As far as beliefs and behavior - behavior that disrupts the job is actionable. Otherwise that is not the realm of the boss.
The legislative process can inform the business as to this.
I am old enough to recall an argument where I used to work that we should have to hire women as their presence among men would disrupt the work process (as we guys would go mad with lust, I suppose).
The small risk of an accidental exposure by an employee would have to been seen as a differential risk as compared to the accidental exposure of a CCW by a mall shopper.
Companies can, in some states fire for no discernible reason, but if all the Jews were fired on a given day - then here current laws come into play.
About the moral choice of not following a company policy - that unleashes theories of morality and levels of actions.
Some will say that disobeying based on a higher principle is moral. Some will say that if you knowingly agree to a principle in public but disobey for your own self interest - that is not moral. Disobeying for a higher moral principle is legit, though - but then you have to act on that principle.
Sorry, I've seen too many bad results from government interference in private institutions to completely trust trust them with such decisions.
I opine that the basic right of self-defense should be protected and not alterable by an employee except for technical reasons. The rights of the property owner (who opened for business) do not trump this as the risk argument is not empirically supported.
I have read tons of stuff on what defines moral and pro-social behavior from various philosophical and social-cultural perspectives
Following the rules of democratically instantiated principle
They gave up the right to control the basic rights of folks who come to their business.
You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so
raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.
And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs.
I'm sorry - I don't buy the good faith of private institutions on such decisions. Private institutions have a long history of treating labor unfairly and being discriminatory. Governmental and court action were necessary to stop these.
One core issue against my view seems to be that preventing discrimination is acceptable as color is unchangeable. But that doesn't hold for religion - one can change one's religious behavior quite easily. Go to a different place or no place. However, we decide that for some behaviors (religion) they should be protected as a class.
Now, as far as a company's actions being immoral if they deprive you of a means to protect yourself, I would not have a problem with making compaines that choose to pursue no-weapons policies civilly liable for damages that occur as a result of depriving their employees a means of self-defense. If they want to pursue such inane policies, fine, but they should recieve no legal protection should they get sued because of them. Basically, I think the best approach for abolishing such policy is not to attack them through the legislature, but rather through their wallets.
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.
These rules are intended to protect the company from harm, and they have broad latitude. And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs. They got us by the short ones there buddy, and unless you work for yourself, you have no choice but to accept it.
I'm not advocating hand-to-hand over firearms, that's for sure! The problem is basing arguments on premises which have holes is a good way to get beaten by those who can spot the hole.Tennessee Gentleman said:raimius said:You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so
raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.
The problem is basing arguments on premises which have holes is a good way to get beaten by those who can spot the hole.
The problem is the right to carry firearms is not the same as the right to self-defense.
I disagree, they are inextricably linked. I carry a firearm for self defense, no other reason.