Posted on 04/20/2005 5:36:46 AM PDT by FlyLow
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.
"You're not going to smoke if you work here. Period."
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.
"Two hundred people in a room," Weyers recalls, "and they went at me."
"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.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Nope, they have a right to control access to their property. Just like that farmer who allows people on his property if they are unarmed. Why it that okay with you but you want to restrict the employer's rights?
But if you tell him he can't smoke at home, or have a gun in his car at work, you are infringing.
No, just saying he won't employ people who smoke or carry guns. That's different.
'Take away'? -- He's never had the 'right' to infringe on my RKBA's.
No, his right to decide who works for him.
Gun owners & smokers are immoral? -- Hmmmmm...
I don't think so but some people might. The point is we should have the right to decide for ourselves who we should associate with. If we don't exercise that right, then the government will do it for us in their usual ham-handed way.
We will be told that we have to hire, or house homosexuals to care for children and then we will sued or prosecuted if that homosexual molests kids. We may be told that we have to allow obvious gang members in our business and then be sued when they assault someone. We will be told we have to hire psychotics, or handicapped people who are not qualified to do the job.
Every time you chip away at the right of an employer to decide these things, we all lose.
Under english common law, the king got to say who could have weapons.
Yes, and maybe that's why they wrote the 2nd amendment -- to correct that flaw in the law. But all previous rights of citizens under common were retained when the constitution was written.
Oddly enough, under the old english common law, the common people had a 'right to pass' on most private property, if memory serves.
Yeah, but it was on established trails. Today they are called public roads. And today we have property rights.
So if you agree that a farmer can tell you can fish on his property as long as you don't carry a gun, why can't an employer tell you you can park in his lot as long as you don't bring a gun?
Typical to leave the waters nice and muddy.
A public school like the University of Utah should be bound by the 2nd amendment. No problem there.
But this steady erosion of treating private businesses as if they were public entities continues. It started a long time ago when the constitution was turned on its head and the restrictions on Congress suddenly applied to the states. Now they are saying that those same sanctions apply to citizens.
And people like you are buying it. So sad.
Nothing.
Exactly my point. And, - it's an unconstitutional policy in its attempt to disarm 'the people'.
It's a bad policy but Constitutional. It's like smoking. It isn't good for you but it's legal.
Private efforts to ban guns is bad but legal? -- You have a strange concept of how to 'support & defend' our principles.. --
He can voice that unreasonable condition, but he certainly does not have the power to search my car to see if I've complied. -- In fact, I see no reason or obligation to honor his dishonorable request. -- I would ignore it, & fish away, weapon at hand.
This is one formula for subverting justice with laws.
Read Article VI -- The Constitution has always applied to States & their officials. -- Just as it applies to all citizens & residents.
Now they are saying that those same sanctions apply to citizens.
Why do you refer to the provisions of our BOR's as "sanctions"? Why do you want citizens to be able to restrict & ignore the liberties of their peers?
And people like you are buying it. So sad.
You've bought into authoritarianism, not me..
No, not until the 14th amendment turned the Constitution on it's head. The 6th amendment says that state law can't override the Constitution, but the 9th and 10th say that states rights prevail unless mentioned in the Constitution and cannot be overwritten by Congress.
Of course, the 14th amendment changed all that. Before then, states were free to establish a state church because the 1st amendment only applied to Congress.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since property owners had always been allowed to decide who could be on their property, and employers had always been allowed to decide who their employees were, that right was retained when the Constitution was written.
Why do you refer to the provisions of our BOR's as "sanctions"?
Because they prohibit government agencies from creating laws against weapons.
Why do you want citizens to be able to restrict & ignore the liberties of their peers?
I don't. I don't want another citizen to pass a law banning gun ownership. I don't want him to be able to fine me or put me in jail for having a gun. I don't want him to be able to confiscate my property if I am a gun owner. I don't want any law against gun owners or the right to carry arms.
Employers should not be allowed to take away rights of citizens because they carry guns. But, yes, the employer can fire an employee for having a gun because a job is not a "right", it is a agreement between two people. A contract. So if an employer says he won't employ gun owners he is not taking away a right, he is not passing a law, he is merely exercising his right.
If your girlfriend says she's going to dump you unless you get rid of your guns, she is not violating the Constitution.
If a farmer says a fisherman can come on his land as long as he doesn't bring guns, he is not violating the Constitution.
You've bought into authoritarianism, not me
I am against authoritarian governments. But people should have authority over who they can select as their friends, peers, their clients, their employees, or their customers for whatever reason they choose.
My Gawd, are you a member of this man's family? Sure sou"nds like it!"
