[NCLaw441]

You posted: I wonder if this same liberal twit judge would rule that employers could require that employees have no guns in their homes either?
***

Could you refuse to work for an employer who didn’t keep a gun in his home? Or would that be illegal? Could you refuse to work for an employer who DID keep a gun in his home? Or would THAT be illegal? I think it is perfectly legal to make that decision as an employee. Why, then, should an employer not be allowed to make the same decision? This also applies to smoking, drinking, bad language, playing frisbee or any other behavior. If it is important to either the employer or employee, each may base employment decisions on that issue. Freedom is a great thing when WE want to practice it, but sometimes less great when others want to do the same.

[Beagle8U]

So your argument is that anything an employer wished to require of his employees would be OK?

Regardless of of the Constitution or bill of rights?

[Idaho Whacko]

We still have laws protecting the rights of employees, why not the right to not be disarmed? The excesses of the Rockefellers et al are why we have so many labor laws today.

[calex59]

Could you refuse to work for an employer who didn’t keep a gun in his home? Or would that be illegal? Could you refuse to work for an employer who DID keep a gun in his home? Or would THAT be illegal? I think it is perfectly legal to make that decision as an employee. Why, then, should an employer not be allowed to make the same decision? This also applies to smoking, drinking, bad language, playing frisbee or any other behavior. If it is important to either the employer or employee, each may base employment decisions on that issue. Freedom is a great thing when WE want to practice it, but sometimes less great when others want to do the same.

You can't be so stupid as to believe any empolyer has the right to tell employees what they can do in their own home, or on their own time, as a condition of employment. An employer can only put conditions and rules on the time they are paying you, so if they want to pay a person 24 hours a day(and I don't mean saleries, because that has already been argued and found wanting), I mean actually pay you for every minute of every day, THEN just maybe they could tell you what to do after office hours. The fact of the matter is, if they tried to tell you a condition of employment was to be unarmed at home as well as on the premises you would be legally obliged not to comply with the "at home" provision. The reason? Because you cannot voluntarily give up your rights under the constitution.

It isn't legal, although they are trying it at some work places, to tell you that you can't smoke on your on time let alone tell you that you are unable to excersize your constitutional rights on your own time.

Your argument about freedom is full of many holes, I suggest you read more about freedom and the responsibilities that go along with it.

[no-s]

Should we also protect the right of the employer to discriminate on the basis of race or religion?

The thesis is the existence of guns constitutes the primary hazard, ignoring the widely available evidence to the contrary.

[mamelukesabre]

“....If it is important to either the employer or employee, each may base employment decisions on that issue...”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So if I start my own business I can put a sign in the window that says “no muslims allowed”? or “no spanish language allowed”? or “no hiphop culture allowed”?

[mamelukesabre]

“....If it is important to either the employer or employee, each may base employment decisions on that issue...”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So if I start my own business I can put a sign in the window that says “no muslims allowed”? or “no spanish language allowed”? or “no hiphop culture allowed”?