Judge Nixes Oklahoma's Guns-in-Locked-Cars Law

[brickeyee]

"There is literally no where to park unless you want to park in the ditch and walk half a mile to the plant."

So start walking.

 

[Outlaws]

I completely disagree. My car is MY property, not yours. What is in my car is my business, if you choose to let me bring my car onto your property then you can't get mad about what is in it. Either forbid me from bringing it altogether or accept that I also have property rights. What is inside my car is my domain, what is inside your property lines is your domain but that doesn't extend to my property. Just becuase you let me onto your property doesn't mean you automatically get to supercede my property rights and take control of my car, does it? Sure, you can tell me to leave, but that is altogether different than violating my sphere.

Wait a second here... If someone says, "You can bring your car into my parking lot as long as there are no guns," then you are agreeing to that or you are being forbidden from parking there altogether.

No one said someone can take control of your car or physically enter it, but it can be towed if you refuse to move it when asked.

If someone came into your home wearing a shirt with something that deeply offends you, you can tell them either remove that shirt or leave. That doesn't mean you have to be permanently forbidden, it just means that its MY house and YOU WILL do as I say. You have zero say in things...same thing with my parking lot (or driveway). We you are ON my property, my rights trump yours....if there is a problem with that, you comply or leave. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. My house, my rules. The Constitution doesn't say a single thing about your rights being good on my property.

 

[Car Knocker]

Just because a Right is enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution doesn't mean that it can't constitutionally be restricted. Rights aren't absolute.

 

[ronwill]

Private property is protected by the Constitution as is the RKBA. That is why the government can't forcibly board military in your house. While I disagree with their decision, employers have a right to decide what can and can't be brought onto their property. If you catch a burglar in your house does he have a civil right to have a gun and use it against you? Far to often we want to scream "I have a right" to do something, however, this isn't always the case. ALL RIGHTS have limitations.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This could get interesting. OSHA is, of course, an acronym for Occupational SAFETY and Health Administration. What the judge apparently thought he was doing was affirming the companies' right to decide how to provide what they consider to be a safe workplace.

But by now making it a matter of jurisprudence that banning guns from the workplace promotes worker safety, IMHO it also sets up a legal precedent for the argument many of us here have advanced (sometimes all or partially in jest) that by banning guns the company(ies) assume a responsibility -- a duty -- to ensure the workers' protection against assaults.

The first time a worker is assaulted on company property, I hope they haul out this decision and sue the company on the basis that, since you're claiming OSHA requires you to ban personal firearms, then OSHA requires you to protect me from bad people.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I have a question about some applications of that absolute right of business and property owners to make whatever rules they want about employee behavior on their property, especially those that involve their grave responsibilities to meet OSHA's concern for employee safety.

I've seen some people argue that women with long hair are endangered by some machinery. An employer who bans long haired women from employment, or from being in any building with it, or from being near it ... that employer has the right to ban longhaired women from its parking lots too. Right?

Other people argue that women just don't drive as well as men. Surely any employer who believes that can bar women drivers from its parking lots? Employees who don't like that policy can park elsewhere, as people here have pointed out so well, and can walk onto the employer's property.

Other people have argued that some races commit what they consider a disproportionate number of violent crimes. Armed with statistics to support that belief, wouldn't an employer would be remiss in hiring people from those races? I suppose that in such situations there might be conflict between some laws that require colorblind policies in hiring and other laws that require employers to have a safe working environment, but wouldn't the employer have the right to choose the laws to obey?

And, let's face it, an employer does have the right in many states to fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all. That same right extends to the employer's reign over his own property. So an employer should be able to decide that all all homosexuals wear pink triangles, all Jews wear yellow stars with "Jude" embroidered on them, all adulterers wear the letter "A" in red, and some selected women wear miniskirts. Taking into account the good argument made by TwitchALot and others, any employee who doesn't like it can work elsewhere. And if all employers in an industry decide to adopt the same policies, purely by coincidence or because it's industrywide practice, the employees always have the option of another line of work.

The U.S. Postal Service (since it has been given special attention here) could decide that those who deliver mail must not appear on its property unless they are dressed in clown suits, wear white makeup, and have big floppy shoes. But they may not wear such costumes once they are on USPS property. Postal workers then would have the options of dressing that way when they leave home, or changing in their vehicles or hired changing rooms off the USPS premises, or working elsewhere. By the way, I really like this idea.

