Your choice as a potential employer is to either accept our US Constitutions rule of law, --- or not.
If you don't, you won't be able to establish a business in this country.
Well, your statement is counterfactual,
No. It is a fact.
if you believe that an employer violates the Constitution by prohibiting its employees from having firearms on company property -
I don't "believe" that. A company can regulate the carrying of arms by its employees on the jobsite, certainly.
An employer violates the Constitution by in effect prohibiting its employees from having firearms while driving to and from work. Thus, employees who park on company property must be allowed to lock weapons in their cars.
Plenty of companies have implemented just such prohibitions, despite protests. -- That's why the Oklahoma state legislature passed a law to prevent companies from doing just that - because the action of the companies is not Constitutional.
If the companies actions were Constitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice.
Nothing in the rules mentioned here in any way prevented employees from having firearms in their car while driving to and from work. The only place they could not have firearms is on their employer's property. They were free to park elsewhere if this rule was inconvenient for them. Just because you have a Constitutional right to do something does not mean anyone else is required to help you enjoy those rights. You have the right to free speech, but that does not mean I am required to let you borrow my microphone.
If the companies actions were Constitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice.
Huh? Constitutional actions can be banned by law. I do not violate any provision of the Constitution by threatening death upon somebody else, but the government can still ban such threats.
And, as has been mentioned many times, until you realize that the Constitution does not deal with private actors, all your other arguments are simply wrong.
Dear jonestown,
"Plenty of companies have implemented just such prohibitions, despite protests. -- That's why the Oklahoma state legislature passed a law to prevent companies from doing just that - because the action of the companies is not Constitutional."
If the actions of the companies were unconstitutional, all that would be necessary would be taking the companies to court and having that part of their employment policies invalidated.
The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery.
If a person signs a contract selling himself into slavery, no law written by any legislature is necessary to invalidate the contract. One merely must present oneself before a judge, and ask that the contract be declared invalid. The contract violates the Constitution.
You don't need legislation to prohibit unconstitutional actions. The "legislation" is inherent in the Constitutuion.
"If the companies actions were Constitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice."
That's backwards. If the company's actions are constitututional, then the ONLY way to forbid their actions is through passing a law. Sex discrimination by a private party isn't unconstitutional. That's why, to make it illegal, it was necessary to pass laws banning it.
The use of positive law to forbid something is required if it isn't inherently forbidden by the Constitution.
There is no constitutional prohibition to my driving at a speed over 55 mph on the Washington Beltway. To make it illegal requires a law passed by a legislature, either federal, state, or local.
There is no constitutional prohibition to a company forbidding folks from having guns in their cars while on company property. To make such a policy illegal requires a law passed by a legislature, either federal, state, or local.
sitetest