No I am not but I do weary quickly of whiners who don't seem to be able to find the exit door to the work place they are so unhappy with.
"I never had problems with authority. Life ain't' fair and the boss is the boss???!!! You are getting a little too personal towards me for my liking fella!"
To personal? Oh my, have I offended you? Based on your take of the man who owns and calls the shots in his own company I'm not at all surprised you would take offense.
Nothing.
Exactly my point. And, - it's an unconstitutional policy in its attempt to disarm 'the people'
Don't be silly. The Constitutionality of something has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an action "protects" something or is "reasonable".
Private efforts to ban guns is bad but legal?
Yes, people do all kinds of things that are bad, but legal. Smoking cigarettes, eating raw fish, sending their kids to public school. All stupid things, all legal, all Constitutional.
You have a strange concept of how to 'support & defend' our principles.
You ask any Freeper here and I think they would agree it would be strange (and dangerous) for you to to trespass on private property with a gun and expect the government to protect you from getting shot.
The principle this country was founded on was limited, republican government with enumerated powers. People were free to control other people only by the act of shunning people they thought immoral or using violence only in self-defense. Shunning, as you pointed out, can be a very potent sanction. But it is a much more civilized way of doing things than the court system.
I don't know who you think you are but you better learn to read better.
I never once said it shouldn't be up to the business owner. It SHOULD be left up to the business owner and not the government.
In fact, I see no reason or obligation to honor his dishonorable request. -- I would ignore it, & fish away, weapon at hand.
Then you are an authoritarian because you don't respect property rights.
It's a good thing most people don't agree with your bizarre interpretation of the Constitution. We would be legally required to suffer a lot of fools.
No, not until the 14th amendment turned the Constitution on it's head.
The civil war lead to the 14th. The rebel States refused to abide by Article VI, necessitating the reiteration of the concept in the 14th.
The 6th amendment says that state law can't override the Constitution, but the 9th and 10th say that states rights prevail unless mentioned in the Constitution and cannot be overwritten by Congress.
You quote them just below. I'll comment there on your misconceptions.
Of course, the 14th amendment changed all that. Before then, states were free to establish a state church because the 1st amendment only applied to Congress.
Not true. Utah tried, and failed, to become a 'religious' State well before the civil war.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
____________________________________
Article VI restricts the powers of the States, prohibiting State officials from ignoring our "supreme Law of the Land", --- "any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Read it and weep for your inability to understand. - 'States rights' cannot infringe on individual rights.
Since property owners had always been allowed to decide who could be on their property, and employers had always been allowed to decide who their employees were, that right was retained when the Constitution was written.
So you imagine. Our RKBA's is not to be infringed, by anyone..
Why do you refer to the provisions of our BOR's as "sanctions"?
Because they prohibit government agencies from creating laws against weapons.
Yet you champion individuals who are creating 'rules' against weapons. Hypocrisy.
Why do you want citizens to be able to restrict & ignore the liberties of their peers?
I don't. I don't want another citizen to pass a law banning gun ownership. I don't want him to be able to fine me or put me in jail for having a gun. I don't want him to be able to confiscate my property if I am a gun owner. I don't want any law against gun owners or the right to carry arms. Employers should not be allowed to take away rights of citizens because they carry guns.
Yet you champion individuals who are creating 'rules' against weapons. Hypocrisy.
But, yes, the employer can fire an employee for having a gun because a job is not a "right", it is a agreement between two people. A contract. So if an employer says he won't employ gun owners he is not taking away a right, he is not passing a law, he is merely exercising his right.
He is violating our Constitutional contract, that says our RKBA's shall not be infringed, by anyone.
If your girlfriend says she's going to dump you unless you get rid of your guns, she is not violating the Constitution. If a farmer says a fisherman can come on his land as long as he doesn't bring guns, he is not violating the Constitution.
Parse it as you will, -- people like that are anti-constitutional. And you are supporting & defending them, not our Constitution.
You've bought into authoritarianism, not me.
I am against authoritarian governments. But people should have authority over who they can select as their friends, peers, their clients, their employees, or their customers for whatever reason they choose.
Within reason, of course we can associate freely. But why are you choosing to associate & defend gun grabbers?
You ask any Freeper here and I think they would agree it would be strange (and dangerous) for you to to trespass on private property with a gun and expect the government to protect you from getting shot.
You're now imagining I'm advocating trespass & asking for government protection?
Now that is strange..
The principle this country was founded on was limited, republican government with enumerated powers. People were free to control other people only by the act of shunning people they thought immoral or using violence only in self-defense. Shunning, as you pointed out, can be a very potent sanction. But it is a much more civilized way of doing things than the court system.
