|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by CigarBoy
on Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:43 am |
|
No, the person (OH person) could not sue because he does not belong to a protected class. Being from OH is not a protected class. If you are denied because you are a minority, female, based upon religon, national origin and in some cases a homosexual then you are golden. I think AIDS is protected too.
So there is no difference between a person from Ohio and a smoker, both are not protected. |
|
|
CigarBoy
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Posts: 236
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by infinitethoughts
on Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:20 pm |
|
CigarBoy wrote: No, the person (OH person) could not sue because he does not belong to a protected class. Being from OH is not a protected class. If you are denied because you are a minority, female, based upon religon, national origin and in some cases a homosexual then you are golden. I think AIDS is protected too.
So there is no difference between a person from Ohio and a smoker, both are not protected.
Due to the actions of Anti-groups and their use of fake studies, a smoker has just joined the ranks of being classified as a minority. So I'd say the deal definitely still stands for a nice fat Multi-Million Dollar Class Action Discrimination Suit.
 |
|
|
infinitethoughts
Smoker
Joined: Mar 14, 2007
Posts: 155
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by infinitethoughts
on Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:39 pm |
|
Here's a list of the Organizations that get to be on the list for the Lawsuit. Drag them into court and they won't be able to show one single scientific based study to back their harassment of smokers. And the best part about it ? Is they know this.
ASH - ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH -
KICKBUTT.ORG -
PHYSICIANS FOR A SMOKE-FREE CANADA -
TOBACCO-FREE KIDS - Most recent grant received: $19,510,110, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. grant # 29600.
HEALTH CANADA -
CDC - CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL - Don't miss this one, for it is the largest exporter of dramatically false information on tobacco in the entire world!
DISINFORMATION -
THE BC MINISTRY OF HEALTH PAGE -
AIRSPACE -
DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - "HEALTHY PEOPLE 2000" -
TOBACCO-FREE WASHINGTON SPOKANE COALITION
TOB
TOBACCO FACTS
CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SMOKING AND HEALTH (Conseil Canadien sur la tabagisme et la sante`)
NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE ON TOBACCO AND HEALTH (Centre national de documentation sur le tabac et la sante`)
NICNET: THE NICOTINE AND TOBACCO NETWORK
Information from Forces.org. |
|
|
infinitethoughts
Smoker
Joined: Mar 14, 2007
Posts: 155
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by gero
on Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:08 pm |
|
Just happened to us last week, a $200.00 surcharge on the credit card...
What I wonder is who's expertise they use to come-up to these conclusions. The maid, the manager, a f***ing nicotine sniffing dog???
I'm looking for others who had this happen to them and if they did anything about getting their money back (other than hiring a $500.00/hr. lawyer to get $200.00 back). There's so many arguments that can be used to discredite their accusations. |
|
|
gero
Newbie
Joined: Jan 10, 2009
Posts: 1
Location: Quebec, canada
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by infinitethoughts
on Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:05 pm |
|
Dispute it. Just say you smelled smoke in the room before you got in.
If they doubt you, threaten em with Small Claims court. 15 times their amount should do it. Burden of proof is on them. It'll be impossible for them to prove it.
Why am I saying to lie ? Anti's have been doin it for the past 10 years. |
|
|
infinitethoughts
Smoker
Joined: Mar 14, 2007
Posts: 155
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:44 pm |
|
Here's what I have done twice in situations where I got stuck in a non-smoking hotel room:
Within a couple minutes after arriving in your non-smoking room, call the front desk and ask them if it just recently became a non-smoking room. The most likely answer you will get is "no...we've been non-smoking here for some time". You say "well, the last occupant must have been smoking because I notice that distinct odor". They will then apologize and offer to move you to a new room which you will politely decline as long as they note your "complaint".
Game over. Smoke to your hearts content.
P.S. With any luck, the previous occupant was a fanatic anti that they will now try to stick with a surcharge for smoking in the room...just a fantasy of mine. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1295
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by CigarBoy
on Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:31 am |
|
| You give them a credit card to run when you check in and the next day when you leave, pay cash. They will then get rid of your CC info and not be able to charge extra charges later on. |
|
|
CigarBoy
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Posts: 236
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by JoshNJ
on Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:17 am |
|
infinitethoughts wrote: I looked at the thread you referred to, the theory presented represents discrimination from the viewpoint of Insurance.
No, the theory is not limited to the viewpoint of insurance, it is a general explanation of discrimination and may apply to any situation, even this hotel one.
Quote: Of course a smoker can sue. It's simply a matter of stripping away of civil liberties of a citizen that smokes tobacco. Now. IF smoking were illegal then you would be correct. But we are talking about a legal product.
The subject title of this forum sums it up perfectly --SMOKERS RIGHTS. These rights are being trampled on and as we've seen in the past anytime a person's rights are trampled upon, legal action is the solution.
The fact that smoking is a legal activity is irrelevant. You may be sued for conducting a legal activity in a prohibited location. You need to identify what you are suing for and what right or civil liberty is being "stripped away." None have been recognized in this example, so therefore it would be difficult to establish a case. |
|
|
JoshNJ
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 312
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by JoshNJ
on Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:40 am |
|
Jay wrote: Unfortunately, it's legal in the USA to discriminate against smokers and now the obese. There's no US law that makes discrimination based on lifestyle choices illegal.
Technically speaking, sexual orientation could be classified as a lifestyle choice. It is not a federally protected class, but in some states it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you want to be blunt about it, then yes it is legal to discriminate against smokers and many many other categories and types. Weight discrimination, height discrimination, diet (vegetarians vs. meat eaters) discrimination, education discrimination, appearance (ugly vs. pretty) discrimination, occupation (blue collar vs. white collar) discrimination, economic discrimination... I think you get the point.
Quote: But it should be illegal for a hotel to discriminate against someone for choosing to smoke.
Charging a cleaning fee is a long stretch from discriminating against a smoker. The fact that a person smokes has nothing to do with the fee; it is the smoking in the private room and leaving them with the extra work and expense to prepare the room for the next guest. Being a smoker has nothing to do with the hotel's fee. |
|
|
JoshNJ
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 312
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by JoshNJ
on Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:59 am |
|
CigarBoy wrote: For instance, a hotel in Nashville may refuse to serve people from OH and that is legal, It is bad business practice, but legal. Now do that to a protected class and all legal hell will break lose.
Our only legal argument is based upon private property rights and that is a fundamental right.
It would depend on what the state or local statutes say in regards to the innkeeper or hotel owner's right to refuse admission or service to a person. Most laws state that if you are going to refuse service or eject someone from your place of business, it must be for a reasonable cause or related to some form of risk management or protection against their property or the the public.
I guess an extreme example off the top of my head would be if a hotel was hosting a convention of guests it knew were part of a hate group and you wanted to stay there. Then the hotel could say, look, for the duration of their stay we won't admit certain guests to protect against violence or potential harm to our property. I would say under the circumstances, discrimination is necessary and reasonable. A person could still sue if denied a room based on their race or nationality, but the laws would find an exception for discrimination in my opinion. |
|
|
JoshNJ
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 312
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
