No discrimination against gun owners
TN had a proposed law addressing that. Looks like it’s catching on as Missouri has one in the works:
Legislation that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against people because they own or use guns overwhelmingly passed the Missouri House before lawmakers left for spring break.
I know that gun activists are winning but some of these laws, like this one, have me wondering if it’s getting taken too far.
March 15th, 2012 at 11:33 am
I’d be more satisfied with a more general bill that prohibited discrimination in the workplace for any exercise of protected civil rights that does not touch upon the business.
Own/don’t own guns? None of the business’s business.
Attend/protested gay rights parade? None of the business’s business.
Sent letter to editor (not identifying oneself as an employee)? None of the business’s business.
Catholic? None of the business’s business.
For/against abortion? None of the business’s business.
Like to get freaky/missionary position only (not in the janitor’s closet)? None of the business’s business.
Campaign for/against Obama on your own time? None of the business’s business.
Buy Starbuck’s coffee? BURN THEM AT THE STAKE
March 15th, 2012 at 11:47 am
I think employers should be allowed to discriminate based on any criteria they consider in their interest, including specifically civil rights and health status. If an employer thinks a criterion is relevant to their business interest, that is enough. The solution to pregnant women needing jobs is not to force the lead smelting plant to hire pregnant women. If my business model involves aerosolizing pig fat(pig fat candles – seems like a gold mine!), the government should not shut me down because a Muslim might want to work for me.
Now, disciminating against customers is a different issue, one that I think falls properly under interstate commerce. But reasonable people can disagree.
March 15th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Actually, this is GOOD Law. One should NOT be Fired nor Denied a Job because one engages in a Legal/Constitutional Activity.
For example: several Hospitals up here have announced that they are so “Smoke Free’, that they have FIRED Employees who Smoke. Yet, several years ago, the State Imposed a $10 a carton Surtax to help their Budget. And Cleveland put on a “Sin Tax” (which is still in effect) to give the Browns a New Football Stadium for them to Suck at. So those Employees who engage in a Legal, State-Sponsered Action can lose their Jobs.
Just look at the Article. Look at the Companies who want to keep those who have the RKBA OUT of their Workplace.
What do you think would happen if those same Companies told their Female Employees that they could be Fired if they ever had an Abortion? How long do you think THAT would last?
So what do you think would happen if some IT Company was interviewing Joe Huffman or Robb Allen and they were told “Gee, you’re just PERFECT for the Position, but since you own Guns, we can’t Hire you?”
Sorry. Left, Right, Centrist, Wookie, it doesn’t matter. If it’s Legal and Constitutional, there should be NO Punishment meted out. And if it’s 2 Rights in Conflict, then the old “Your Fist at My Nose” rule applies.
March 15th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
This law is awesome, right up until the time enough anti-gun people get back in charge and they use this new found power to force companies to fire gun owners as some sort of safety hazard.
When you allow the government the power to require businesses to hire people they don’t want to for reasons you agree with, don’t come bitching to me when the same power is used against you.
In other words, shut up and enjoy your short and curly soup.
March 15th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
(Should have had a link there to this)
March 15th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
As to why, try living in the Chicago area. Father (Snuffy) Pfleger is not extreme or atypical not just for Chicago but I’m referring to surrounding counties where I live.
However I think Robb Allen’s point is correct.
“This law is awesome, right up until the time enough anti-gun people get back in charge and they use this new found power to force companies to fire gun owners as some sort of safety hazard”
Unfortunate but true.
NukemJim
March 15th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Don’t know who said it first…
Any government with the power to do anything for you has the power to do anything to you.
March 15th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
I don’t like this.
Government shouldn’t be using coercive force in my favor.
March 15th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Colorado already makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against employees for any lawful off-duty activity unrelated to their actual work.
March 15th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
It violates freedom of association, pure and simple. If it applied only to government entities, I’d be all for it.
Liberty, people– it cuts all directions.
If government can violate your employers’ right to disassociate from you, it can also violate your right to hire, fire, boycott and buycott based on your preferences.
March 15th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
I concur with DustyDog and some of the others here that think that government needs to just butt out and let businesses do whatever they want to their employees. Where does the government get off thinking they need to protect a citizens rights? Especially from his employer?
Hell, I’ve had some employees whose eighth amendment rights I would have *LOVED* to have abridged! Cruel and unusual punishment is THE WAY to ensure the job gets done, right fellas?
And so far, I haven’t thought about that pesky fifth amendment but hey! if you deprive the mail room clerk of his life the rest of the employees are sure to work twice as hard, right?
I am WAY on your sides guys!
March 15th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
I’m with Lyle and the rest – none of the State’s business.
(Though it’s refreshing that this is at least not a Federal thing, as the Federal government has even less business being involved in that than the States do.)
I’d rather have well-meaning people and jerks be able to fire people at will than have the State involved in deciding that they can’t fire anyone without making up an approvable reason – because the jerks will always find a way to drive you to quit, or find a pretext.
And then it’s lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits.
Not worth it.
March 15th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
None of the state’s business whether someone else violates my rights?
Really? Then what, exactly, *IS* the state’s business?
John Locke said that one of the few legitimate functions of government was to protect the rights of its citizens. Are you saying that I don’t have a right to protect myself? That the right to self-protection is not a natural extension of my right to life?