Is it relevant, do you think, that many of the rights people have been discussing here are not specified in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? The Second Amendment is, the last time I looked, and it says something along the lines of "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't also say "except by OSHA" in the copy I have.

 

[LAR-15]

Your car=Your property

 

[TwitchALot]

I have a question about some applications of that absolute right of business and property owners to make whatever rules they want about employee behavior on their property, especially those that involve their grave responsibilities to meet OSHA's concern for employee safety.

I've seen some people argue that women with long hair are endangered by some machinery. An employer who bans long haired women from employment, or from being in any building with it, or from being near it ... that employer has the right to ban longhaired women from its parking lots too. Right?

That is correct. Now if it so happens that the employer wants to hire that employee, then the employer may dictate that people with long hair must wear caps to prevent their hair from getting in the way (as you may see in cafeteria workers). If the employee does not want to comply, or the employer does not wish to allow such an exception, then yes, that employer has the right to not hire long-haired women, or otherwise let them on his or her property. Likewise, if you don’t want to let a child rapist in your house, you don’t have to do so (in my system).

Other people argue that women just don't drive as well as men. Surely any employer who believes that can bar women drivers from its parking lots? Employees who don't like that policy can park elsewhere, as people here have pointed out so well, and can walk onto the employer's property.

That is correct. Now the question is, why don’t employers do this? I don’t believe it’s against the law to require employees to park further away, or otherwise not do something on the employer’s property. So why don’t they kick employees off of their lots, if such is the case? Likewise, if I don’t know you, I can bar you from coming into my home. I know you feel differently, but I like this system. And if you don’t, in MY system, you can let everyone in your house if you. But I wouldn’t be forced to do the same if I didn’t feel like letting just anyone enter in my home.

In your system, everyone has to let everyone who wants to go in their house in their house because the Constitution protects the right of people to peaceably assemble.

Other people have argued that some races commit what they consider a disproportionate number of violent crimes. Armed with statistics to support that belief, wouldn't an employer would be remiss in hiring people from those races? I suppose that in such situations there might be conflict between some laws that require colorblind policies in hiring and other laws that require employers to have a safe working environment, but wouldn't the employer have the right to choose the laws to obey?

Whether other races commit more crime or not is irrelevant. The employer has the right (or should have the right) to choose who it hires and who it fires. If an employer doesn’t want to hire someone with a criminal background, should he be forced to because of his skin color or any other factor? And in your world, since when does the employer have the right to choose? As far as I’m concerned, if you could reign over the matter and do as you wished, employers would only have the rights you want them to, and the right to choose clearly doesn’t seem to be one of them (unless you like who or what they choose, that is).

And, let's face it, an employer does have the right in many states to fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all. That same right extends to the employer's reign over his own property. So an employer should be able to decide that all all homosexuals wear pink triangles, all Jews wear yellow stars with "Jude" embroidered on them, all adulterers wear the letter "A" in red, and some selected women wear miniskirts. Taking into account the good argument made by TwitchALot and others, any employee who doesn't like it can work elsewhere. And if all employers in an industry decide to adopt the same policies, purely by coincidence or because it's industrywide practice, the employees always have the option of another line of work.

That is correct. The employee may choose not to work there, or may find another line of work. And if that employee is actually good at what they do, those who make policies that scare away such employees will pay for it. Assuming of course, a free society, whereby government does not assist in the discrimination (which it doesn’t have a right to do, IMO).

The U.S. Postal Service (since it has been given special attention here) could decide that those who deliver mail must not appear on its property unless they are dressed in clown suits, wear white makeup, and have big floppy shoes. But they may not wear such costumes once they are on USPS property. Postal workers then would have the options of dressing that way when they leave home, or changing in their vehicles or hired changing rooms off the USPS premises, or working elsewhere. By the way, I really like this idea.

The U.S. Postal Service is not a private organization. As such, it has no power to make discriminatory policies (it shouldn’t, anyway) or other policies that are unfair to any given group of people. At the same time, it should give no advantages to certain groups of people.

However, if it turns out that they want to do this clown thing, they may do so- provided that it applies to everyone. Of course, if it also turns out that it won’t get any workers, tough luck. They shouldn’t have the right to force anyone to work for them, however.

