First and foremost let me echo whats already been said..
Contrary to modern definition thieves reinterpretation of the word 'Public', Starbucks is a private company. You are a guest on their propertys, they have every right to dictate what you can and can not do as a guest on their property. The libertarian in me will go so far as to say what you do on Starbucks property is soley between you and Starbucks but I digress (but only because I will rant for hours...lol )
Secondly, a question. Why do a portion of vapers have the idea that they can
vape where ever they like when ever they like? I'm not meaning that with a chip on my shoulder or anything. I genuinely curious.
That's a strange question coming from a libertarian. Starbucks has set themselves up as a public accommodation. That's a legal concept that you should become familiar with. They derive certain benefits from being a public accommodation and, in return, they are expected to accommodate the public. They are not a private club. They are not a private house. If you turn your house into a hotel, you are no longer entitled to the rights of a private residence. You become a public accommodation and that's why you are not allowed to discriminate, contrary to the wishes of the Ronbots and their ilk.
Now, as to your question. The portion of vapers who are no longer sniveling, craven bundles of stigmatized marshmallow goo expect they should be able to do whatever they want if it has no detrimental impact on others. The term "detrimental" does NOT include offending the sensibilities. Offending some ignoramus because they don't want to learn the difference between smoke and vapor does not count as offending. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to be offended by anyone
vaping. Because it "looks like" smoking is not a valid reason and we are under no obligation to appease the ignorance of someone who can't tell the difference.
Some people are offended by people who chew gum, speak a certain language, wear certain clothes, date people of the same sex or different color. They don't have the right to be offended by something that has no effect on them and they don't have the right to insist on not being offended. Furthermore, Starbucks shouldn't be indulging people who are offended by things that are none of their business.
As a libertarian, I'd think you could understand that. But since I know that in libertarian land, money is the measure of the value of all things, I understand why you think Starbucks should have the right to trump anyone else's rights.