?? - Preach away..
Sure he can, and I would thank him for his invitation, and arrive on his property flyrod in hand & weapons concealed.
--- In fact, I see no reason or obligation to honor his dishonorable request. -- I would ignore it, & fish away, weapon at hand.
Then you are an authoritarian because you don't respect property rights.
He has no 'property right' to disarm me. -- You've invented that 'right.'
It's a good thing most people don't agree with your bizarre interpretation of the Constitution. We would be legally required to suffer a lot of fools.
So you claim.. -- More the fool you.
In other words, you would agree to his terms and then go back on your word?
He has no 'property right' to disarm me. -- You've invented that 'right.'
But he isn't "disarming" you, he is just controlling access to his property on his terms.
If you tell a prospective employer that you won't work for him if he is a gun owner, are you "disarming" him?
We should support the Constitution not "principles". Not try to invent new "rights" like the right to armed trespass. That's what liberals do, they try to find new rights in the penumbras of the Constitution.
That's what you said you would do. When you set foot on property in violation of the owner's wishes you are trespassing. And, apparently, you expect the 2nd amendment to protect you.
Or do you just expect your gun to protect you?
Sure he can, and I would thank him for his invitation, and arrive on his property flyrod in hand & weapons concealed.
--- In fact, I see no reason or obligation to honor his dishonorable request. -- I would ignore it, & fish away, weapon at hand.
In other words, you would agree to his terms and then go back on your word?
I didn't agree to his terms. -- He has no 'property right' to disarm me. -- You've invented that 'right.'
But he isn't "disarming" you, he is just controlling access to his property on his terms.
You're parsing again. His 'terms' attempt to disarm me. I don't accept those terms, I ignore them.
It's a good thing most people don't agree with your bizarre interpretation of the Constitution. We would be legally required to suffer a lot of fools.
So you claim.. -- More the fool you.
But it isn't a infringement on a right for a private party to make a condition of access.
'States rights' cannot infringe on individual rights.
That's true. But we are talking about two individual rights. Property rights and the right to be armed. The only way to guarantee both rights is to allow both rights. You have a right to be armed. I have a right to keep you off my land.
But if have to answer in court as to the reason for keeping you off my land, then my property rights are gone. You could claim that someone tried to keep you off their land because you had a gun. And even if that weren't true, you could threaten them with a lawsuit. Better to give landowners sovereignty over their property.
Yet you champion individuals who are creating 'rules' against weapons. Hypocrisy
But it isn't a violation of your gun rights to not associate with a gun owner. It is the right of anyone to refuse to deal with you on any terms, not just gun ownership.
If a store owner says you have to wear a shirt in his store, he isn't restricting your right to go shirtless, he is controlling access to his store based on his terms.
But you want to insist that you have a right to come on to my property, armed, against my wishes then you are insisting that I have no property rights at all.
Don't you understand that if you allow that, private property is meaningless. All you would need to do is carry a gun and you could go anywhere you wanted whether the property owner wanted it or not.
Parse it as you will, -- people like that are anti-constitutional.
Perhaps, but don't you agree that they have that right of free association anyway? If we accept your interpretation, we would have the ludicrous situation where a woman could be sued for dumping her boyfriend because he owned guns.
And you are supporting & defending them, not our Constitution.
It seems that you want to support people you like and restrict people you don't like. I am supporting the Constitution.
Within reason, of course we can associate freely.
But the trouble with saying "within reason" is that it allows the legal system to determine what is reasonable in our free association. Why should the government be allowed to do that? And how can you possibly know what is in someone's mind when he rejects someone. Today we are swamped with lawsuits from people who claim they were discriminated against for a zillion different reasons. It has become an industry, "Pay me money and I will drop the suit".
But why are you choosing to associate & defend gun grabbers?
No, not gun-grabbers in general. People who don't want guns on their property. Or people who don't want to work and play with gun owners. That's different.
Why? Because I believe in property rights and the rights of individuals. One way our rights are being taken away is though erosion of private property rights. The legal climate has become so hostile that businesses, churches and private institutions are giving up their rights to the government in exchange for legal protection and protection from taxes. Allowing people to sue because they were "denied" some constitutional right would further this process.
As an example, employees often sue for bogus claims of "sexual harassment" leaving it up to a judge or jury to decide if it really occurred. Likewise, an employee could claim he was fired for owning a gun, even if that weren't really the case. The result is the private companies, which used to be a balance against government, are being subjugated to toe the statist line.
You see private businesses and property owners as a potential threat, I see them as a balance against the state. I would rather give property owners and employers more sovereignty over their domain. That way, they are not subject to this legal blackmail.
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.