"Well, they can choose to go to another business"...  they can, but that choice itself is forced upon them....

Chetly, your word choice here seems to be distorting this fascinating discussion (and I would guess is also causing you to come out opposite of "the litmus test" side on this issue).  This is a shame, because this issue is a microcosm of bigger ones.

The distortion stems from misleading use of the word "forced."  The situation where those who would prefer not to be around smokers when visiting bars and restaurants no more involves "forcing" a decision on them than does the fact that if a person wants to watch an NBA game in Michigan, he has to go to Auburn Hills to see it (notwithstanding the preseason game they play in GR).  Both situations are just reality, as delivered to us by our relatively free market.

One can use the word "force" to describe both situations, but it doesn't accurately describe what's going on.  Instead, it's more accurate to say something like "smoke-averse people face a choice of whether to deal with smoke or to face a more constrained set of establishments."  (Interestingly, that constrained set was increasing before this law passed.)

Or to be more concise, "they faced a choice."  Except with guns to our heads, I can't quite think of situations involving "forced" choices, properly understood.

On the other hand, restaurateurs and others who want to serve smokers are being forced to make a choice: stop meeting that particular demand, or pay the legal penalty.  That's certainly the regulatory version of a gun to the head.

As an aside, you wrote: "everyone on the "litmus test" side recognizes the rights of smokers and businesses but ignores that second-hand smoker has a real, significant impact on other individuals."