"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
...
> Boron Elgar >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> The spaces provided by groceries and other stores for the convenience
>> of pregnant women or those with young children in tow are quite
>> different from handicapped spaces. The former are provided on private
>> property for the convenience of customers whom the store wishes to
>> encourage to shop there, the latter are provided according to laws to
>> enable the handicapped to shop most anywhere.
>>
>> Private facilities are entitled to offer customer incentives. Period.
>> Their couponing, cash or discount rewards, special sales, additional
>> hours to take advantage of sales, etc, are part of their business
>> plans to encourage some segment of their customers and potential
>> customers with convenience and benefits.
>
> I couldn't agree more but why are some "private facilities" allowed to
> offer customer incentives and conveniences etc. and others are not? The
> first thing to come to mind is a private business owner, wanting to cater
> to his customer and allow smoking in his neighborhood bar?
>
>>

Because secondhand smoke is a serious health issue. Having to walk an extra
20 feet is not, even if you are arthritic, is not. I could lodge the same
complaint about seniors thinking they deserve special discounts just for
being old. Sure, they may not have full time income any more, but that in
no way means they have less money to spend. They can pay full price just
like me.

>> This absolutely idiotic whining about a few special parking places is
>> a poorly disguised, and yet typical these days, jab at those who
>> decide to have families.
>
> I'll respectfully disagree and call BS on this one. No one is taking a
> jab at people that decide to have families. In my case I'm taking a jab
> at people that decided to squirt out 3 children in a short time frame
> expecting special treatment because... <GASP>, they have 3 little
> darlings under the age of 6. Tough beans. Let 'em control the kids and
> walk like everyone else.
>

I don't think these parking spaces exist because families think they deserve
special privileges. And quite frankly, I don't know one mom that expects
special treatment of any sort just because she has multiple young children.

>
>> " "It's not right" is a perfect example of what
>> I mean. Of course it's right. It's a company catering to its clientele
>> and unless all this moaning and raised hackles are going to be
>> equally instigated for every frequent flier program, discount, free
>> shipping if you spend $100+or good customer privilege any and all
>> companies offer, then I say stuff a sock in it. And stay out of the
>> express line, too. You don't like it? Go shop someplace that caters to
>> the child free. Can't find a place? Tough shift. Really.
>
> I couldn't agree more. See my first response.
>
> Michael

Jinx

"Jinx Minx" wrot:

> I could lodge the same complaint about seniors thinking they deserve
> special discounts just for being old. Sure, they may not have full time
> income any more, but that in no way means they have less money to spend.
> They can pay full price just like me.

I concur, being old is no excuse to pay less. And in fact as a group
seniors have the most disposable income. What irks me is Ladies Night at
bars, men don't get a free booze night... and very few if any of those
female boozers are ladies.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> I concur, being old is no excuse to pay less. And in fact as a group
> seniors have the most disposable income.


My mother used to wonder about all the seniors discounts because she
thought that most seniors were better off than most parents and young
people.

On Apr 2, 6:03*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> brooklyn1 wrote:
> > I concur, being old is no excuse to pay less. *And in fact as a group
> > seniors have the most disposable income. *
>
> My mother used to wonder about all the seniors discounts because she
> thought that most seniors were better off than most parents and young
> people.

Depends on where you are. Too many folks have been trying to live on
SSI alone. Those are the ones who need the discounts, for whatever
reason they don't have other savings.

maxine in ri

"maxine" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 6:03 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> brooklyn1 wrote:
> > I concur, being old is no excuse to pay less. And in fact as a group
> > seniors have the most disposable income.
>
> My mother used to wonder about all the seniors discounts because she
> thought that most seniors were better off than most parents and young
> people.

