[Zon]

stop counter arguing something I am not asking. Address the philosophical question I posed honestly.

I usually stop responding when obfuscation and stubborn irrationality persists. When it doesn't stop, that's why I cut off responding a couple months ago. Sadly that it has to come to that so often on this forum. Or any forum for that matter.

Either you compromise each somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways.

Same holds for race, sex, age, religion, sexual preference and any other thing that a person can freely chooses to just say "no" to and walk away.

[tpaine]

In Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007, -- U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich found that "allowing an employer to terminate an employee for exercising a clearly established constitutional right jeopardizes that right, even if no state action is involved."

Nor can employers require you to waive your protected rights.
They cannot, as a condition of employment, require you to give up your right to vote; neither can they require you to give up your right of self-protection or your right to keep and bear arms.

Thus, -- we see that a [constitutionally based] 'public policy' compromise has been made [in the workplace] -- between an absolute personal right to be armed, --- and a business owners right to control employees behavior on the job.

Employees can carry ~to~ the job, and leave their arms locked in their vehicles while working.

Why is this compromise opposed? Who benefits by restricting the individuals right to carry?

Lex Baird complains about the above argument:

Stop counter arguing something I am not asking. Address the philosophical question I posed honestly.

I contend that the argument above does answer your questions.

Either you compromise each [right] somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways.

Agreed, as per above. --- A [constitutionally based] 'public policy' compromise has been made [in the workplace] -- between an absolute personal right to be armed, --- and a business owners right to control employees behavior on the job. --
-- That's essentially what this article is about.

Zon 'piles on':

I usually stop responding when obfuscation and stubborn irrationality persists.

Nothing in the above argument entails "obfuscation and stubborn irrationality". -- Feel free to prove otherwise.

When it doesn't stop, that's why I cut off responding a couple months ago.

You 'cut off' our discussion on this issue, -- because you can't refute the arguments I've made defending our right to carry arms. -- I welcome any efforts to prove me/or that stance "irrational".