You make a valid point. Now, how about employees? Should they be required to continue to work for an employer after, say, they receive expensive training? If an employee disagrees with an employer's political beliefs, should he be required to continue to work for the employer? If a boss takes up smoking (during after work hours only), must all employees continue to work for this boss, or should they be allowed to quit if they don't approve of smoking?
Most people have NO trouble with employees who discriminate. Most people, even conservatives, ignore the property rights aspects of this discussion. Employers own the business, and should be allowed to do with it what they please.
But they only RENT the employees.
Yes. In fact most companies have in their handbook that if you receive employer paid for training and you quit before a certain amount of time has passed you are responsible to repay the company for what they have laid out.
Employers own the business, and should be allowed to do with it what they please.
And I should never disapprove or say that something is not right?
Once again note that I never said it was illegal. Nor did I say that it should be. I am saying that it is not right and is a sign of a poor corporate culture which, if not corrected, will ultimately lead to the company losing business.
Your apparent belief that as long as it is legal that no one should disapprove and state their disapproval is part and parcel of where new and restrictive laws come from.
By the way, the employer James Hagedorn, does not own the business. He is an employee of the stockholders in Scott's Worldwide.