The right not to employ someone

It's nice to hear Americans talk about privacy and fighting for their rights. But sometimes I have to say: Do you know what you're talking about?

In Okemos, Mich., a 71-year-old health nut named Howard Weyers runs a health-care benefits company called Weyco. Weyers thinks his employees should be healthy, too, so years ago, he hired an in-house private trainer. Any employee who works with her and then meets certain exercise goals earns a $110 bonus per month.

So far, so good. But then, in November 2003, Weyers made an announcement that shocked his staff: "I'm introducing a smoking policy," he said.

No smoking at work. No smoking at home. No nicotine patch or nicotine gum. The company would do random tests and fire anyone with nicotine in his system.

"I yelled out," said Anita Epolito, "'You can't do that to me, it's against the law.'"

That's not true. In Michigan and 19 other states, employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).

Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.

Today, he calls the policy a success. Twenty Weyco employees who smoked, stopped. Some of their spouses even quit.

Now all we need is a 'law' saying that any business or home owner is liable for any injuries caused by weapons carried by them on their property,

You are already potentially liable for anything occurring on your property. It's one of those pesky "responsibility" things that come with rights. If a civil court found you to be negligent in who you allowed to be on your property, you could well be liable for any injuries caused by weapons carried by others on your property.

Consider the following scenario: You fire an employee for angry and abusive actions. He then goes out to his car, gets a gun that you knew of and allowed to be at the workplace you owned, and proceeds to shoot up the place. Another employee, wounded, sues you for allowing someone you "knew" to be abusive (that's what you fired him for, right?) to have a firearm on the premises. Say hello to bankruptcy.

I just want to have a gun in my car while going to & from work. Why is that a problem?
First you claim "It isn't" a problem. Then you admit that what is done with guns "once AT work" conflicts [makes a problem] between the RKBA & the employers right to property.
Thus, you see the remedy to the conflict/problem, [created by the employer] as simply parking outside the gate, ignoring the reality that company parking is provided because there is no off site parking available.

Tough luck. Your employer is under no obligation to provide parking to you,

Most large companies across the USA are required by local codes to provide employee parking. -- Wake up to real life.

You then finally admit that "liability for theft or misuse" is the facetious 'reason' behind the gun ban problem you first denied existed.
Good grief, what twisted webs we weave...

--- liability isn't a "facetious" reason. Valuable property being stolen costs real insurance money and misuse of weapons causes real lawsuits. These are both serious and legitimate business concerns.

Or so the gun grabbers allege.. --- Isn't it amazing that an overwhelming majority of companies in the USA could care less what you have locked in your car while working? -- Or that you might be [horrors] smoking while at home?

The authoritarian personality on the job is a wonder to behold. Keep up the good work.

Now all we need is a 'law' saying that any business or home owner is liable for any injuries caused by weapons carried by others on their property, -- and shazzam!, instant 'arms' control! -- Just what the Brady bunch have been praying for..

You are already potentially liable for anything occurring on your property.
It's one of those pesky "responsibility" things that come with rights. If a civil court found you to be negligent in who you allowed to be on your property, you could well be liable for any injuries caused by weapons carried by others on your property.

Ahhh yes, of course. It's not hard to see that the 'litigators' have been passing out free kool aid in your neighborhood.

Consider the following scenario: You fire an employee for angry and abusive actions. He then goes out to his car, gets a gun that you knew of and allowed to be at the workplace you owned, and proceeds to shoot up the place. Another employee, wounded, sues you for allowing someone you "knew" to be abusive (that's what you fired him for, right?) to have a firearm on the premises. Say hello to bankruptcy.

Nice spin, -- have you tried to use it yet?

I'm also completely baffled on why otherwise rational individuals insist that our inalienable right to keep and bear arms can be restricted by their peers on the pretense that 'property rights' are being protected.

A property owner can set whatever conditions he wants when he invites someone on to his property. He can say that only Christians are allowed in his church, or he can say that you can't hand out leaflets in his restaurant. He can prohibit all kinds of things that the government is not allowed to prohibit.

And yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But it does not sanction citizens. It says "Congress shall make not law". It tells the government what it can and cannot do, not citizens.

If that were not the case, newspaper editors would not have the right to edit the copy of their journalists or private schools would not have the right to tell employees what they could teach students.

-- Why is it important to you [or anyone] to disarm everyone that is invited to park on your land?

It isn't. But we have the right select or reject visitors on our terms. Do you really want to live in a country where you can't eject a visitor from your home or business if he offends you?

