New bill in Missouri to protect concealed carriers from discrimination

[MLeake]

Apparently state rep Wanda Brown has introduced legislation that would prohibit employers from discriminating against, firing, or harassing employees because they own or carry firearms. Missouri being a pro-gun state, I can see this one passing.

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles...cealed-weapon/

The article's author is apparently unhappy that legislation to protect the LGBT community from discrimination couldn't be added to the bill, or passed separately. I find the conflation of the two ideas to be a bit weird, but then I would have no problem supporting the LGBT anti-discrimination law as a separate bill.

Anyway, if the concealed carrier protection bill passes, it could set a very interesting precedent for other states to use.

[C0untZer0]

You guys are so far ahead of Illinois, you're dealing with issues we've never had to deal with since we've been denied our 2nd Amendments rights for decades.

[Double Naught Spy]

Apparently state rep Wanda Brown has introduced legislation that would prohibit employers from discriminating against, firing, or harassing employees because they own or carry firearms.

We should not even need laws like this. What an employee does when not at work (and doesn't pertain to work or otherwise negative affect the employer) should be of no concern to employers.

[MLeake]

DNS, I agree with that sentiment.

At the same time, I recognize that employers who are required by the government to provide health insurance for their employees might start taking greater interest in the hobbies of those employees.

For instance, I could easily see an employer (or insurer) putting pressure on employees to quit skiing, snowboarding, riding motorcycles, etc.

So, I think it's not a bad idea for government to tell employers not to even think about it.

[jhenry]

It is an absolute crying shame that legislation has to be introduced to protect citizens who exercise their constitutional rights. On the other hand, I applaud the representative who is doing this for the foresight.

[Don H]

jhenry, constitutional rights mostly do not apply to the private sector but to the government. For example, while you have a right to free speech, that right will not allow you to tell your boss exactly what you think of him, his wife and his kids....and remain employed.

[Young.Gun.612]

MLeake,

If we allow employers/insurance companies to pressure people to stop taking part in their hobbies, regardless of how seemingly dangerous they could be, where does it stop? Pressuring them to refrain from having children? Since that adds another person they have to insure and the process of carrying/birthing a child comes with its own inherent risks.

I realize that's a big jump, and possibly a bit hyperbolic. But I wouldn't say its too far fetched. Just because they pay us, or insure us, doesn't mean they get to dictate what we do in our private lives. Especially when it comes to our constitutional rights.

[Double Naught Spy]

If we allow employers/insurance companies to pressure people to stop taking part in their hobbies, regardless of how seemingly dangerous they could be, where does it stop?

Allow them? Interesting thought. I am not all that sure that I have a lot of power to tell my insurance company how they are to go about insuring me. They set the rules. If I don't like the rules, I can change insurance companies or get a policy that maybe isn't as extensive.

Or maybe the company will insure me despite high risk hobbies, with a premium that is more than my paycheck. From what I have seen, you can probably be insured regardless of your health and activities if you are willing to pay enough for it.

[Young.Gun.612]

We "allow" them by adhering to their intrusive policies. If my insurance company said that I had to choose between paying higher premiums, or not shooting anymore, well I'd be looking for a new insurance company pronto.

[lawnboy]

If we allow employers/insurance companies to pressure people to stop taking part in their hobbies, regardless of how seemingly dangerous they could be, where does it stop? Pressuring them to refrain from having children? Since that adds another person they have to insure and the process of carrying/birthing a child comes with its own inherent risks

It doesn't stop. Why should it stop?

What good purpose can be served by not allowing companies to judge employees and prospective employees on whatever they can find out?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is a variant of the much repeated debate on whether a property owner is emperor of their land / castle / firm.

We done this many times and just has folks chest pound about their property.

If we go in that direction as some posters seem to want, it will be closed.

[MLeake]

A few twists and turns have popped up.

First, I don't advocate for insurers pressuring employers to ban employees from participating in activities. I am simply pointing out that it is not unprecedented. Don't think so? Tell me that no workplace has instituted total smoking bans (including during non-working hours). I have heard of employers banning skiing, or SCUBA, and listing participation in such hobbies as grounds for termination.

As to whether that is morally defensible, my take on that is that if an employer is required to provide insurance (which is the case), that the onus falls on the government to protect the employer (and by extension, the insurer) from excessive claims. IE, I think the moral solution would be for the government to say, on the one hand, you can't terminate an employee over participation in legal activities, but on the other you can withhold coverage - or demand higher premiums - from employees who participate in activities or who are injured in the course of high risk activities.

But those are side-tracks.

The point of this thread is that it is nice to see a state government take the idea of protecting Constitutionally mandated civil rights seriously.

[lawnboy]

I don't see it that way. I see it this way: it is well established that a company can infringe on your first ammendment rights. Why should 2a be different?

If companies can't judge/evaluate anyone on anything there is a problem.

I don't see this as a good win, if it happens.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

An employer who wants to control your behavior in realms outside of directly related to your employment is a failure as a human being.

It's that simple and should be not permitted by law.

To defend the position that an employer can be a petty tyrant is antithetical to liberty.

It is also a smokescreen for position for those who condone employer discrimination on race, religion, etc.

Seen it in action. Seen people have to lie about their religion to get jobs in the depression. Seen people forced to register for a political party to get a job. Their option in the depression - starve.

If you want to evaluate employees on anything, says something about you.

[MLeake]

The problem, Glenn, is that government has mandated that employers insure workers.

I'd prefer if employment and health insurance had never been linked. If the government wants all workers to have insurance, then the government should directly subsidize insurance policies.

So, while I don't want an employer telling me I can't carry, for example, or fly a private airplane, for another example, I think the government should not demand an employer to provide insurance that covers high risk outside activity.

Then again, I used to carry my own independent coverage. (Actually, I still do, only it's life insurance, not health insurance. If something happens to me, my wife gets paid, and that includes war zones or aviation accidents.)

Going back to the original idea, though, it's good that state governments are getting more assertive about protecting individual rights. I still think government should pass more laws indemnifying businesses though... this idea has come up several times in the businesses banning carry threads.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The insurance debate is separate from an employer trying to constrain your freedoms. I was responding to the idea that an employer can evaluate you on anything.

We really don't want to do the health care debate. My view as stated many times is that property rights and employer rights don't trump fundamental liberties as religious freedom, speech, RKBA, etc. - except in highly technical circumstances such as the gun in the MRI or in direct employment of a place of worship.

[Stooge]

Withdrawn...

[Double Naught Spy]

An employer who wants to control your behavior in realms outside of directly related to your employment is a failure as a human being.

It's that simple and should be not permitted by law.

Maybe so. Sadly those human beings often turn out to be large corporations, municipalities or other government offices, etc. and not individual humans. You will such constraints with a lot of law enforcement agencies.

http://county.milwaukee.gov/LawEnfor...Codeof9154.htm

Private Life

Police officers will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to their agencies or themselves. A police officer's character and conduct while off duty must always be exemplary, thus maintaining a position of respect in the community in which he or she lives and serves. The officer's personal behavior must be beyond reproach.

Here is an AR supreme court case with a fireman fired for conduct unbecoming...
http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/empl52.html

Here is a little legal article on off duty discipline...
http://www.wmprlaw.com/items/Discipl...ty_Conduct.pdf