If the state has no business interfering in conduct between a business and an employee, answer this:
Can a business require, as a condition of employment, that I sell my first born child into slavery to them?
Hyperbole? Certainly. But still a valid question into the limitations of a business as regards its employees. So, can it?
March 15th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
In an extremely different example, the current administration is trying to force the Catholic Church to pay for birth control and abortion. Oh, the gummint says the insurance company does the paying — but it’s going to be reflected in the prices the Church pays for insurance.
This is one example of a government pushing its ideas of How Things Should Be onto an organization. The rule against discriminating against gun owners is a closer analogue to this than it immediately appears to be. The main difference is the people pushing it: most of the people in favor of the birth control mandate are liberals. Most of the people in favor of the gun mandate tend, I suspect, more to the conservative.
These guesses at statistics leave out libertarians and the middle of the political spectrum. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited by law.
March 15th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Well, KB, come into my office and make sure you bash my company. Do you think i will respect your speech or kick you out?
March 15th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Can a business require, as a condition of employment, that I sell my first born child into slavery to them?
Since there is no such thing as the right to enslave, this extrapolation breaks badly enough to confirm the failure to grasp the nature of rights as evidenced in your primary point.
It should be plain to you that if you say profane things in a man’s house and he kicks you out for it, he is not violating your First Amendment rights. HIS 1stA rights permit him to set terms regarding what HE believes is or isn’t profanity. Your only options extend only to accept, reject or counter-propose other terms.
The same 1stA principles apply here. You are free to accept, reject or counterpropose terms, but not to force them upon another – i.e. you cannot dictate terms to another person.
This is principles of liberty 101. No slavery or equivalent here – your rights are not being violated. If you don’t get it, you aren’t qualified to discuss this as the others are – particularly Robb Allen, who is thinking a few moves ahead.
March 15th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
On the gripping hand, since businesses are already told who they can or can’t arbitrarily hire or fire based on a multitude of Federally-designated, legally protected criteria, we shouldn’t act like this is some novel invasion of employer’s rights.
Two (or a dozen) wrongs don’t make a right, but since all of the existing imposition isn’t magically going away in any of our lifetimes, it is hardly the end of the world (or principle) to add one more.
Particularly one that does at least implicate second-hand the effective, practical exercise of the inalienable right to self-defense for folks denied the natural tools needed in the “state of nature.”
So, not for it, and don’t support it philosophically, but real-world my “agin’it” level is very low, bordering on “meh.”
March 15th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Allow me to fuck with your law… What happens when the owner of said property starts another company and leases his own parking lot from the other company??? Lots of businesses do things like that to get around arbitrary penalties.. Since none of the employees work for said new company then there is nothing they can do if the new company bans them from possessing weapons on said property.
March 16th, 2012 at 1:16 am
The freedom of speech issue is an interesting journey down the memory hole.
The Federalist papers pretty clearly define that the first amendment protection of freedom of speech was to protect “political” speech. Our courts over the last century have stretched “freedom of expression” into a wreck that would have any one of our founders scratching his head. Most of them supported anti-obscenity and anti-blasphemy laws.
So, would you fire someone who supports the other candidate?
Would you fire someone because of their religion?
There are going to be overlapping areas where one person’s rights conflict with another person’s rights. As the government’s legitimate purpose is to protect those rights, this is where the courts get involved. And yes, that gets messy.
It would be much better if people just minded their own business. What church I attend, what party I support and what I have in my pockets is my business. Employers should butt out of that.
But when employers decide they want to disarm me, or require me to contribute to the “Elect your manager’s brother-in-law to the school board fund” or decide what bumper sticker someone has, I’m going to come down on the freedom for the employee side.
Sorry if that disturbs anyone.
March 16th, 2012 at 7:37 am
Out of curiosity, just how prevalent is discrimination against gun owners in TN?
Really, I just don’t know.
This looks like a red-meat law meant to gin up some base while not really changing anything. If they really wanted to be pro-gun, they’d be smarter to sue the Federal over 922 restrictions or NFA. A state could pass a law to “legalize” something and then have standing to sue the Federal over their restriction of what would be allowable under state statute. In general.
Noted in the article is that legislation aimed at letting people keep lawful guns in cars hasn’t even been heard on the floor. I think that would have more effect than this bill. But they can pass this weaker provision and still get the votes…
March 16th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Its not much discrimination wise… This is one of those laws that is fixing a problem that really has no bearing on things one way or another.
March 16th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Employers with arbitrary hiring/firing practices end up getting what they deserve. Any employer that hires/fires on any basis other than the employee does the work required satisfactorily or better is automagically making their business less efficient than their competition, let them knock themselves out. Their competitor that cares more that Joe Gunowner is a damn good sysadmin will get a better IT department than the dumbs employer. Natural law works, always.
March 16th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
We obviously need more discussion on the meaning of “rights”. It seems even a lot of well meaning people have no idea.
March 17th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
I find every notion of a “protected class” to be a disgusting antithesis of liberty, so, with that said, I am all for this particular legislation – once everyone becomes “special”, no one is, and maybe we can remember that.
March 17th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
John,
Tennessee’s eventual parking lot law would likely cover that, either under the lot being open to the public, or under basic contract law, contract provisions that violate the law, requiring the lessee to bar their employee’s firearms in the lot in contradiction of the law for example, are unenforceable.