There is more to the defenition:

 2 a: worthy of religious veneration b: entitled to reverence and respect

The value I have for my family is equal to if not greater than any religion.

Off topic:

Hey, I tried this new recipe the other night called ropa vieja, it is Cuban, and really good. It is done in a slow cooker so it is very easy and you just serve it over rice.

crazycajun:

 a bar is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE. it is a PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT that allows PAYING CUSTOMERS IN. the PUBLIC is NOT INVITED.

Then why is "public house" a synonym for "bar" or "tavern"?

my bar is a PLACE OF LIMITED ACCOMODATION. i have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, or no reason at all. i have the right to close my doors when i choose, or to open them to allow customers in. and all i have to do to take away YOUR right to be in my bar is throw you out. any time, for any reason.

So, now you own a bar, too?  How quaint.

We also enjoy how it is that only you have rights, and everybody else must jump to your tune

If your looking to Glen Beck for moral guidance inform4, then you are absolutely right, we are not tin the same ideological league. Although he quotes many upstanding moral attributes, I watched his show once before he got booted from CNN, and he is the typical hypocritical right wingnut.

Maybe he would be better at country singing than moralizing. He could audition for a job in crazy's bar, or maybe fill in for Ted Haggart while he's in rehab.

Second you Robo on the god thing.

 i told you i owned several companies. ask nice if you want to, but i'm still not letting you in.

public house comes from the days of merrye olde england, where houses were warranted by the king to 'accomodate the public' travelling along a kings road. the same cannot be said for today in america.

in case you are wondering, i also own a couple of fine eating establishments.

security solutions is not my only gig.

oh yeah. i'm also in negotiations for the internet cafe.

 living proof. the farther left, the farther away from God.

 my bar... my rules...

don't like it... leave.

I lost track of all the things you told us you do and have crazy. I'm sure they're all very real to you.

You were asked, if a bar is not a place of public accommodation, then why is "public house" a synonym for "bar" or "tavern"?

Now, answer the question.

Here is another question for you.  If a bar or tavern that invites the public in to drink is not a place of public accommodation, then what is it?

Do not regale us with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense about your fantasy business ventures.  

If you own a restaurant crazy, or if your dream comes true one day to own one, you may want to revise your thinking on who you can throw out, and why.

Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service Lawyers

Legal Topics > Business > Bars and Restaurants

Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?

No.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin.  In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.  For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation.  In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws.  Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service.  

So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin.  These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory.  Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

 believe me. my reasons for throwing YOU out will not be based on your race, color, religion, or national origin. it will also not be based on arbitrary refusal. you will be a trespasser, pure and simple.

that one works every time.

while i cannot refuse service to EVERYONE i dislike, i can pick and choose, and i choose to refuse service to you.

and trust me, you will be the cause of a very large disturbance that will allow me to keep you out forever.

by the way, i don't usually refuse service on the grounds of a persons race, color, religion or national origin. but i HAVE AND WILL put them out for pestering my customers. or for spitting on my floor. or for walking into my office uninvited.

by the way, i have places to eat and drink in five states. how many do you have?

i didn't think so.

Hot air.

BTW, I have places to eat and drink in 50 states plus DC.  You are a piker.

 and by the way... bars are places of LIMITED ACCOMODATION. the public under legal drinking age is not invited. nor are any who cause disturbances in my place. or start fights in my place. or have sex in my place.

in other words, those that don't peacably assemble are not invited, and may be ejected, forcibly if necessary.

all of my eateries have bars, so the same rules apply there.

now... you were saying????

Your just angry again, that's all.

Getting angry every time your proven wrong is not good for your health. I'm concerned for you.

 bull squeeze, as usual.

piker... good word from somebody who needs to have the word PRO defined for him.

 you wouldn't know angry if it but you on the butt.

i'll bet you LOVE it when i get angry... it makes you all quivery inside.

BTW, no charge for the education.

 you shouldn't charge. as you have given or recieved none.

crazycajun:

 you wouldn't know angry if it but you on the butt.

You must have meant bit. The i is right there next to the u, easy mistake when your mind is clouded in rage.

 For business people this is all getting pretty juvenile, isn't it?  I went to check my e-mail and found all of these childish missives.  Must be a slow day at the business.

But the thing is, crazycajun, after all your huffing and puffing and angry threatening and miscellaneous BS, you still haven’t answered the questions.

You were asked, if a bar is not a place of public accommodation, then why is "public house" a synonym for "bar" or "tavern"?

Now, answer the question.

Here is another question for you.  If a bar or tavern that invites the public in to drink is not a place of public accommodation, then what is it?

Do not regale us with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense about your fantasy business ventures. 

I happen to believe the time has come for Michigan to prohibit tobacco smoking in enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants.  I urge the legislature to pass this bill into law.

 too late, oh witless wonder.

the question has been answered.

but once again... you missed it.

not going to repeat it... you just have to go find it.

now, let's see if i can get up enough capital to open a cigar bar here... hmmm...

