A couple of things in response to your post. First, an employer conditioning employment on certain behavior is not a deprivation of constitutional rights. For example, requiring that an employee work certain hours is not a deprivation of freedom, but it is allowed. That is because no one is forced to comply. Either party can “quit” at any time.
Second, any of these protections COULD be done by statute even though there is no constitutional protection against private entities. A state or federal law could prohibit job discrimination based on whether one smokes or drinks off the job (or on the job, for that matter), or a law could protect the right to carry guns on the job. But without such laws, the rights of private property and personal choice rule.
I think any employer [or 'private entity'] attempting to deprive a worker of his/her constitutional rights, both inside or outside of the workplace, - should have a long look at their own concepts about our constitution, and its protection of individual rights.
Private property rights do not trump our rights to carry arms. -- To rational people the two rights coexist without controversy.
How is your property threatened by an armed visitor or worker?
A couple of things in response to your post.
First, an employer conditioning employment on certain behavior is not a deprivation of constitutional rights.
Conditioning employment on infringing the carrying of arms, -- and/or ownership, -- is a deprivation of 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights.
For example, requiring that an employee work certain hours is not a deprivation of freedom, but it is allowed. That is because no one is forced to comply. Either party can 'quit' at any time.
Equating working hours agreements, -- with prohibiting employees from carrying arms, -- is not a comparable example.
Second, any of these protections COULD be done by statute even though there is no constitutional protection against private entities. A state or federal law could prohibit job discrimination based on whether one smokes or drinks off the job (or on the job, for that matter), or a law could protect the right to carry guns on the job. But without such laws, the rights of private property and personal choice rule.
Private property rights do not trump our rights to carry arms. -- Among rational people the two rights coexist without controversy.
How is your property threatened by an armed visitor or worker?