Supreme Court Opinion
Lloyd Corp, Ltd. v. Tanner
Why it matters: The Court's opinion regarding this case is of great interest to us because it defines private property versus an individual's Constitutional rights. Since the underlying argument of the ban proponents has been that there is no such thing as private property where the public is concerned, this opinion is a very useful tool.
What interests us: "... Nor does property lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. Few would argue that a free-standing store, with abutting parking space for customers, assumes significant public attributes merely because the public is invited to shop there."
What this means: It means that your property is yours and that just because you serve the public doesn't mean that you're public property. The key here is "use it for designated purposes" which means that if you have a place designated as a "smoking facility" and a nonsmoker comes in, they have no right over you, your business, or your other customers when it comes to smoking or secondhand smoke.