>>Interesting that you consider the insistence that you agree to a positive obligation to provide for my safety should I accept your condition to enter your property to qualify me as “not a reasonable person.” Also interesting that pointing out what the law says qualifies me as “not a reasonable person.”
>
>When you accept a condition, responsibility then rests with you. I give you an option and you (as an adult) get to decide whether it is right for you. That’s who the big boy world works.
And you yourself rejected the counter-agreement that should I give up my being armed as a condition of entering your property that you assume responsibility for my bodily safety. Let me put it another way:
Let’s say that you did indeed extend a conditional invitation onto your property with the one condition being that I be unarmed; would you then be willing to sign a legally binding contract stating that you are legally and financially responsible for my safety while on your property?
>I have already addressed illegal conditions,
No you haven’t; you have in two places on this thread stated that:
a) even illegal conditions are legitimate, (Post 53: “How about this rule: If you come onto my property, as a rule of you staying, if my (nonexistant) gay brother-in-law visits he is allowed to rape you.”)
and
b) any illegal condition is null and void. (Post 76: “You cannot solicit people to commit illegal acts as a condition of entry, such as bringing drugs.”)
That, my friend, is a contradiction.
Ah, now you are entering the realm of counter-conditions, which is all well and good in a free society. Would I sign such a agreement? No, but then I never wanted you on my property to begin with. But I infer that you are asking whether it is reasonable for you to ask your employer to sign such a conditional contract, to which I would say, if you think its reasonable then it is defacto reasonable. I say this because I believe that it is you, not anyone else, that decides your conditions, and likewise, your employer, no you, that decides his. Compromise is always a possibility.
The purported contradiction you laid out is based on some heavy and willful parsing of my posts.