[9th Engineer]

Lets go back to the Five Guys example (we have one on campus so I know what the peanut thing is about). We have Peanut Allergy Guy (PAG), and Wheelchair Bound Guy (WBG). The store has steps with no ramp and both patrons and cooks are eating some amount of peanuts. PAG cannot enter the store because of the concentration of airborne peanut contaminants, and can't eat the food even if someone goes in and gets it for him because of the moderate possibility of peanut oil being transfered to some part of his food at some point (cook picking up the bun, etc). WBG cannot enter the building because of the lack of a ramp but could eat something through take-out.

````````````````| WBG | PAG |
-----------------------------------
Can enter building`| no | no |
-----------------------------------
Can eat food`````| yes | no |
-----------------------------------


I'll tell you the truth rk. The case against the restaurant is the same as the case against the perfume department, the only difference is that you are willing to be inconvenienced by one and not the other. You bring me one, I'd use it to slam both with infractions. And absolutely you could take to court a restaurant who's air quality caused someone to go into respiratory arrest or something equivalent. BBQ's will need to maintain a certain level of air cleanliness and the 'smoky' atmosphere will be a thing of the past.

Law 101 man