Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
(Post 4240741)
I would suggest that limitations on activities such as political speech in the workplace have all passed muster on one very simple premise: To engage in them, you are using time and/or resources that should be devoted to doing whatever it is that employer pays folks to do. Even things that are merely a distraction in the work place, such as inappropriate atire, can be argued to reduce productivity. There are valid business cases for restricting activities and distractions that impact the work being done. Employers should have the right to restrict these things.
Being armed, however, does none of that. A CCW holder does not (cannot, by law) display the weapon. There is no reason for anyone in the office, or shop, or what have you, to even know who is armed. Under those circumstances, no employer can ever make any sort of business case based on lost productivity. There is nothing going on that will affect the employer in any way.
Remember, this is an inalienable right - that of being armed in the name of self defense. If an employer does not "like" that, I would opine that his arguments fall into the same catagory as not "liking" gays, blacks, hispanics, women, Democrats, etc. There can be no case made for excluding those folks from employment. Why is it employers can make a case for excluding those who choose to exercise their right to be armed? I just don't get it.
|
