Sigh...I guess I'm going to succumb to thread-drift.
As I mentioned, I think we need to differentiate between truly private property (ie your home) vs "private" property that is open to the public or onto which you invite selected employees and customers. (ie Businesses)
On my truly-private property, I have the right to exclude most things I don't like: ie smoking, excessive swearing, perfume, whatever. Anyone who does things I don't like in my house is invited to quit or leave. However, my invited guests do not give up their right to life by entering my home when invited to do so... I can't simply kill them and say "well, when they stepped in my house they became part of my property." So there is a balance between the rights of the invited guest and the homeowner.
Yet there is a major difference between my home and invited guests, vs a business. No one HAS to come to my house to fulfill a basic need. On the other hand, if your biz is the only employer hiring in town, I may not have a lot of choice about coming in your biz as an employee. As a customer, if you're the only gas station within fifty miles, I might not have much choice about patronizing your biz.
A business is a different proposition from a private home. If you employ others, they are an essential part of your business...in a sense they are your partners, and should be treated as such. Ditto customers. In a perfect world it would be so...but employment of labor is usually a buyer's market and the employer often gets away with a lot of crap.
If you're not independently wealthy and don't have the capital to start a business of your own, you have to have a job to live. That, plus the fact that a business necessarily brings in non-owners (employees and customers) in order to function make it a bit different from truly-private property.
In balancing the rights of the owner vs the "guest":
1. The homeowner in his house has stronger rights against his guests', in most regards.
2. The business owner vs employee/customer balance is a little less slanted in favor of the property owner, because the property is privately owned but publically operated, and the employees and customers are essential to the survival of the biz.
"If you don't like it, find another job" is easy to say, but harder to justify, since every other employer in town might be just as bad or worse, or not hiring, etc.
Fundamental human rights protected by the Constitution need to be respected by the business owner, as long as they don't disrupt the conduct of business to a significant degree. Telling a Catholic they can't wear a cross at work has been determined to violate the 1st Amendment, for instance. Praying quietly at lunch is also an upheld right. OTOH, insisting on holding a loud, disruptive prayer meeting during lunch IN the employee lunch-room can be banned for being disruptive and disturbing other employees.
I think gun rights should be considered in a similar light. If there is not a very good, substantive reason that carrying a concealed weapon would disrupt business, then it should be protected as a right. If the biz is a chemical factory and an accidental-discharge could result in a huge disaster, then banning carry inside the biz would be reasonable.
OTOH banning someone from having a gun in their own car in the parking lot is an unreasonable intrusion by the business. The car is the employee's property. Banning them from having a gun in the car also bans them from having that protection going to and from work, arriving at home after work, etc.
Smoking...well that isn't a protected right under the Constitution. A biz owner can decide whether to allow it on his property or not. I think a wise biz owner would consider the wants of the majority of his customers and employees in making that decision.
Banning someone from smoking in their own car in the employee parking lot, now that is unreasonable under most conditions. If the parking lot is right next to the propane factory, you might have a case.
Last edited by Goshin; 03-28-09 at 01:21 PM.
So, for consistency's sake, those of you that agree with this, do you also agree that the government has the right to tell business owners that they cannot allow someone to smoke in their place of business?
No. you can still smoke in your car at ones place of work.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
I bet there will be a lot less parking lot brawls as you walk to your car in Texas refineries now.
Oh well.. I think most refineries are Federal Trading Zones and would not allow guns even in the parking lot.
Is society was made of coral our world would be floral.
"It's my business and I said no" simply is not good enough.
It's absurd to assume that I should automatically respect your rights as a business owner while you are standing there disrespecting my rights as a person.
IMO a business owner should have to seek a license to bar lawful concealed weapons from their premises so that any business owner is forced to demonstrate a genuine need to do so.
Last edited by Jerry; 03-28-09 at 02:05 PM.
Go Texas! Yeeehaww!
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
Ummm...excuse me, but if you actually paid attention to the thread, you would have noticed that as soon as Jerry clarified the issue, my hypocrisy check no longer applied, and I pretty much said so, thanking him for the clarification. Of course if it did still apply, I doubt you would pass.Nice try, but that's not what it says at all, as I believe Jerry clears up the post down from mine.
Now that I know exactly how you play this game, I'm gonna call you out on it. Nice try...
The subject at hand is what employees can have in their POV's while traversing to and from work. Not if they can pack heat in businesses.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius