Can the Michigan legislature ban urination in Michigan businesses?

An update on a post from a couple of day ago: Heh: MI Bar owners who oppose smoking ban ban MI lawmakers.

I wrote in that post: "For the record, I'm a non-smoker. I hate the smell of cigarettes. But Michigan lawmakers of both parties have no right to tell property owners what they can or cannot legally do on their own property. Like it or not, smoking is legal." That precipitated this response from Dan Calabrese over at The Michigan View: Public urination for everyone! Dan challenges my assertion that the legislature didn't have the right to pass the law:

Would Kobus have a problem with allowing people to urinate anywhere they want? Urination is legal, after all. What right do they have to restrict where you can do it?

Kobus may not agree with the law, but how does he justify his argument that the Legislature doesn't even have the right to pass it? There are all kinds of things that are legal to do, but are still subject to restrictions as to when and where they can be done.

...The Legislature has made a judgment call that smoking in public is a nuisance and isn't going to be allowed. I don't think Kobus really believes they don't have the right to do that.

Actually - and this is something I have written before and should have repeated in my prior post above - I believe the smoking ban is unconstitutional because it violates the Headlee amendment of the Michigan constitution (the ban is a mandate on local government to enforce a rule for which no state funding was provided). It also violates the very first Section of the very first Article of the MI Constitution where it is written, in part, that "Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection." (Casinos were exempt from that equal "protection") But that aside, Dan's analogy to public urination isn't quite accurate. My premise was based on personal property rights, in this case private Michigan businesses, rather than personal behavior (which by the way should and does have limits, not to so that the former does not but anyway). Be that as it may, Dan's premise brings up an interesting counter-question: can the Michigan legislature ban urination of any kind in a private businesses (and for the sake of argument, let's include the #2 with the #1)? If so, would Calabrese have a problem with that?