Depends on where you are. Too many folks have been trying to live on
SSI alone. Those are the ones who need the discounts, for whatever
reason they don't have other savings.
=====
Naturally every social strata has a mix of economies but as a *group*
seniors *by far* have the most disposable income... next come miuddle aged
gays, because they don't raise children, are better educated, and are more
likley to be self employed, and because of the two aforementioned facts are
more likely to be highly successful entrepreneurs... again this is as a
*group*... I don't want to hear exceptions because then yoose will claim all
Jews are wealthy and they most definitely are not. The fact that there are
impoverished areas has nothing to do with anything because every social
strata in those areas will be *equally* affected.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> "maxine" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Apr 2, 6:03 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> > brooklyn1 wrote:
> > > I concur, being old is no excuse to pay less. And in fact as a group
> > > seniors have the most disposable income.
> >
> > My mother used to wonder about all the seniors discounts because she
> > thought that most seniors were better off than most parents and young
> > people.
>
> Depends on where you are. Too many folks have been trying to live on
> SSI alone. Those are the ones who need the discounts, for whatever
> reason they don't have other savings.
> =====
> Naturally every social strata has a mix of economies but as a *group*
> seniors *by far* have the most disposable income... next come miuddle aged
> gays, because they don't raise children, are better educated, and are more
> likley to be self employed, and because of the two aforementioned facts
are
> more likely to be highly successful entrepreneurs... again this is as a
> *group*... I don't want to hear exceptions because then yoose will claim
all
> Jews are wealthy and they most definitely are not. The fact that there
are
> impoverished areas has nothing to do with anything because every social
> strata in those areas will be *equally* affected.


I pretty much agree...

Being ***, I've noticed that most *** middle - aged men do fairly okay at
the very least (natcherly there always some FREEK exceptions like Lil'
Wayne, he because of his own stupidity is still whining about his state...),
and I know of quite a few rich old queens...most all are self - made, they
invested in businesses (*** bars...) or property Gays often buy up
properties in distressed areas and then when the areas gentrify they are "In
Like Flynn"...I know many prosperous middle - aged *** guys who bought homes
and commercial property in slum areas and then - BAM...!!!

I'd have to say that *******s as a group are by far the worst off, many
never mature and go out into the world and find careers, they get menial
jobs at best, mooch 'n sponge, or simply don't work. I know quite a few of
AARP age that end up having to go back and live with mom and dad or
relatives, or end up distressed charity cases or hustling drugs. It AIN'T
pretty...

I know a few successful *******s, e.g, judges and business owners and
professionals, etc, but they tend to be the exception. A good 75% of
*******s I've encountered in my 33 years of being out are simply losers,
plain and simple...

Guys, even the laziest young *** guys eventually, generally make supporting
themselves a point of pride...I know many cases of parasitical females, many
fewer of males.


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

maxine wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:03 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> I concur, being old is no excuse to pay less. And in fact as a group
>>> seniors have the most disposable income.
>> My mother used to wonder about all the seniors discounts because she
>> thought that most seniors were better off than most parents and young
>> people.
>
> Depends on where you are. Too many folks have been trying to live on
> SSI alone. Those are the ones who need the discounts, for whatever
> reason they don't have other savings.
>
> maxine in ri

Well, and NOW, of course, many people's savings are greatly
diminished.

--
Jean B.

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> "Jinx Minx" >
> : in rec.food.cooking

> > Because secondhand smoke is a serious health issue.
>
> That is the traditional response. It does not address my question. Of
> course people know that secondhand smoke is a health issue. If an owner
> wants to make his retail bar establishment all smoking, and caters to his
> customers as the supermarkets do, according to Boron (and she's right),
> the individuals owning their own "private" establishments should be
> entitled to do the same thing. Non smokers can enter at their own risk.
> Now can you explain to me why this is not possible in most areas of the
> US?

California does not allow smoking in most bars. The customers have
nothing to do with it. As you say, they can choose another bar. It is
a work place hazard. Only bars with no employees are *allowed* to have
smoking in the bar. If the owner is the sole person working in the bar,
they *may* allow smoking.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA