The employer has no right to coerce you to either own/carry or avoid owning/carryihg a gun. But he does have the right to avoid hiring you, or to fire you. Why? Because of his property rights in his capital. And any suit against an employer based on the idea that an employee was improperly fired due to gun ownership should fail for the same reason that a suit against a private individual that claims damages for refusing to buy product from a particular vendor (for whatever reason) should fail. You have the right to decide whether or not to buy something, and from whom. An employer has exactly the same right--because everyone has the same rights equally.
Even 'reasons' that violate our constitutional rights? I know that several State legislatures & at least the Georgia Supreme court disagree. They say that your car is personal property, and it's legal contents cannot be used as an excuse to deny you employment.
Illegal searches are being misused by companies in order to fire otherwise law abiding employees. -- Employees who are exercising their RKBA's in their cars.
The employer has no right to coerce you to either own/carry or avoid owning/carryihg a gun.
There is no question, or dispute on that point.
But he does have the right to avoid hiring you, or to fire you. Why? Because of his property rights in his capital.
His property rights do not trump your right to have a gun in your car. Firing you for that 'reason' is constitutionally 'unreasonable'. As you say "everyone has the same rights equally."
And any suit against an employer based on the idea that an employee was improperly fired due to gun ownership should fail for the same reason that a suit against a private individual that claims damages for refusing to buy product from a particular vendor (for whatever reason) should fail. You have the right to decide whether or not to buy something, and from whom. An employer has exactly the same right--because everyone has the same rights equally.
Any suit against an employer based on the fact that an employee was improperly fired due to gun ownership should win, -- based on the idea that employers have no reasonable basis to infringe on our rights to have arms in our cars.
Why would you approve of employers property rights trumping employees gun rights?
"The employer has no right to coerce you to either own/carry or avoid owning/carryihg a gun. But he does have the right to avoid hiring you, or to fire you. Why? Because of his property rights in his capital. And any suit against an employer based on the idea that an employee was improperly fired due to gun ownership should fail for the same reason that a suit against a private individual that claims damages for refusing to buy product from a particular vendor (for whatever reason) should fail. "
Sorry - you missed my entire point. You're stuck on your own ideas.
Yes, the employer has a right to fire an employee, for whatever reason (especially if you're talking about right-to-work states). And, if the employer has a written policy forbidding gun carry in vehicles that will be parked on his premises, then he does have the right to do so, apparently, by law. (Hell, I have been fired from 2 previous jobs just because of my political views - perfectly legal, as much as I hated it).
MY point is,
BY FORBIDDING AN EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO ANY FORM OF SELF DEFENSE, THE EMPLOYER MUST NOW ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SAFETY (just as the employer may be liable if an employee slips & falls on ice covered sidewalks).
If the tragedy happens that someone begins firing a gun at the workplace, and the employer has a policy of denying any means of self-defense, the employer has assumed a NEW liability for himself by his actions. This liability is the employer's failure to protect a defenseless workforce with security measures that should have been put in place once the employer stripped the employees of any chance of self defense.
My commonts were NOT about whether or not an employee can be fired for carrying. You're stuck on that. Get off of that line of thinking.