Dan Evans wrote:

The second amendment only prevents government from infringing on RKBA. It doesn't restrict the people from making rules regarding their own property.

A property owner can set whatever conditions he wants when he invites someone on to his property.

Not true. He is restrained by Constitutional law, as is everyone.

He can say that only Christians are allowed in his church, or he can say that you can't hand out leaflets in his restaurant. He can prohibit all kinds of things that the government is not allowed to prohibit.

True enough, but he, just like everybody else in the USA, is bound by our Law of the Land.

And yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But it does not sanction citizens. It says "Congress shall make not law". It tells the government what it can and cannot do, not citizens.

You can't have it both ways. Citizens have an obligation to "support & defend".. You must swear an oath to that effect to become naturalized. The same principle applies to all of us born here.

-- Why is it important to you [or anyone] to disarm everyone that is invited to park on your land?

It isn't. But we have the right select or reject visitors on our terms.

Ok then, why are your 'terms' to disarm me? Do you object to my RKBA's while on my way to & from work?

Do you really want to live in a country where you can't eject a visitor from your home or business if he offends you?

What's 'offensive' about locking up a gun in your car while you're at work, or visiting?

That's what the Constitution does, it tells the government, not the people, what it can and can't do.

The Constitution/BOR's is our supreme Law of the Land [Art VI], and everyone living in the USA is obliged to comply with those laws; -- furthermore, citizens are obligated to actually support & defend our Constitution.

-- Many people refuse to accept these facts, which is another baffling mystery.

-- I asked if you can explain it, -- Why the silence?

My observation on this issue is that he is changing the rules in the middle of the game.

If not smoking is a prerequisite for getting hired, that is a whole different ball of wax.

But, apparently, smoking was acceptable behavior when these employees were hired. So, I think he is playing nasty by changing this down the road. Even if it is OK to hire only non smokers, those already hired should be "grandfathered in" when the policy is newly instituted.

So, it's an "at will" state. That doesn't make him less of a jerk. Did he just learn recently that smoking is bad for you? Is it really possible that he had no idea it was when these employees were hired?

For the moment forget all of the other arguments here.

Focus on one thing.

When these people were hired, did the employee handbook/rules state clearly that either A) they weren't supposed to smoke when hired, or B) that sometime in the future they would be expected to quit in order to keep their job?

If not, they shouldn't be fired, even though new employees could be required to be non smokers.

There is considerable precedence for this approach in many areas.

Any college students or graduates out there? Hmm, apply this man's reasoning (changing the rules after the fact) to your course requirements for graduation. However much requirements change during your time as an undergrad, you are bound by those in effect at the time you entered that school, as long as you are a continuous full time student. i.e. you stay in "phase".

Now, suppose the university was to do what this man is doing. Middle of your junior year, bang, some of your classes taken no longer count towards your requirements AND you now have to have 15 more hours in total to graduate. Bang, second term of your senior year, another small change. Six years later you finally graduate. Bummer, huh?

Again, forget about all of the other issues being discussed here. If ever there was a slippery slope, making a contractual agreement, then upping the ante after the fact, is one. Everything else here is secondary to this principle in my opinion.

"A property owner can set whatever conditions he wants when he invites someone on to his property."
Not true. He is restrained by Constitutional law, as is everyone

That's just wrong. You really don't understand the Constitution at all.

Ok then, why are your 'terms' to disarm me? Do you object to my RKBA's while on my way to & from work?

As far as I'm concerned it would be a better place if more people were to carry weapons -- even on commercial airlines. But the constitution does not prohibit property owners from restricting weapons or free speech on their property.

You can't have it both ways. Citizens have an obligation to "support & defend"..

Yes, and we should, but the Constitution restricts the government, not citizens. So that isn't having it both ways. Can't you grasp the concept of a document that restricts the government but not the people?

What's 'offensive' about locking up a gun in your car while you're at work, or visiting?

I was talking about free speech. It can offend people and if the person is on your property you can eject him. Same with guns. If the Bill of Rights restricted the people, then we would not have the right to eject guests from our property for what they say. But the fact is, the Bill of Rights doesn't restrict you in that way. You can throw people off your property for what they say.

Ok then, why are your 'terms' to disarm me? Do you object to my RKBA's while on my way to & from work?

I don't want to disarm you, I want to reserve my property rights. Maybe I don't want you on my property because I don't like your haircut. Should I have the right to exclude you for any reason other than the fact that you are carrying a weapon? That would be bizarre.

