We desperately need a new employment law

[TakeAStepBack]

So then let's apply the law evenly. You're gay and you don't like how a company acts towards you? Then QUIT. You're a minority and you don't like less pay? Then QUIT

It is applied evenly. Gays can quit. Any worker regardless of pay can quit.

What you want to do is project your fear of whatever into the workplace. You project this fear you have by insisting you be able to carry a gun. Even if other workers aren't afraid, some will become afraid because here you are carrying a gun.

The gay person isn't a threat to you or anyone else. A low paid worker isn't a threat and has the option to quit.
And the person who wants to have a gun on them at work also has the right to quit. Which probably makes sense. Because if you feel you have to be armed to go to work, you might need a new jobs anyway. The one you got is way to dangerous.

No, it is not applied evenly. Affirmative Action for example is giving an upper hand to minorities through protections and government quotas.

 

[zeke]

Yes sir I can hear the conversation with rotty and the manager of a company.

Rotty:hey boss, you know I got the Constitutional right to carry a weapon and I have a CC permit. I am gonna start carrying a gun while at work.

Boss:no, we are not going there with guns.

Rotty; Yes we are. You can't protect me and Ima scared and the Constitution say I got the right to a weapon.

Boss; and the Constitution says I got the right to fire you. So guess what. YOU are fired.


Rotty comes back the next day and shoots the place up.

 

[zeke]

No, it is not applied evenly. Affirmative Action for example is giving an upper hand to minorities through protections and government quotas.

Hey why don' you explain what threat a gay person poses to a workforce.

And I will explain what threat an employee with a gun poses to the workforce.

You first.


Firing a person for what they do with their sex life is wrong. Telling someone that they won't be bringing a gun to work is the right of the business owner.

Now if the business owner or manger allows gays to carry a gun at work and not other employees, then you may be on to something.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it is not applied evenly. Affirmative Action for example is giving an upper hand to minorities through protections and government quotas.

Hey why don' you explain what threat a gay person poses to a workforce.

And I will explain what threat an employee with a gun poses to the workforce.

You first.


Firing a person for what they do with their sex life is wrong. Telling someone that they won't be bringing a gun to work is the right of the business owner.

Now if the business owner or manger allows gays to carry a gun at work and not other employees, then you may be on to something.

Hey! Look who missed the fucking point by 10 miles.

Congrats!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We desperately need a new employment law





Really? Here is some advice that I see right wingers give all the time. You don't like the company you work for?
Then fucking QUIT. Who the hell you think you are demanding new laws to make employers do what YOU want them to do.

You don't like how your company does business? Fucking quit and find a company that does what you want.

But fuck that stupid we need a new law bullshit.

I hear all the time how there are already to many laws and regulations on American business. And you want to add more. Bullshit.

So then let's apply the law evenly. You're gay and you don't like how a company acts towards you? Then QUIT. You're a minority and you don't like less pay? Then QUIT.

Apply the law evenly junior...

You're confusing two different types of laws as well as exhibiting your ignorance of Constitutional law.

The Second Amendment applies solely to the relationship between government and those governed, and what type of laws government may enact pursuant to firearms regulation; it has nothing to do with the relationship between two private persons or a private entity such as an employer – a private employer cannot 'violate' your Second Amendment rights.

Public accommodations and hiring laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation are authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where such discrimination will have an adverse effect on the local market and all other interrelated markets, where it's necessary and proper for government to regulate the markets to ensure their integrity.

Because private sector employers cannot 'violate' your Second Amendment rights, and because disallowing employees from carrying firearms on the employers' property does not violate public accommodations laws, there is no justification or basis to compel private employers through Federal legislation to allow their employees to carry firearms.

