First of all in citizens United vs the FEC the Supreme Court held that congress cannot restrict corporations including not for profits from independent financial contributions under a first amendment analysis. Thus, at least according to the Supreme Court, business and corporations have a first amendment protection which is on point question directly disproving your statement that businesses do not have constitutional protections. So your argument is sunk on this simple point.
While you wrap yourself in the constitution, your application of it Is entirely incorrect. It is also actually a liberal argument. It’s ok. Lots of dues in the wool conservative fail to understand their arguments, rather parroting talking points. So let here is the answer to your question on point and what I had said all along.
The constitution, including the bill of rights and subsequent amendments define the government and its relationship to the people. The bill of rights to not grant rights, they restrict the government. But everything in the constitution defines the relationship between the government and the people.
Private relationships as described employment unless it occurs between the government and a person is bound by private contract. The Supreme Court has always been very deferential to private contracts in the rare instance that a purely private contract dispute rises to the level of the federal Supreme Court. The proper court of jurisdiction for private contract disputes are state district courts and falls under tort law. The final court of jurisdiction on these cases would be state level Supreme Court. Therefore while you site the federal in support of your argument and your attempt to grant some sort of legal backing to your argument, it does not exist. In fact, your are using the wrong rule book.
In terms of your direct question is there a line that limits what an employer can require an employee to do? Sure. That is the purpose of why private contracts exist. An employee employer relationship exists in the private setting. The parties are free to negotiate an agreement that is mutually satisfactory to both. Whatever that agreement is remains between the parties. In a purely at Will state of which there are five, unless restricted by a contract between the parties, an employer has the absolute discretion to employ or continue employment at his or her will with that persons will being dispositive.
What you seems to disagree with is that the employee has no rights. Completely untrue. An employee is free to negotiate the terms of employment and then enforce those terms of violated. In contract law where there is silence on an issue, there is no ability to enforce anything as contracts describe private relationships. If there is a crappy and unreasonable employer, the marker will correct this by the employer will rapidly find him or herself with no employees and unable to recruit. That is a a very efficient way of taking care of the problem. Without government interference.
I am of the opinion that I trust the free maker which you don’t seem to. I am further under the impression that no one has the right to the fruits of my private business or any other private business owners. As an owner I am equally entitled to negotiate with an employee terms of employment and ultimately the employee is free to not accept terms.
I have answered all your questions on point. Quite clearly we will not afeee on this. That’s ok. I assume we have significant common ground on other conservative issues and as looming large in the windscreen is a midterm of significant import, rather than perpetuating conflict, I think we should jointly fight for the large issues that are in fact a direct danger to our freedoms from a tyrannical government than these issues.
Thank you for your questions and the opportunity to explain what I know to be the correct interpretation of prevailing law.
So you think it is lawful for an employment contract to include a requirement that the boss bugger my kids? If not, why not?
There are limits to contracts.
Bottom line, no employer has a right to insist on me taking a medical treatment as a condition of employment, especially when it has nothing to do with my job.
And you’re a lying sack of $%^& for suggesting that I think that employers have no rights. Business rights are defined by law. They are not Constitutional rights.
Every Democrat agrees with you.
It is all Republicans defending the rights of individual bodily autonomy.