Is it relevant, do you think, that many of the rights people have been discussing here are not specified in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? The Second Amendment is, the last time I looked, and it says something along the lines of "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't also say "except by OSHA" in the copy I have.

No, it is not relevant. Property rights and constitutional rights are largely not in conflict with each other (See the other thread for a detailed explanation). And again, OSHA is not my concern at the moment (neither is current law). We are, unless I missed something, discussing how things should be- not how they are.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

In this discussion, as in many others on THR, the idea is often put forward that a person does not have a "right" to work or earn a living -- yet the idea that a person suddenly has the "right" to have a business and employees remains unquestioned. I would submit the idea that if one would want a business and/or the opportunity to hire employees, then one must give up some of their rights in regards to their property and their own "unlimited" right to contract.

Face it. Government exists to provide protections to the most rights for the most people. It has been recognized in our history that there rarely, if ever, was a time when employees had a level playing field with employers. Employees enacted laws through government to help that relationship. It's imperfect, but that's what we have.

I truly understand TwitchALot's points and generally agree with them, however we might as well now argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And I also must put in here a brief note regarding RH's writings: I may be smart, eloquent and going bald, but I'll never truly be Hairless.

(Ultimately, whether or not I agree with him, I sure hope to someday write like that.)

 

[Robert Hairless]

We are, unless I missed something, discussing how things should be- not how they are.

Yup, you missed something. The rest of us are talking about how things are as the result of a federal judge's decision in a specific case. It doesn't seem hard to read the titles on message threads.

I couldn't figure out what in the world you have been talking about so I'm glad you've just explained that you are talking about the way things are and the implications of that but about "how things should be" according to you. I don't know whose turn it is to set the rules for the rest of the world to follow but I'm sure that you're pretty far down on the list. It's not polite to cut ahead in the line of those waiting to become Ruler of the Universe.

Your explanation does help me understand why you seem to know so much, though, and why so much of that is distorted as if you were seeing the world reflected in a fun house mirror.

For example, your argument that all employers should be free to discriminate solely on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, and gender if that's what they want to do describes what you want this country to be like. A lot of the rest of us worked hard for a lot of years to fight against such discrimination and the people who advocate it. Your position, that employees who don't like it can and should go elsewhere, ignores the tragic consequences of such attitudes in the history of this country and others.

What you think works? It didn't and doesn't and won't and can't. The only kind of history that supports what you advocate as "how things should be" is the history you distort to support your bizarre vision of an ideal social order. It's a society in which the strong exploit the weak because they can do it and have some right to do it. You make the Constitution and Bill of Rights irrelevant because you are The Law. Although that might be "how things should be" in your view, it's not how things are or how they will be.

As soon as the people who have been agreeing with your twisted sophistry recognize where it leads and how it must affect them, at least some of them will see that you've distorted things to support your argument and get some insight into how you do it. You're not good at it.

In your distorted view of what I said about racial discrimination based on employers' views that some races commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, for example, you say: "And if that employee is actually good at what they do, those who make policies that scare away such employees will pay for it." But in fact those employers did not "pay for it" from whatever time racial discrimination was introduced into the world. Employees and those who needed employment in order to survive paid for it.

Your assertions are based on some whacky notion that there is a level playing field between those who pay people and those who need that pay for survival. That kind of level playing field does exist from time to time in some specific situations but it's uncommon and temporary, and usually it's a phenomenon in specialized occupations. The real marketplace--not the one in your head--is one in which a shortage of skilled employees in some occupation becomes known and quickly turns into a surplus. Employers publicize such situations.

What surprises and saddens me is that many people today forget their roots and the lessons of history. It would be astonishing if most of the people who read this thread are the sons and daughters of inherited wealth. Most, I suspect, are first or second generation members of the middle class, in it only because their parents, grandparents, and earlier ancestors worked and suffered to survive in the hope that their children might do better. And yet instead of remembering where they came from, how they got where they are now, and the cost that other people paid for their present status in life, they identify themselves otherwise. Social and economic status is fragile, and neither can be controlled by the person affected. We often give ourselves much more credit than we deserve for what we think are our own achievements.

Although Ayn Rand's notions of laissez faire capitalism make for a few minutes of interesting conversation when there is nothing better to do with the time, a society conceived as nothing more than a pit in which only the fit can survive is never more than a pit. In a previous message I mentioned the high school sophomore, and it was for the reason that such notions are essentially sophomoric with little regard for either the lessons of history or the obligations of humanity.

