Libertarians be upset! Pizza Hut Delivery Driver fired for defending himself!

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

My views regarding personal defense fall into the category of idealism. My mind cannot wrap itself around the concept of regulating the ability of any living creature to defend its precious life with tooth, nail, rocks, throwing dirt, throwing lead, swinging steel, or any other means available to it used to the best advantage possible. No responsibility to retreat, pull punches, issue visual or verbal warnings or fire a warning shot.

But you say a neighbor should be able to choose whether you carry in his house.

Isn't it true that if your neighbor said "do not bring your gun in my house" that you either would leave it elsewhere or not go in his house?

So when pizza hut said "do not bring your gun on delivery runs" why not hold this guy to the same standard? He had a choice..........his choice was not to bring the gun or not to work for pizza hut.

He chose to work for pizza hut knowing guns were disallowed. Just like your anti-gun neighbor's house, he di not hav eto go and could have chosen to keep himself armed, just not at pizza hut.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

But you say a neighbor should be able to choose whether you carry in his house.

Isn't it true that if your neighbor said "do not bring your gun in my house" that you either would leave it elsewhere or not go in his house?

Yes.

So when pizza hut said "do not bring your gun on delivery runs" why not hold this guy to the same standard? [/quote]

A visit to a friends house is governed by courtesy, not law.

A visit to a friends house is not a 9-5 daily scheduled event that involves a place of business, public roads and various private properties that one has no knowledge of.

...he di not hav eto go and could have chosen to keep himself armed, just not at pizza hut.

The job was not located at pizza hut. The job was located at random unknown locations on public and private properties under specious control.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

A visit to a friends house is not a 9-5 daily scheduled event that involves a place of business, public roads and various private properties that one has no knowledge of.

And when pizza hut told him their rules for employment, "no gun from 9-5" he should have said "no thanks" and left.

The job was not located at pizza hut. The job was located at random unknown locations on public and private properties under specious control.

He represented the company while he was out there working. While representing the company they certainly can put limits on him and fire him for not abiding by them.

[RockPusher]

He represented the company while he was out there working. While representing the company they certainly can put limits on him and fire him for not abiding by them.

The limits the company can apply to him do not include eliminating protected rights. The limits are ostensibly to behavior and appearance that would put off co-workers or patrons. A hidden tattoo or religious symbol or unspoken words do not apply.

It would not stand to fire somebody for having an uncircumcised penis even though the job requirements specify 'no uncut peckers' so long as the job does not involve displaying your pecker to people.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

The limits the company can apply to him do not include eliminating protected rights.

Freedom of speech is a protected right. If he handed over pizzas and started spouting religious shit, anti- or pro-abortion shit, or ranted about china's human rights then the company absolutely could fire him.

A hidden tattoo or religious symbol or unspoken words do not apply.

Again with the cherry picking........because a swastika or 666 tattoo on his forehead and/or *spoken* words do apply.

It would not stand to fire somebody for having an uncircumcised penis even though the job requirements specify 'no uncut peckers' so long as the job does not involve displaying your pecker to people.

Yet more cherry picking. Your examples fail because they're too specific. Like I said, freedom of speech is a right but if he sees an Al Gore bumper sticker on my car on the way to my door and goes off on me being a tree hugging hippy then pizza hut can fire him, even though his speech was protected.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

Freedom of speech is a protected right. If he handed over pizzas and started spouting religious shit, anti- or pro-abortion shit, or ranted about china's human rights then the company absolutely could fire him.


Again with the cherry picking........because a swastika or 666 tattoo on his forehead and/or *spoken* words do apply.

Yet more cherry picking. Your examples fail because they're too specific. Like I said, freedom of speech is a right but if he sees an Al Gore bumper sticker on my car on the way to my door and goes off on me being a tree hugging hippy then pizza hut can fire him, even though his speech was protected.

Actual 1st amendment restrictions on the job would be a very narrow definition requiring very specific examples.

Firing a person because you find out that they are Jewish will get you in trouble.

Asking somebody if they are Jewish in a job interview, and then refusing to hire them will also get you in trouble.




I would be perfectly happy to go back to the COTUS applying ONLY to the US government as soon as the government starts obeying the Constitution.

Once we begin recognizing individual freedom again, these types of events will stop.

I would bet you my bottom dollar that this guy was fired because the company's INSURANCE COMPANY demanded it.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

And when pizza hut told him their rules for employment, "no gun from 9-5" he should have said "no thanks" and left.

Yes. He should have left.

He was dishonest in an absolute sense.

I am not being honest in this issue but because I am too close to it, I refuse to see.

I cannot accept that a company should be able to make such restrictions.

In a sane world, they would not make such restrictions.




One undeniable aspect of exclusive rights is exclusivity.

One can exclude anybody or anything for any reason and in any way they see fit on their property.

Even if it is insane. Even if only the insane would comply.

