I think this also opens the door to a major problem of private establishments not having freedom to run their business the way they want. If a "public place" is treated differently even though it's private property, then you get laws like bars not being allowed to let people smoke (major killer of business around here a couple years back) and arbitrary restrictions supposedly in the benefit of "the public". But the public is totally choosing to be there, so why should the owner not be able to run things the way he sees fit as long as he doesn't force anyone to be there or try to take their rights away somewhere else?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. T