[TexasGunLover]

California because the state has laws that prohibit employers from making hiring or firing decisions based on employee participation in a legal activity.

Private companies should be able to hire and fire and employee people on any criteria they want. That's why they're private. If people don't like it, they can work somewhere else.

If I own a business and don't want to hire people with tattoos or drive a red car, it's absurd the government can tell me, as a private business owner, otherwise.

[Moose4]

No way I’d ever work for that guy. I can see certain situations where an employer might want to restrict their employees from smoking at work, and MAYBE from smoking at home (if a job demanded peak physical performance, perhaps). But not allowing a spouse to smoke? No way.

He may be within his rights to do it in some states, but good luck getting people to work for a martinet like that.

}:-)4

[KarlInOhio]

What happens when all the money we've been sending to our Saudi friends < cough, cough> comes back to buy companies that enforce Sharia law on their employees.

[Pilated]

I wouldn’t work for the man or any company that was this power mad. I’d starve myself to death before working for this type.

[Pilated]

I wouldn’t work for the man or any company that was this power mad. I’d starve myself to death before working for this type.

[Pilated]

I wouldn’t work for the man or any company that was this power mad. I’d starve myself to death before working for this type.

[Polynikes]

I wonder if this is just the start? I doubt it it. I wonder if he will be so vigilant regarding employees who might contract AIDS insomuch as the modes of transmission are fairly well established at this time. Somehow I doubt it.