Do you realize Guv is a rebublican and HE SIGNED THE BILL into law and other republicans supported it. To blame a pollitical party for this is only casting blame. Where were you when they voted on it. Did you just sit back and take so you can blame everything on libs and feel superior for your failings to be involved with democratic process.
I,m a lib and I hate the law. Dont lump everyone into a category because you think everyone is the same because we have simular beliefs. And yes I did call my rep and tell her I disagrreed with the bill, now law.

Bigbartguy, I think you're wrong about bars having the right to refuse service to anyone. This was decided back in the 60s when blacks were refused service in many establishments.If you're going to refuse service to anyone you better have a good reason or you may face a lawsuit. It's against the law to refuse service because of race, religon, not liking your looks, your political beliefs etc. If you were belligerent or didn't pay your bill then that's reason to refuse service.

While Pawlenty is indeed a Republican, I would say he is far from conservative, except when it comes to money. There are conservative democrats out there as well. And I DO get involved in the process!

It's not hard to find a reason to refuse service to a bar patron. Just claim they exhibited indications of intoxication. In fact, it is against the law to serve anyone believed intoxicated. There are serious fines and risks for serving intoxicated persons. Liability insurance for an on-sale business is quite high because of this.

I don't believe a business is required to do business. What a business is forbidden to do is discriminate. Once a person files charges of discrimination, they now have the burden of proof.

If someone refuses to do business with a potential customer who are they to require otherwise? What if they can't agree on the price or terms of sale or the follow-up service or the warranty? There are many reasons for not engaging in a business transaction. Just refusing to do business does not constitute discrimination.

Bob

I don't know what kind of bars or restaurants you go to but I've never had to agree on a price, the price is usually set and that's what you pay. Obviously you don't serve someone that's intoxicated, that would be similar to some of the reasons I mentioned in my post. Sure you would have to prove discrimination but that's not the point. The point is if you meet the legal and other requirements to enter a bar then they can't legally keep you out.

Oh yes they can. Granted, it would be silly for a bar or restaruant to not serve people. From a legal standpoint, however, they can serve whomever, and not serve whomever they wish. It's a private business.

The solution is simple. Bars already need a liquor license. Allow those who want to allow smoking to purchase a "tobacco license", This allows "Smoking" and they would be required to provide signage to allow possible patrons to ID them as a "Smoking or "NON Smoking" establishment before entering.

Common sense is the answer people, problem is, its not so common.

I agree. Common sense is the least used sense of them all. That is a good idea, Wade, but it shouldn't have to be that way.

I'm not sure where you go, but many of the bars I've visited throughout the years have a sign hanging in plain view; "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE."

I don't think they'd post that if by law they could not do it.

And that would be more Rev for the state. Not a bad idea, but they should be able to choose just like we can choose to smoke in our homes or not. Same thing.

Da Beak, Since you asked I decided to look it up. Putting up the sign doesn't give them anymore right to refuse service than those not putting up a sign. The law considers bars and restaurants as public places or places of public accomodation and they are subject to the provisions of the civil rights act of 1964 which guarantees you the right to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, advantages and accomodations of any place of public accomodation without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religon or national origin. There are also laws and court decisions preventing other types of discrimination such as for disabilities or sexual orientation. Service can be refused under some circumstances such as bad behavior or extremely bad hygiene or if allowing you in would exceed the capacity of the facility.

God forbid bars be under the jurisdiction of other laws too. How dare those Pinko legislatures declare they bars can only sell booze to those over 21! Why can't the bar owners choose who to sell their goods to? Lord Almighty, what is the world coming to?!

Your sarcasm could be a little less forthright. I DO believe they should sell to eighteen year olds. They can pay taxes, vote, buy guns and fight wars but can't enjoy a cold beer.....in other words, grow up fast, grow up fast, grow up fast, but not to fast. That IS pinko legislation as well.

Nah, 21 is good enough. Some of us grew up early, but I know enough that weren't even responsible at 21 or even 25. 18 is too young to let loose.
18 is the perfect age for military though. Get them before they think they have a life. I have to say, the military would help alot of kids grow up, even though I am not a military person myself.
I plan on raising my kids to a similar standard. These kids nowadays are just lazy bums, and we have the parents to blame.

Referring back to my earlier post, that this issue is more about money than about rights......It has been stated several times in earlier posts that Minnesota bars are hurting because of the anti smoking legislation. I'd like to add that the loss of revenue in Minnesota bars is not simply the result of new non-smoking laws. It looks like its happening where smoking laws are unchanged too.
Tom Long of Miller Brewing in a recent news release has stated, "Americans also are spending less in bars and restaurants, and Long said Miller is seeing declines in sales to those businesses throughout the country. "We think it's primarily driven by decline of disposable income and pocket money that American consumers are feeling right now."