uwm.edu (Apuleius)
wrote:
Well, there are those who still don't know that coffee is hot!!