The Constitution/BOR's is our supreme Law of the Land [Art VI], and everyone living in the USA is obliged to comply with those laws

Except different provisions in the constitution apply to different authorities. Some apply to Congress, some to the president. But are you claiming that all provisions restrict the people? Why do you want to say the Constitution says something it doesn't? You are saying that as long as you carry a gun, you can go wherever you want. Yes you are. You wrote that I can't restrict you from my property for carrying a weapon.

I cannot take away your right to carry weapons. But you can't take away my right to exclude you from my property. Isn't that fair?

True enough, but he, just like everybody else in the USA, is bound by our Law of the Land.

The restrictions mentioned above violate the Constitution, based on your logic. The property owner above has limited the 1st Amendment rights of the people involved. Why are these actions okay, in your view?

Care to address this point? Following your logic, a private property owner could not do any of these things, either.

Ok then, why are your 'terms' to disarm me? Do you object to my RKBA's while on my way to & from work?

I don't want to disarm you, I want to reserve my property rights.

Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

Do you really want to live in a country where you can't eject a visitor from your home or business if he offends you?

What's 'offensive' about locking up a gun in your car while you're at work, or visiting?

_____________________________________

Except different provisions in the constitution apply to different authorities. Some apply to Congress, some to the president.

Specious effort to distract from the issue. Why are you fighting the fact that you have no power to unreasonably restrict my RKBA's?

But are you claiming that all provisions restrict the people?

All provisions are the law of the land, which we citizens are all bound to support & defend.

Why do you want to say the Constitution says something it doesn't? You are saying that as long as you carry a gun, you can go wherever you want. Yes you are. You wrote that I can't restrict you from my property for carrying a weapon.

I've been asking you why you want to restrict me from having a gun in my car or a knife in my pocket. Or, -- why you think you have the power to ban smoking in my home.

-- I asked if you can explain it, -- Why the silence?

I cannot take away your right to carry weapons. But you can't take away my right to exclude you from my property. Isn't that fair?

Its 'fair' to reasonably exclude me from your property for cause. What's your cause?

Dan wrote:

True enough, but he, just like everybody else in the USA, is bound by our Law of the Land.

You wrote:

-- The restrictions mentioned above violate the Constitution, based on your logic. The property owner above has limited the 1st Amendment rights of the people involved. Why are these actions okay, in your view?

That's not "my logic", its your effort to raise a straw man.

Dan replied:

-- And yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But it does not sanction citizens. It says "Congress shall make not law". It tells the government what it can and cannot do, not citizens.

You can't have it both ways. Citizens have an obligation to "support & defend".. You must swear an oath to that effect to become naturalized. The same principle applies to all of us born here.

Dan replied:

You wrote:

Care to address this point? Following your logic, a private property owner could not do any of these things, either.

-- Why is it important to you [or anyone] to disarm everyone that is invited to park on your land?

As you see, I addressed Dan's point.
-- And seeing that your straw man is not my logic, consider your remark addressed as well.

That's not "my logic", its your effort to raise a straw man.

It's not a straw man. You claim that the Constitution prevents private citizens from banning handguns from their property. Wouldn't it also prevent private citizens from banning certain expressions of 1st Amendment rights on private property?

simply put, if I don't have the right to ban firearms on my private property, I also don't have the right to ban political speech I don't like. Or do you somehow see a distinction between the two?

Why is it important to you [or anyone] to disarm everyone that is invited to park on your land?

That's not really a relevant question. If you decide to exclude me from your property, you don't owe me an explanation.

Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

It does if I am not allowed to decide whether or not you can bring that gun onto my private property.

What's 'offensive' about locking up a gun in your car while you're at work, or visiting?

That's up to a private property owner to decide. He may simply not like guns.

Why are you fighting the fact that you have no power to unreasonably restrict my RKBA's?

That is not a fact. The fact is, you have no right to bring any item onto another's private property contrary to their rules or wishes.

All provisions are the law of the land, which we citizens are all bound to support & defend.

Sure. However, there exists no right to carry items onto another's private property contrary to their wishes. There is a right to bear arms, but that right has NEVER extended to another's private property.

I've been asking you why you want to restrict me from having a gun in my car or a knife in my pocket. Or, -- why you think you have the power to ban smoking in my home.

Your characterization of the issue is misleading. Nobody wants to prevent you from having a gun in your car or a knife in your pocket. Rather, you are the one who wants to prevent a private property owner from deciding what items come onto his property. Furthermore, you are the one who is closer to supporting smoking bans than we are. After all, a smoking ban involves government rules telling a private property owner what they can and cannot ban or allow on their property. That is exactly what you are in favor of when you say that the government should force private property owners to allow guns on their property.