I am hedged in on this issue because I can see the corporate 'enclosure' that is going on and I recognize their agenda. The stores only accept company script, and to get company script, you must earn it from company jobs.

Stalin said that the old maxim of 'He who does not work does not eat' has been replaced with 'He who does not obey does not eat'. We are under duress to accept such jobs..... but we must eat.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Actual 1st amendment restrictions on the job would be a very narrow definition requiring very specific examples.

Firing a person because you find out that they are Jewish will get you in trouble.

Asking somebody if they are Jewish in a job interview, and then refusing to hire them will also get you in trouble.

Again, picking exactingly specific examples that seem to prove your point but that fail when you look at the bigger picture.

It is perfectly legal to fire the jewish guy if he's pushing his religion on others during company time..............the key being ON COMPANY TIME. When he's not representing the company he can do whatever he wants, but when he's out there as the face of the company, if he starts spouting his religious views the company can easily get rid of him.

Again, protected right that the company can limit.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

I am hedged in on this issue because I can see the corporate 'enclosure' that is going on and I recognize their agenda. The stores only accept company script, and to get company script, you must earn it from company jobs.

Stalin said that the old maxim of 'He who does not work does not eat' has been replaced with 'He who does not obey does not eat'. We are under duress to accept such jobs..... but we must eat.

What?

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

What?

But yet this is not only the necessary cause of stealing. There is another, which, as I suppose, is proper and peculiar to you Englishmen alone. What is that, quoth the Cardinal? Forsooth my lord (quoth I) your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame, and so small eaters, now, as I hear say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves. They consume, destroy, and devour whole fields, houses, and cities. For look in what parts of the realm doth grow the finest and therefore dearest wool, there noblemen and gentlemen . . . leave no ground for tillage, they enclose all into pastures; they throw down houses; they pluck down towns, and leave nothing standing, but only the church to be made a sheep-house. . . . Therefore that one covetous and insatiable cormorant and very plague of his native country may compass about and enclose many thousand acres of ground together within one pale or hedge, the husbandmen be thrust out of their own.




Enclosure was the nobility's seizure of public assets such as common(er's) grazing land and agricultural land. This destroyed the peasants ability to produce their own goods and resulted in abject poverty and enabled monopolies to take root as the yeomanry was dispossessed.

Modern (corporate) enclosure is the nobilities seizure of all banks, public land, and the limiting of property rights coupled with engineered boom/bust cycles. This covert enclosure has been far more efficient in transferring the property of the modern yeomanry (the middle class) to the corporate nobility than the enclosure of the past.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

It is perfectly legal to fire the jewish guy if he's pushing his religion on others during company time..............the key being ON COMPANY TIME. When he's not representing the company he can do whatever he wants, but when he's out there as the face of the company, if he starts spouting his religious views the company can easily get rid of him.

Again, protected right that the company can limit.

You are the one applying narrow definitions now. I am talking about an employer who fires a person based SOLELY on their religious affiliation once they found out that they were Jewish. A person does not stop believing in God from 9-5. You can ask them not to spout off, but you cant force them to convert to your religion or be sacked.

This is a real world example of discrimination as opposed to performance.

If a firearm is discretely carried an not perceived by others, it cannot be though to affect either performance or customer/coworker perceptions. Regarding the performance of a job, a concealed firearm is a non-sequitur.



I must disqualify my opinion on this matter because I do not believe that the B of R or civil rights legislation have any force over the exclusive owners of private property. *HOWEVER* I recognize that the existing laws and interpretations have eliminated essential liberties that are required for a free society. Ambivalence sucks.

In a free society, an employer can refuse to hire a person because they don't worship Satan or because they don't have genital piercings if they like and it is fine by me.

It is only in monopoly/regulated economies that such (civil rights) protections are required because the duress of a small group of dominate men could institute the most ugly forms of discrimination in the absence of free markets.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

You are the one applying narrow definitions now. I am talking about an employer who fires a person based SOLELY on their religious affiliation once they found out that they were Jewish.

They can't fire you based SOLELY on your association with a religion, but they can fire you for bringing it to the job.

They can't fire you SOLELY on your association with the NRA, but they can fire you if you bring a gun on the job.

If a firearm is discretely carried an not perceived by others, it cannot be though to affect either performance or customer/coworker perceptions. Regarding the performance of a job, a concealed firearm is a non-sequitur.

Sounds an awful lot like "It's only illegal if you get caught" and I believe we both know that's not true.


We're going in circles. If there's nothing new I have nothing to add.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

They can't fire you based SOLELY on your association with a religion, but they can fire you for bringing it to the job.

They can't fire you SOLELY on your association with the NRA, but they can fire you if you bring a gun on the job.


Sounds an awful lot like "It's only illegal if you get caught" and I believe we both know that's not true.


We're going in circles. If there's nothing new I have nothing to add.

Yeah... I got nuthin'.