Your attempts to compare a person's home with a business are just silly. Sensible people, even judges and lawmakers, know the difference. You can too if you try real hard.

 

[Augustwest]

Come on folks seriously, forget about private property rights!!

Yeah, I don't think I'll be doing that today.

 

[k_dawg]

For those of you who claim there is an absolute property right to suspend the second amendment, do you claim there is an equal absolute property right to suspend the fourth amendment: that it is legal for a property owner to summarily charge/try/convict and execute one?

Somehow, I think you'll claim no, and thus, be a hypocrit of the highest order.

Second, how can you claim it is about property rights, and use OSHA as the basis of the ruling? Oh wait.. hypocrit again.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by lacoochee: If one of these employers was really concerned about worker safety they would hire an armed guard (again ironic) and put them behind a metal detector to search employees as they enter the actual plant.

Or if the employees were actually concerned about their safety they would hire bodyguards to escort them to work. Or they would not go to work until they have their safety issues adjusted.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Quote:
Originally posted by lacoochee: If one of these employers was really concerned about worker safety they would hire an armed guard (again ironic) and put them behind a metal detector to search employees as they enter the actual plant.

Or if the employees were actually concerned about their safety they would hire bodyguards to escort them to work. Or they would not go to work until they have their safety issues adjusted.

Yup. Lots of ridiculous possibilities along the way on roads that lead inevitably to the ridiculous. Employers do have rights and should have them. But, as with everyone else in a society, their rights are and should be limited. It's reasonable to discuss those limits and it's probably impossible to determine ideal boundaries.

I think that one goal of a society determined to be functional should be to accommodate as many of its people as possible when determining boundaries. It seems reasonable for employers to have the ability to rule that its employees should not carry firearms into the employer's buildings unless, perhaps, the nature of the buildings or of the work is such that the employee might be endangered without the means to defend himself against superior force.

But it's probably always wrong for an employer to set rules that deny employees the means to defend their lives when they are not on the clock. Overreaching is overreaching. The manager of an opera company does and should have the right to prohibit chorus members from playing rap CDs on stage during a performance of Carmen. That same employer should not have the right to prohibit those same employees from bopping away in their own vehicles while driving to and from the job, or from having rap CDs in their vehicles while parked: such a rule exercises overreaching control over the employees' private lives, and the inevitable consequence of one such rule is that it allows the employer to extend increasing control over the employee.

Employment is not slavery. It is a complex set of transactions in which the essential element is that the employee leases part of his life to the employer for the performance of a reasonably related set of duties in return for compensation. Employers--no matter how stridently anyone argues for their absolute rights over employees--have no reasonable right to determine what employees think while on the job, how they spend their earnings, who they marry, or any other aspect of their private lives. An employer's right to set rules for its employees should have some reasonable connection with the work that is at the heart of their employment. Employers who might take it into their heads to require young women to go topless on a factory line or young men to have their zippers open in an office are out of order, even if OSHA rules that some blouses can be dangerous near some machines or that some zippers can become magnetized and cause paper clips to fly through the air. OSHA might think it is God but delusion and self delusion should not go unchallenged.

The notion of an employer's right to determine what an employee can or can't have in his own vehicle on a parking lot is a ruse. Its purpose is backdoor gun control.

That purpose becomes clearer when the argument extends to some right of property owners to control the lives of customers and visitors by expanding such a prohibition to them too. Someone who stops for lunch in a Waffle House doesn't become the plaything of the business owner because she parked in its lot. Who in his right mind would argue that Waffle House has some right to search all cars parked there or to have gunpowder sniffing dogs inspect them, or to frisk people who have entered the restaurant?

It's perhaps not surprising that someone who advocates that businesses should be allowed to practice racial and religious discrimination might think that way but it's not the kind of thinking that should be applauded. The judge in that Oklahoma case made a bad decision with potentially awful consequences. People who want to avoid a dysfunctional society, especially those people who defend the Constitution, and most especially those people who abhor distortion of the Second Amendment--all of those people should be protesting this decision, not attempting to defend it, and should be shaming the businesses involved in it and the judge who made it.

 

[only1asterisk]

I have a question about some applications of that absolute right of business and property owners to make whatever rules they want...

Everything you mention thereafter is acceptable to me. In addition, the "No dogs or Jews" signs and other equally offensive things you mention upthread are also acceptable. Real freedom permits the racist, bigoted @$$#*!#$ of the world to do such things.