With regard to public sector employees, the state disallowing state employees from carrying firearms while on the job does not violate the Second Amendment because such a policy does not interfere with the right to possess or carry a firearm per se, but merely regulates the use of a firearm in accordance with the Constitution:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

Last, it would be appropriate to advocate that each state enact measures similar to that of Florida, where a private property owner may not forbid a patron or employee from carrying a firearm in his car, even if the private property owner has a policy prohibiting firearms on his property; and where neither a private nor public sector employee can be subject to disciplinary action or terminated from his job if he lawfully carries a firearm in his car; and indeed an employer or property owner is prohibited by state law from even inquiring if a patron or employee has a firearm in his car.

 

[The Rabbi]

Amendment: Congress shall make no law infringing on the relationship between employer and employee.
That would solve a lot of problems right there.

 

[zeke]

Hey! Look who missed the fucking point by 10 miles.

Congrats!

Not my fault that you have trouble writing a coherent thought.
What was YOUR point? Please try again. And hurry I gotta go make biscuits and gravy and I don't want to miss this valuable point you are going to make. Go.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Hey! Look who missed the fucking point by 10 miles.

Congrats!

Not my fault that you have trouble writing a coherent thought.
What was YOUR point? Please try again. And hurry I gotta go make biscuits and gravy and I don't want to miss this valuable point you are going to make. Go.

Go? How about I made my point already. So, GO fuck yourself, troll.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Amendment: Congress shall make no law infringing on the relationship between employer and employee.
That would solve a lot of problems right there.

I agree totally.

 

[reconmark]

It's completely unacceptable that a business in America is permitted to strip our Constitutional rights. The left has created laws that forbids companies for deciding for themselves who they hire (forced to hire homosexuals, minorities, etc.) and who they conduct business with (once again forced to serve homosexuals, minorities, etc.) but for some reason they are permitted to violate the Constitution (vintage left-wing "logic").

We need to see a federal law that stipulates any business which denies it's workers their Constitutional rights (specifically the 2nd Amendment) is completely responsible for the safety of it's employees. If the company forbids an employee from carrying a gun and that employee is killed during work or while traveling to or from work, the family of that employee is automatically awarded $1 billion without the possibility of appeal. If an employee is raped or assaulted during work or while traveling to or from work, that employee is automatically awarded $100 million without the possibility of appeal.

Companies simply have no authority to strip a person of their Constitutional rights. However, I'm big on freedom and choice. Therefore, I do not believe in forcing a company to do anything. A company should have the freedom to decide for themselves what they are comfortable with. They should not, however, have the right to make me a victim. If I'm not allowed to defend myself because of their policies - fine. They then assume the responsibility to provide security for me. But many companies are too cheap to spend money on security (or proper security). A law like this would result in better policies (facilitating constitutional rights for law abiding citizens) or proper security.

PAPA JOHN’S UPHOLDS RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE AFTER DELIVERY DRIVER OPENS FIRE ON SUSPECTED THIEF

Proof the one shouldn't start a thread while grunting out on on the toilet.

 

[zeke]

Go? How about I made my point already. So, GO fuck yourself, troll.

The point is you got nothing to add to any conversation about anything. And generally don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Though you do pretend. What a fucking waste of air you are.

Like the no law passed by Congress concerning workers and employers.

You mean like the law that requires no union labor to be paid what a union worker get paid. Even though the scab pays no union dues. I think that sucks also. If a worker wants to work in a union shop and get paid union wages they need to pay union dues. If not, they should be paid much less than the union workers. Good for the company and good for the union.

Unfortunately laws prevent that from happening and glad to see that you support ending those kinds of workplace inequalities.

Congress shall make no law infringing on the relationship between employer and employee.

A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring


Yea,. that's the law we need to get rid off right? You all do agree with that. Don't cha rabbit. Or were you and your butt buddy just mouthing off again without thinking things through?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The point is you got nothing to add to any conversation about anything. And generally don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Though you do pretend. What a fucking waste of air you are.

 

[zeke]

Dude, you got the mentality of a 10 year old. You know that, right?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Dude, you got the mentality of a 10 year old. You know that, right?

And you have the intellectual fortitude of a mound of shit. You know that, right?

 

[JoeB131]

Poodle is upset because he wanted to carry a gun into the work place and his co-workers got nervous....