Not necessarily. There are all sorts of limits to our free speech that have been upheld by SCOTUS. For example, you can't ask someone in a job interview if they're married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is. The same logic would apply here... there's no legitimate reason for the doctor to know whether or not a patient owns a gun unless it would affect their treatment (e.g., a patient who is suicidal). In fact, I think there's less of a reason for the doctor to ask about gun ownership than there is for an employer to know if a potential employee is married with kids, and SCOTUS has already upheld those free speech restrictions.
I mean, if they’ve been upheld by the SCOTUS, why it MUST be Constitutional, eh?
Interesting my copy of said document contains no such exemptions; nor does it specify the SCOTUS to be the end all of what is/not Constitutional.
Here I was, all this time, thinking is was We the People that decided and had Inalienable Rights...yes, HEAVY /s
For example, you can’t ask someone in a job interview if they’re married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is.
It is all a violation of the first amendment. The way they got away with it was that you had to be licensed. You could lose your license.
Sleazy. We are not free.
When I moved to central, KY, one of the proofs we are much more free here was when I saw a pickup truck at a traffic light, with four people riding in the bed. I’ve gone back in time 50 years in some very real - and good - ways.
“For example, you can’t ask someone in a job interview if they’re married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is.”
...and one can make a MUCH STRONGER case that these above questions are relevant regarding how the person will perform on the job - then knowing whether the child might get sick, just because a gun is in the house.
Why?