David

 

[.cheese.]

First: Why does Paul Helmke always get the last word with these articles? It's like they were written specifically for him?

How often do you get an NRA spokesperson getting a chance to make a specific comment that is presented as a whole sentence? You either get some statement about the NRA's general position, or some cut-off tidbit from what somebody associated with the NRA said.

But Paul Helmke - no worries mate - you get all the print space you need buddy! : )



Second of all

"conflicted with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is intended to protect employees in the workplace."

there is a huge assumption being made by that judge that is not supported by fact, but is only supported by politics - which is that the presence of a gun nearby detracts from public safety.

The judge was clearly biased in this case.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

So with gasoline being a highly flammable liquid and in large concentrations very dangerous I think the government should limit how much gasloine an employer may allow his employees to have in possesion inside their vehicles on company property. I think anything more than 1/2 pint should be grounds for dismisal. Any more than that might be used for molotov cocktails should an employee suddenly become disgruntled, he/she might go out to their car and drain enough fuel out to ignite the entire workforce!

 

[Nicky Santoro]

Who is this malignant sphincter to block the actions of a sovereign state? Citizens of Oklahoma need to obey their state law, not this putz.

 

[Robert Hairless]

only1asterisk:

Everything you mention thereafter is acceptable to me. In addition, the "No dogs or Jews" signs and other equally offensive things you mention upthread are also acceptable. Real freedom permits the racist, bigoted @$$#*!#$ of the world to do such things.

David

​

Your "only1asterisk" screen name implies that you're a law enforcement officer, David. If so it's interesting to encounter one who would be inclined to tolerate signage that read "Kill the Pigs" anywhere except in a slaughterhouse. None of the cops I know are as enlightened as you. They don't think that freedom is defined by some right to advocate their murder.

You know, I'm sure, that the signage I mentioned--"No Jews or Dogs Allowed" and their equivalent "No Coloreds Allowed," "Chinese Allowed," and "No Irish Need Apply"--was real and that those signs barred Jews, Blacks, Chinese, Irish, and (of course dogs) from the premises. That was done in the United States for generations. You find something or other about those signs offensive but you consider them to be expressions of "real freedom," so it's not the content of those signs that offend you.

Or perhaps it's okay with you to advocate murder as long as signs advocating it aren't used as the weapons, but it's certainly all right with you if businesses advocate and practice discrimination as they wish. That, for you, is among what defines "real freedom" and is the highest aspiration for Americans. "Real freedom," in your highly principled world, includes the freedom of business owners, property owners, and employers to discriminate against any group of people they choose.

You would have been ecstatic in the America that existed just a few decades ago. Here's your "real freedom" in action just a few decades ago. This is what you want:

If you are a police officer, you deserve at least some admiration for your willingness to accept situations in which a police department discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, and sex. You defend its right to do so.

If you are black, you support the department's right to refuse to hire black officers or to promote any black men who were hired, regardless of their merits. If you are white, you support the right of the department to hire and promote black officers based only on their race.

No matter what your race, you affirm the right of a police department to make assignments on a racial basis. If dangerous assignments go to exclusively to black officers and cushy jobs go exclusively to whites, that's good with you, and you would not protest. Or if the reverse were true--only white officers get the smelly old cars that break down and only black officers get the new ones--that's good too. A department that provides body armor on the basis of race or religion has the absolute right to do so in your belief system, and you wouldn't protest if you either got none or got the old Second Chance Zylon vests while officers of other races or religions, or whose parents came from some favored country got armor that actually worked. That's admirable.

And, of course, as a principled person who cherishes the freedom of employers to do as they wish, you do not belong to a union and would not allow its interference with your employer's right to do to you whatever it wishes. You most certainly would not complain if your employer violated any law designed to protect employees: you support your employer's right to ignore any pay scale, for example, so if you were paid less than your grade required you would defend that situation. That's principled.

You're an ideal employee. Any department would be fortunate to have you, a staunch defender of its freedom to do as it wishes to employees. Speaking only for myself, though, I would prefer to live where police are hired and promoted on the basis of merit, and where law enforcement officers are trained to treat all people with equal fairness and are themselves treated fairly. I want a society that works.