Its 'fair' to reasonably exclude me from your property for cause. What's your cause?

Some property owners don't like guns or are concerned about liability in case of a shooting. That is cause enough.

Dan wrote:

True enough, but he, just like everybody else in the USA, is bound by our Law of the Land.

You wrote:

-- The restrictions mentioned above violate the Constitution, based on your logic.

See my bold answer. That's "my logic".

The property owner above has limited the 1st Amendment rights of the people involved. Why are these actions okay, in your view?

That's not "my logic", its your effort to raise a straw man.

It's not a straw man.

You ignored my "true enough" in an effort to misconstrue my comment.

You claim that the Constitution prevents private citizens from banning handguns from their property.

I'm questioning you on why is it important to you [or anyone] to disarm everyone that is invited to park on your land? -- [and getting no rational answers]

Wouldn't it also prevent private citizens from banning certain expressions of 1st Amendment rights on private property? -- simply put, if I don't have the right to ban firearms on my private property, I also don't have the right to ban political speech I don't like. Or do you somehow see a distinction between the two?

All I see is you in an effort to confuse the real issue:

Why is it important to you [or anyone] to disarm everyone that is invited to park on your land?

That's not really a relevant question. If you decide to exclude me from your property, you don't owe me an explanation.

Our Constitution, in many important aspects, is a social contract. -- You are trying to alter the terms of that contract by infringing on my right to bear arms on the way to & from work.

Admit it.

I'm questioning you on why is it important to you [or anyone] to disarm everyone that is invited to park on your land? -- [and getting no rational answers]

I've told you the answer. Some people don't like guns. Others are concerned about liability issues. Are these good reasons? Maybe not to you, but certainly to the property owners.

Our Constitution, in many important aspects, is a social contract. -- You are trying to alter the terms of that contract by infringing on my right to bear arms on the way to & from work.

Not at all. Even if I ban guns from my property, you are free to have a gun on your way to and from my property. It's your problem if you can't figure out how to do that and also follow my rules on my personal property. As a private property owner, I am under no obligation to help you exercise your Constitutional rights.

Park elsewhere. Car pool with someone who works at a place that doesn't ban guns. Rent a storage locker across the street. Quit and take another job at a company that doesn't impose such rules. Whatever. It's your problem, not mine.

Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

It does if I am not allowed to decide whether or not you can bring that gun onto my private property.

Circular, specious non-answer.

What's 'offensive' about locking up a gun in your car while you're at work, or visiting?

That's up to a private property owner to decide. He may simply not like guns.

Our Constitution says we all have a RKBA's. He may not "like" that, but he is bound by it. He is not to unreasonably infringe upon it.

Why are you fighting the fact that you have no power to unreasonably restrict my RKBA's?

That is not a fact.

Read the clear words of the 2nd.

The fact is, you have no right to bring any item onto another's private property contrary to their rules or wishes.

It is contrary to the 2nd's clear words, -- a form of public policy if you will, -- to infringe on our RKBA's. Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

___________________________________

All provisions are the law of the land, which we citizens are all bound to support & defend.

Sure. However, there exists no right to carry items onto another's private property contrary to their wishes.

Having a gun in my car does not challenge your property rights.

There is a right to bear arms, but that right has NEVER extended to another's private property.

I've been asking you why you want to restrict me from having a gun in my car or a knife in my pocket. Or, -- why you think you have the power to ban smoking in my home.

Your characterization of the issue is misleading. Nobody wants to prevent you from having a gun in your car or a knife in your pocket.

Nobody? Mrs Brady & millions more differ. So does the employer you defend.

Rather, you are the one who wants to prevent a private property owner from deciding what items come onto his property. Furthermore, you are the one who is closer to supporting smoking bans than we are.

What are you smoking?

After all, a smoking ban involves government rules telling a private property owner what they can and cannot ban or allow on their property.

And this employer is trying to ban smoking by his employees.

That is exactly what you are in favor of when you say that the government should force private property owners to allow guns on their property.

We have an inalienable RtKBA's.. Your position is that private parties can, without reason, infringe upon that right. I say no.

[I say] -- Its 'fair' to reasonably exclude me from your property for cause. What's your cause?

Some property owners don't like guns or are concerned about liability in case of a shooting. That is cause enough.

Thank you Ms Brady.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.