|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 9, 2009, 10:17 AM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
July 9, 2009, 10:25 AM | #52 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
||
July 9, 2009, 10:52 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 517
|
Property rights vs carry rights is a sticky subject (and possibly a topic for its own thread), but I'll say this about that: I feel that my right to live, to protect myself, does indeed trump a property owner's right to determine what's in my pocket. The business owner could say, "No employees are to carry wallets made from leather, because I love cows." While the law says he can do this, is he not interfering too heavily with the lives of his employees? That's a trivial, comedic example, but the principle applies. While one's constitutional rights are supposed to end where they infringe upon the rights of another, this situation is a two-way infringement. With this conflict, one right will have to make way for the other. If property rights trump 2A rights, then the employee may be placed in a situation that costs him his life. If the opposite holds, the employer has armed employees who are still bound by many other laws not use/abuse those arms.
__________________
There is nothing quite so dangerous as a pacifist, for they will readily sacrifice others for their ideals. |
July 9, 2009, 11:28 AM | #54 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
||
July 9, 2009, 11:40 AM | #55 | |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Quote:
Frankly, I think religion has a great parallel to 2A carry rights on private property. What you have is a conflict of beliefs, where one belief system is trying to squash another. Since it's obvious that GFZ's, 30.06 signs and the like do not prevent rampage shootings (and seem to actually encourage it due to the large ratio of unarmed people for the active shooter), there isn't a safety argument to be made. It's purely a flexing of ideological will. How is the ideological will of an incorporated entity open to the public allowed to discriminate against another ideological will that is legally permissible in our country? |
|
July 9, 2009, 11:45 AM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
If you do not want to employ left handed people you can do so. Discrimination IS an EEOC issue. We 'discriminate' all the time in hiring. We try very hard to not hire anyone stupid. |
|
July 9, 2009, 12:10 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Quote:
If an employer knowingly singles out an employee, and applies a policy about their behavior only to them, its called 'harrassment'. In my office we had several employees who had copied their own music from cds, to listen to while they work. One employee chose to store the data on the public profile, instead of to the local hard drive. So when IT found out, everyone had to remove all personal data off the systems, even though it was only one persons actions. One person is allergic to many odors, especially perfumes. So everyone got the memo that prohibits the wearing of perfumes/colognes, even though it was only one person that wore perfume. Now go back and consider what started this tangent, the OP was given a directive solely because he is the only one that is known to be armed, or the first one suspected of it. A whiny liberal would complain about being harrassed if soemthing like this happened to them. They could file a lawsuit and because it was a practice of the employer to discriminate against anyone for any reason, and its documented, their insurance would have to pay. Might take years to happen. There is a lot that goes on in the workplace that people could easily sue their employers over. Theres a lot of insurance companies that would rather settle than get a judgment in court.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
July 9, 2009, 12:27 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
The phrase to use is "hostile work environment" HTH
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
July 9, 2009, 12:48 PM | #59 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 28, 2009
Posts: 273
|
hopefully your emplyer doesn't end up in a situation with a disgruntled employee where he needs a CCW permit holder to save his life!
|
July 9, 2009, 01:32 PM | #60 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Posts: 310
|
Quote:
Quote:
Its a BS loophole and I don't agree with it...but it's there to be exploited. |
||
July 9, 2009, 01:41 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
"Harassment" over what? Not following a policy that applies to everyone? They just sent him a notice because they believed he was the only person it would affect. An employer could decide to fire you because they decided that 'Bob' (your name) is not acceptable. 'At will' employment is just that, at will. You can be terminated for any reason (or no reason). |
|
July 9, 2009, 02:08 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area)
Posts: 1,506
|
Even if Texas does get a law passed in the future that allows us to have a gun in the vehicle on an employers parking lot...I'm still S.O.L. because
I work on a Federal Gub'ment compound with its own police farce, ooops force. And they will tell us tough noogies...Texas law don't apply to this property.( they are even that way over handicap parking hangtags) There are times driving home after midnight, that I would have rather had my sidearm. They dont even let their own Police have a personal handgun on property, or leave work with their issue one.....its crazy.
__________________
Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes" |
July 9, 2009, 02:56 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2001
Location: Boston, People's Republic of MA
Posts: 1,615
|
My employer never had a firm policy regarding CCWs until this past year. We hired a new HR and one of the liberal weenie things she did was put this in there. I think I'm the only one who carries here, but she doesn't know that. In fact, I've carried for 8 years here and still no one knows.
|
July 9, 2009, 03:06 PM | #64 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
they can't fire you for having a permit however they can not allow weapons. they can't discriminate for religion they can however tell you no religious jewelry or images on your T-Shirt. they can fire you for not working on sunday. A buisness can put up a sign "no prayer on premisis" and ask you to leave if you drop to your knees praying.if you dont leave it will be trespassing. A buisness/owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
||
July 9, 2009, 03:09 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: The Woodlands TX
Posts: 4,679
|
Quote:
google "racial discrimination restaurant" and see example after example of courts disagreeing with that statement.