 

[Deavis]

Wait a second here... If someone says, "You can bring your car into my parking lot as long as there are no guns," then you are agreeing to that or you are being forbidden from parking there altogether.

That is correct. However, in the parking lots we are discussing there was no entry control IIRC. They were widely open to the public and that was one of the main arguments for the bill. Why should employees be disallowed from having guns if the regular public could park there with them? That then morphed into the argument about who could suspend your rights with impunity. I think other people have covered that very well and my feeling is pretty middle of the road. In general, I agree with you on the contract portion, that if notified they couldn't have guns in their cars that they couldn't park there, but not in the general public situation I was referencing so casually. My mistake.

 

[only1asterisk]

Or perhaps it's okay with you to advocate murder as long as signs advocating it aren't used as the weapons, but it's certainly all right with you if businesses advocate and practice discrimination as they wish. That, for you, is among what defines "real freedom" and is the highest aspiration for Americans. "Real freedom," in your highly principled world, includes the freedom of business owners, property owners, and employers to discriminate against any group of people they choose.

You are almost exactly right. Freedom offers private citizens the choice to be vile and terrible in their business dealing as well as their private life.

Laws against discrimination by private citizens or private companies are wrong. It is very like the argument used by anti's. They find no value in firearm ownership. Since that particular freedom has no value to them and an obvious cost they are all in favor of casting it aside.

I see no value in the freedom to be a racist or holding any other prejudice and the harm is obvious, but I can't see the intrusion of government being any more appropriate here than in the former example.

Freedom has costs. I'm willing to pay. My former employer has restrictions against concealed carry. I no longer work there. I took a 20k/year pay cut, but I count the cost cheap to both honor my word and exercise my rights unhindered.

David

 

[mons meg]

Who is this malignant sphincter to block the actions of a sovereign state? Citizens of Oklahoma need to obey their state law, not this putz.

A point many seem to miss. Oklahoma chose to promote gun rights in a VERY specific and limited way (inside their own cars), and all some people want to do is wave their Pure Libertarian flag and beat the property rights drums.

IIRC, the vote in the Legislature wasn't even close...it was nearly unanimous. And the revised law completely lets employers off the hook from civil liability. I'm not sure why some folks are getting so bent out of shape about property rights. I don't see this as being a property rights issue, as it seems to me the law primarily restricts what policies employers may impose upon their employees, with respect to that most often overlooked Civil Right protected expressly by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Also:

Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution
§ 26. Bearing arms - Carrying weapons.

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

With that in mind, how do you argue that Oklahoma has no authority to pass a law protecting a citizen's right to keep a gun in his/her car? The law was not questioned by the OK Legislature, Governor, AG, or court system as to whether it was consistent with the Oklahoma Constitution. It was overturned by a Federal judge using a tortured reading of OSHA, and I hope it's appealed quickly and reversed.

 

[Robert Hairless]

only1asterisk:

You are almost exactly right. Freedom offers private citizens the choice to be vile and terrible in their business dealing as well as their private life.

You might want to try at least as hard as the other guy to put a pretty face on that kind of thinking, David.

But I'm grateful to you for saving me the time it was taking to out it. Now that it's out, the good folks who have been supporting what has been called "employer's rights," "business owner's rights," and "property owner's rights" can take a look at the real face behind the mask. If they still want to argue for the vile and terrible they can't hide what they're doing or fool themselves about what it really is.

 

[only1asterisk]

...the good folks who have been supporting what has been called "employer's rights," "business owner's rights," and "property owner's rights" can take a look at the real face behind the mask.

It doesn't matter to me if the business owner is racist that refuses service or employment on that basis, is an elderly, blind, black, lesbian paraplegic who has determined that her employees should be paid according to their needs, or a farmer that pays his help as little as they will accept. "Employer's rights," "business owner's rights," and "property owner's rights" are still just fine with me. Everything that is wrong should not necessarily be illegal.

Laws that attempt to crush discrimination end up damaging the mutual consent required for a business transaction. Further, they force those that engage in such practices to be increasing subtle. Overt discrimination allows people withdraw their business from such people while hidden racist (or anti, sexist, etc) can persist for decades unnoticed while doing all the damage they can to the people they are prejudiced against.

More laws to force people to do right isn't the answer. As in gun control, we need to err on the side of freedom.

David

 

[Steve 48]

Park somewhere else besides the employee's parking lot. I do so they have no legal right to search my vehicle. Steve48