Do you know what the word "choice" means? You can choose to work or dine at any establishment you wish to. That means that you can work or dine at any establishment that does not allow smoking or allows it.

I do know what “choice” means, and it does not mean I am entitled to work or even dine at any and every establishment I wish to.  Can’t do any of it without the cooperation of others, who actually control my access to the job and even the premises. 

Among other restrictions, my dining at a commercial establishment is contingent upon my ability and willingness to pay.  I am not entitled to a free lunch merely because I chose to walk in the door, eat and leave without paying.

An establishment/ business should have the RIGHT to decide their rules without government intervention, dictates or mandates.

That is a nice thought, and even a nice ideal.  But in practice it hasn’t proven itself to be a good ideal for our society.  And so, the state exercises its police authority to regulate how a business and its owners, employees, agents and even customers conduct themselves. 

Once you invite the public in, or bring employees to work in you establishment, you have an obligation to make the place safe for them.  That is, whether you want to understand it or not, an established American principle.

Remember, always, the exercise of your rights is limited to the extent at which it does not harm my rights.  Even the staunchest libertarians recognize this principle.

I did not bring a child into this freedom loving country so that I can experience having an ignoramus destroy her liberties and freedoms.

You are responsible for your child’s upbringing.  One important aspect of that is helping a child understand, correctly, the extent and limitations of his or her rights and responsibilities as an individual in our society.

I guess you think that our Founders were a bunch of ol' jerks that could not respect the dictates of old King George and should have been hung by their bootstraps for writing the Declaration of Independence.

You guess wrong about how I view the Founders.  But you are entitled to such foolish speculation (even though it drastically weakens your arguments and position).

Your rights end where mine begins and vice-versa.

See, we do agree on something.  You got this pretty much right.  It needs one little tweak, though.

The line of demarcation between my rights and yours is not always a bright and clear one.  There is this gray overlap area, where the exercise of your right doesn’t necessarily cancel out mine, but does hamper it, and vice versa.  And so, we turn to the community to settle the contested matter.  That’s what it means to live in a civil society, as established by our US Constitution.

If you don't want to dine at a smoking establishment - go somewhere else.

Turnabout is fair play.  If you want to smoke, go somewhere it is legally permitted.  If the scope of places in which smoking is legally permitted should become narrowed, as this bill proposes, be a good citizen and accept the restrictions on your free-wheeling ways, and abide by the rules.

But, I don't want jack-booted government dictating what a business can allow and not allow. Next we will be having government come in and tell a blind person that they cannot enter an establishment with a seeing-eye dog because someone might, by chance -- be allergic to the animal.

I don’t want a jack booted government protecting the thuggery of nicotine addicts who deliver poisons into the air I breathe when I am in public places where I am entitled to be.  I do have a right to self defense, remember. 

You do have a vivid imagination, about the seeing-eye dog business.  That issue has long been settled by both statute and court decision.

Our representatives have passed many laws, dictates, acts etc. that run counter to our constitutional protections. That does not make them right in their unlawful superseding and ignoring our constitutional protections.

If that really is so, how have those laws, etc., managed to be upheld in the courts, which are constituted to make such determinations?  Please do not bore us with hysterical rants about corruption and judicial activism and stupidity and not understanding the constitution that have been aired endlessly.  Come up with something true, if you can.

Everyone on earth is born FREE. It is only due to dictators, monarchs and despots that individuals have their freedoms torn asunder. I do not want a Swastika or Hammer and Sickle becoming the symbol for this country or any other country.

This seems to be a general complaint against government in any form.  Is that the way you feel about the United States of America? Do you advocate overthrowing our duly constituted government? 

You are a brick wall -- aren't you?  You do not seem to have the ability to define or interpret Amendment XIV, nor Amendment IX.

I'm not a pushover, if that's what you mean by "brick wall."  Now, what is it you think I do not correctly understand about Amendments XIV and IX to the United States Constitution?  Please be specific.

If believing in wanting my constitutional protections upheld makes me a "radical" I'll gladly wear that title with pride.  If believing in upholding, restoring and abiding by our constitutional protections defines me as "warped" in your eyes then I will proudly stand with other "warped" individuals.

It is not your demand to be protected by provisions of the Constitution that make your postures questionable, radical or “warped.”  It is your interpretation or characterization of what those provisions mean or embrace that does it.  For example, what makes you think that your rights always override others’ rights?

SaneMichigander:

what makes you think that your rights always override others’ rights?

i've been trying to get you to answer that question for weeks now. 

but you won't. because you think YOUR rights always overrule other's rights.

SaneMichigander:

I don’t want a jack booted government protecting the thuggery of nicotine addicts who deliver poisons into the air I breathe when I am in public places where I am entitled to be.  I do have a right to self defense, remember. 

