First, I agree with you and respect your side of the issue.

BUT second, a limitation on smoking in public spaces or accommodation CAN BE MORALLY JUSTIFIED IN LIBERTARIAN - pure libertarian - philosophy, just as banning abortion can be justified such.

The key is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or let's be more concrete and say property)".  

"Limited government" is justifed when and only when it protects individuals from other individuals or collectives from deprivations of life (murder law, and even negligent homicide, or abortion, or any number of public safety regulations where genuine safety issues are measurable and significant), liberty (slavery laws, or even anti-coercion and certain anti-discrimination laws if limited), property (anti-theft laws), etc.

It seems that 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.  The counter to that is "Well, they can choose to go to another business"...  they can, but that choice itself is forced upon them.  We regulate, legitimately, things like the fact that a waitress must have clothes in all but highly limited situations (harms no one but forces a choice on families), or completely ban, say, marijuana use.  Now you may believe in drug legalization, but you're not going to litmus test out Republicans that don't, are you?  The philosphical base for their regulation in that case is certain drugs so inherently change individuals as to make them dangers to other individuals (I can say I personally have witnessed this for individuals using cocaine and heroine, but also never seen it for marijuana, so I think you need careful case-by-case review).

Be careful of your litmus testing - it will destroy the party if it goes to far, or doesn't have sound philosophical reasoning.  There is no philosophical or Constitutional reason a State can't choose to regulate time and place with smoking - where's the Constitutional prohibition.

I know this issue generates passion.  I'm a smoker myself.  But I think carefully about liberty, and I don't have a "right" to smoke in a way that impacts other people - a ban in commercial areas is at least limited ("Narrow tailoring" is a principle of limited government) to the purpose it protects - individuals against second hand smoke.  If government were to go further, like a total ban or in homes etc., then this law would violate liberty because the further regulation would only serve to protect individuals from themselves and exceed the proper mission of government.