Posted on 07/29/2014 2:15:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On July 25 the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit "eliminated the injunction" against the enforcement of Florida's "gun gag" law, which restricts doctors from asking patients if they own a firearm unless asking is necessary to a patient's treatment.
According to Law360.com, the 11th Circuit ruled that barring doctors from asking about firearms "doesn't violate the First Amendment."
Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) signed the NRA-backed "gun gag" legislation in 2011. Suit was brought against the State of Florida over the law by "the Florida chapters of the American Academies of Pediatrics and American College of Physicians along with a number of other groups and the anti-gun community."(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I give up.
It looks like just about EVERYONE here will get Block 3 checked off, with Block 3 meaning “likely owns guns, and is belligerent or hostile”.
Block 2 is: “owns guns, but appears to understand the responsibilities of ownership”. You get that if you admit to having guns, but politely answer all questions.
Block 1 is: “appears to not own guns and answered question politely”. You get that mark, of course, if you respectfully say no.
I prefer to be classified as Block 1, in case I ever need to call the police.
“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.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
Thanks, I had seen that before...believe me it’s engraved in my soul.
“Actually, that is no true. It protects speech. It has been used by pornographers to defend their material.”
Maybe, but if that were the case, as others posted here (in effect), then realtors could say something like “blacks not welcome” in their listings. Free speech died at least 50 years ago in the US...in some cases for the better (as above), and in many cases for the worse.
...if we’re going to regulate speech, which of course we do, then we might as well benefit from it too.
...if we’re going to regulate speech, which of course we do, then we might as well benefit from it too
He has been proven right.
“I disagree.”
I guess we’ll disagree...I just prefer my kids not be interrogated by their doctor regarding guns (which did happen here, about 10 years ago).
Not answering, is still answering what they really want to know. They are making lists and checking them twice to make sure they don't miss anyone.
They can't ask how old you are either, but they can ask when you graduated from High School.
So?
Why?
I’m 60 but look about 50. I’m a contractor in IT. I’ve actually shaved ten years off my early resume.
Why?
To prevent unjust discrimination based on those factors, because it should be irrelevant to whether or not they can do the job or how much you would pay them.
An employer, for example, might believe that married women are likely to get pregnant and have to take maternity leave, disrupting their operations. Or they may want to pay a married woman less because supposedly her husband is the main bread winner. Or a family may cost more on the company insurance plan than an individual. Or a member of a particular religion might have to take certain days off. Or you just might not like members of a particular religion and don't want to hire them for that reason alone.
Understood, but where have you seen any TRUE logic vs. Constitution from the SCOTUS? (sadly NOT /s)
...you DO NOT want to find out.
Okay. That’s fine for government jobs financed by tax dollars.
But is a private employer a private employer, or not?
But is a private employer a private employer, or not?
I'm not defending it. I'm just giving the rationale. It's not completely off base.
However, I do think private employers should have a whole lot more leeway than the government, with the possible exception of for-profit government contractors. If people don't like the fact that a particular private company doesn't hire married women, for example, then they don't have to patronize them, or they can go into competition with them and hire married women. But when we talk about government employers, then I think it really does become a civil rights issue. And since for-profit government contractors are being paid by the taxpayer, I think they should probably be treated like the government in these matters.
Works for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.