<oh really... you don't mind jack-booted government thugs protecting YOUR rights, but have a problem with the same thugs protecting mine? how uncivil of you. now let's just talk about that self defense thing for a minute. there is a difference between being where you have a right to be, and being where you have no business being. you are entitled to nothing. you are responsible for your own safety, including the safety of your lungs. what are you doing in a smoky bar if your lungs are that important to you?>

SaneMichigander:

Do you advocate overthrowing our duly constituted government? 

<no, i advocate the duly constituted government abide by the constitution.>

SaneMichigander:

we turn to the community to settle the contested matter.  That’s what it means to live in a civil society, as established by our US Constitution.

 <i dont know which community you live in, but contested matters of law are settled by the courts, not the mob. we are a nation of laws, not of men.>

crazycajun:

 <i dont know which community you live in, but contested matters of law are settled by the courts, not the mob. we are a nation of laws, not of men.>

The community makes its laws, often to settle contested matters within the community, such as if and where to locate no smoking zones.  The courts interpret if and how the laws, once enacted, are applied, but only if petitioned to do so.

I know that doesn't exactly correspond to what you think you may have possibly perhaps learned in your much touted LaLa Land schooling, crazy.  But it is the way things really are in the good old USA.  

 communities have COURTS to settle disputes. laws govern, courts interpret the law and settle disputes at law.

if your laws are written to settle disputes, your politicians REALLY ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

"The community makes its laws, often to settle contested matters within the community,"   

 is that what they teach in the indoctrination stations here? no wonder.

crazycajun:

 laws govern, courts interpret the law and settle disputes at law.

I believe that is what I said.  Are you now turning into my parrot?

The community makes its laws to govern the way it lives.  The courts interpret those laws, and if and how they will be applied, but only if petitioned to do so.

if your laws are written to settle disputes, your politicians REALLY ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

Absolutely not.  We see people dispute over whether a particular law should be passed, all the time.  In fact, crazycajun itself is the greatest opponent on this site to laws being passed.  Still, every year and every session, the legislature, acting in behalf of our community enacts controversial laws and thereby settles the dispute over whether or not they will be passed and what the law will say. 

The courts legitimately get involved in interpreting legislation only if petitioned to do so after a law has been passed.

Crazycajun wants the courts to run the whole show.  It doesn't work that way, unless you want courts to become super activist and supplant the legislature in its role.  (We have to suppose crazycajun's wish reflects the version of "civics" crazy learned in its much crowed about LaLa Land school.) 

Yes, indeed, the community enacts laws to settle contested matters within itself.  There can be no question about that.

For example, not everybody agreed that Michigan's "shall issue" CCW law was a good idea -- it was hotly contested and disputed; but it was passed into law.  That may not have ended the controversy or ended the dabate over the issue of CCW permits in Michigan, but it did establish legal standards under which the permitting process takes place and CCW is permitted in the state.

And, of course, HB 4196 well might pass and become law in this legislative session.  Both houses of the legislature did pass versions of the bill last year.  Nobody but a bald faced liar would try to assert that this bill is not "contested" or "disputed" by members of the community.    

 yo... insane...

the SHALL ISSUE law simply brought michigan THAT MUCH CLOSER in line with the second amendment. it had DRIFTED away, thanks to liberal gun control measures, and the shall issue permits were an attempt to stave off a supreme court fight, which they got anyway.

our michigan supreme courts should have invalidated those laws based on our own 'keep and bear arms' provision of our own constitution. but they didn't. talk about BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

i see you advocating writing laws to solve problems, but see the results as disasterous.

no, i don't advocate activist judges, neither do i advocate activist legislators.

writing laws to settle disputes is called SOCIAL ENGINEERING.

i'm sure you, as a 'closet socialist' are in love with that kind of thing, but the rest of us aren't.

No one is refusing anyone it's their choice. 

SaneMichigander:

The community makes its laws, often to settle contested matters within the community, such as if and where to locate no smoking zones.

this is exactly what you wrote.

what, don't you trust your courts not to be activists?

of course you don't.

crazycajun:

SaneMichigander:

The community makes its laws, often to settle contested matters within the community, such as if and where to locate no smoking zones.

 

this is exactly what you wrote.

Yep.  That is exatly what I wrote.

Not only that, it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the matter.

You seem offended by it.  Why does the truth always offend you?

Does it threaten the twisted up LaLa Land you live in, crazy?  

Must be.

 what offends me is how easily you believe your own lies.

that must be because there is no truth in you.

"truth is treason in the kingdom of lies".

and you are the court jester.

that's okay, as your nanny, i ban you from lying. you may screw things up and end up hurting yourself.

 your right of self defense, for decades, in fact over a century, entailed you vacating the premises in the event of an attack. commonly referred to as 'the duty to retreat'.

that duty was only recently repealed, and is the basis for many other laws in this state. why don't YOU exercise your duty to retreat if you feel threatened by cigarette smoke? while it may offend the dignity, it does extend the life. 'he who sniffs and runs away, lives to breathe another day.'

the repeal was based on the 'castle doctrine'. but remember, you cannot claim the doctrine if you are not standing in your castle.