It's pretty straightforward economics, unless you think that non-smoking bars are a perfect substitute for smoking bars, which they aren't. If you allow both, you have more smokers out drinking, meaning more butts looking for seats. This means more jobs all told, which means that the market is better for all workers, smokers and nonsmokers alike.
If you're actually interested in the well-being of job-seekers, you'd want to see more economic activity, not less.
You've said enough to show you don't find the Rose case convincing, assuming you're consistent in your thinking and not in the business of cherry-picking arguments that support your preferred position.
This post has been edited by atraub: 28 July 2013 - 03:24 PM