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas! Last edited by fisherman66; July 9, 2009 at 03:20 PM. |
|
July 9, 2009, 03:47 PM | #66 |
Member
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
|
The courts also don't have the authority to call something constitutional or not, regardless of what they think. Just because it's a common practice doesn't make it legal :-) The States voted in the Constitution, so they can vote on whether or not something applies.
If my work place does not allow me to carry firearms that is the owners right. I ALSO have the right to start my OWN company and make those rules as I see fit. THAT is where the free speech and freedom comes into play. Just like smoking bans. Do I have the right to visit a restaurant without breathing cigarette smoke? Yes, and that is why I have the right to take my money to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. It doesn't, however, give me (or legislation) the right to FORCE establishments to cater one way or another, that is what my wallet is for. Money talks! Especially since there are only 2 forces that guide capitalism - profit and loss. We all have rights, just keep in mind where those rights actually exist and what they apply to. For those who think that carrying anyway is ok (in a work place where it is ruled against) because you "have the right", this is no different than someone coming into your own home and bringing a gun (even if you demand they do not bring one) because they "have the right". ;-) |
July 9, 2009, 04:52 PM | #67 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
two settlements out of court. two thrown out. two won by the restaraunt. four not gone to court yet. so zero 0 for 10 on courts disagreeing.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
||
July 9, 2009, 05:00 PM | #68 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2009, 05:08 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: The Woodlands TX
Posts: 4,679
|
As frozen friend pointed out this is not a protected class issue, but a hostile work environment if a policy is created and applied to just one employee and not detailed in a job description.
This isn't a competency issue either, but if it were that employer would need to have documentation and be prepared to defend those findings.
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas! |
July 9, 2009, 05:30 PM | #70 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2009, 08:50 PM | #71 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2009, 09:45 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Property rights have nothing to do with the discussion?
Business owners would beg to differ. Their point is that they should be able to control what items are allowed on their property.
So, this really is an argument about property rights (the business premises and parking lot) vs 2nd Amendment. |
July 9, 2009, 09:50 PM | #73 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,442
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hostile work environment=Harrassment Fisherman66 is just about dead-on with his statements. (Having a wife with some HR background, albiet rusty on every single law, doesn't hurt either.)
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting |
||
July 9, 2009, 09:52 PM | #74 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,442
|
Quote:
I'm also moving this over to L&CR...
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting |
|
July 9, 2009, 10:28 PM | #75 |
Member
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
|
It IS about property rights, that is the thing. You are not forced to work at a specific place, you have the choice to run/start your own company as you see fit, making those rules as you see fit, or working elsewhere that better compliments your desires or beliefs. As long as you choose to work for a company, you choose to abide by those rules. Don't like 'em? Go elsewhere! You're not forced to stay, and the state of the economy doesn't have a play in this.
The only real benefit to the original situation in this thread is that this manager doesn't appear to be the owner, and the owner trumps manager should they choose to override the choice of no firearms on the premises ;-) You DO have the right to defend yourself, which is an option if you work elsewhere, start another company, etc. When you step into anothers domain, you are bound by their rules. This is common sense and the very essence of why government is here. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" --- To secure these rights! That means THEM too! You have the right to make your own rules on your own property. So does everyone else. Your rights stop when they overstep their boundary on another person. As for kangaroo courts and silly decisions on 'harassment', in capitalism the courts have no say on how or why someone gets fired. This is purely the right of the employer, they hire or fire whom they will. It's the attitude of "but it's my right!" getting twisted into a silly mess that causes the misconceptions that one persons freedom or liberty (or assumption of them) somehow completely overrides that of another person. Do I not have the right to hire whom I wish in my own company? Do I not have the right to fire whom I wish in my OWN company? Am I not the person taking the chance of going out of business, paying people with MY blood, sweat and tears? If you choose to work for me, you also choose to work by my rules or go elsewhere. You also agree to whatever payment we agree to, whether it be next to nothing, or exorbitant. You have the choice of starting a competing company and doing a better job, or have better prices for consumers, better quality, or any combination of these. If my business decisions put me in the position that I hire second-rate people just because of an issue of firearms (or anything else), then I will have a second-rate company and eventually be overtaken by a competitor. This is my right as an owner, the right to fail, the right to make bad choices as well as good. That is what freedom and liberty is. No one is a slave unless by choice. I suppose another example to help - I have the right to freedom of speech. However, I do NOT have the right to walk into my neighbors house and speak whatever I wish - that is their home, their property, and they would have every right to remove me by whatever means necessary. Does that somehow mean my right to free speech was taken? Nope! I certainly DO have the right to speak whatever I wish in my own home however. This is the difference. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|