Okay, then why are these employer restrictions going to off property infringements?
In MI and FL (state employment in FL), they can/will fire you if you smoke. On or OFF property, on your off time. I believe that it's been upheld by the courts in both cases.
I think the distinction is that it is a condition of employment - not unlike drug testing, etc.
What about renting? I know that some places (like HUD but that may be because it's federal but also civilian owned) restrict gun ownership while on their property.
Yet why can't they (employees) restrict blacks, jews, or others not of "their kind" from renting? Why can't they just walk into your place and just go through your property? Why can't they tell you what you can watch on tv or read?
The various and sundry "housing acts" prohibit discrimination based on race and religion.
I mean, I they (employers, renting property owners) have the "right" to remove one Right, why are they forbidden to remove other Rights? Is one Right more important than another?
And if others Rights trump yours, doesn't that just make you a slave? Yes, you say that you don't have a "right" to work (well, in some states), or a "right" to employment but it isn't like you have any other choice. You either work, or you die.
So, basically what you are saying to your employer is that "they are god to do with your life as they see fit". I see it as being no better than being a common slave at the whim of your "master".
Unless they can be held 100% liable for your safety, to work, at work, and from work to your home, then I don't see how their "right" trumps yours.
As a property owner myself, If someone was injuried while on or in my property, I can be sued and I will lose. Why can't they?
Then you have the "individual" and then "corporate" "rights". Who has the Rights? Individuals or Corporations (which can include state and federal governments)? Are the Bill of Rights for individuals or for Corporations? When I say this, a corporation, like Microsoft, isn't owned by Bill Gates but by the board of directors and the stock holders. So are we now saying that majority rules?
As to the comment, "Your Rights end when the stick hits my nose" is right, but I would have taken a tool that is legal (and tech. my right to own as a weapon) and am bearing it. You or anyone else can't take the stick away from me if I legally own it. Now, if I chose to abuse my Right of bearing my arm(s) to infringe on your Right then the stick can then, and only then, be taken from me (unless you deserved it and I was using the tool in self-defense then you don't have the Right to disarm me).
So, when does anothers Right, trump yours, if in theory, all Rights are equal?
Good questions - I think of the old saying that a million monkeys typing for a million years could reproduce Shakespeare, whereas in this case of "Rights" its a million attorneys.....:tired: