Another bigotry example

Suppose the law said companies were not allowed discriminate in their hiring or firing based on the prospective employee being in an interracial marriage. But then fires someone because, while on company business, gives their spouse of a different race a quick hug. The company claims they are not violating the law because the law doesn’t cover public displays of interracial affection while on company business. The public outcry would be, and justifiably so, huge.

There should be a similar public outcry in this case as well:

A metro Atlanta woman is asking a judge to strike down a Gwinnett County company’s gun policy.

Jamie Lunsford said the company violated her rights by firing her after they discovered she had a gun in her car while on business. Lunsford said the company violated her right to carry a permitted, concealed weapon in her car.

Her employer was a subsidiary of Iron Mountain, Inc. They are based in Boston Massachusetts. That might explain their anti-gun bigotry. Just as if the rules 70 years ago of a company based in Jackson Mississippi would reflect on their attitudes toward interracial marriage.

I understand the property rights argument and the right of the employer to set the terms of employment. You will notice I didn’t say the courts should force her former employer to rehire her. But I do think the public should let them know they don’t care for their bigotry and address this injustice via complaints and boycotts. Bigotry should not go unnoticed or tolerated even if it is, and should be, legal.


5 thoughts on “Another bigotry example

  1. If the government can force the ADA on private business then they can force private business to allow people to carry guns at work.

    You either have private property rights or you don’t. There’s no middle ground.

  2. +1 I actually support companies discriminating who they employ or do business with based on exercising of enumerated rights (Speech, Religion, Keeping and Bearing Arms, Searches, or avoiding self-incrimination, et al) but as Alan points out, that is not allowed under our current law. A company cannot choose to hire only whites, or only Jews, or fire people for being known homosexuals, nor can they search me without my consent ect. So if those rules are true private property has no right to disarm somebody who is otherwise lawful.

  3. I agree that private property rights are meaningless with many of the restrictions placed on its use. And since if you fail to pay your property taxes they will take it away what it really means is that we just rent property from the government anyway.

    But I’m not sure the best way to recover our property rights is to place further restrictions on the use of private property. That debate is a little more involved than what can be explored in the comments to a blog post.

  4. There has actually been something of a debate about this issue in GA. If I recall correctly (I left the state quite a while ago now) the legislature did actually pass a law a couple of years ago that forces businesses to allow you to keep a gun in your own car, even if it is on company premises. The company can still, if it so chooses, forbid people from carrying on their persons.

    Basically this is so you can legally carry on the way into work and on the way out of work–but if the business forbids carrying at work, the gun has to stay in your car at all times. Supposedly, this protects the property rights of both the company and the employee. Normally I (and, I suspect, many of your readers) like to look at the property rights issue as follows: The company has every right to forbid guns on its premises. As such, if an employee wants to have a gun in his car he can’t park on company property. End of discussion. But you know legislators…

    …let’s just say there are a lot of reasons why I left. But legally speaking, unless this law is struck down somehow, Ms. Lunsford is in the right and does indeed have grounds to sue for wrongful dismissal.

  5. My only issue with “guns in parking lots” laws are that they are specific to guns. Those laws should simply recognize that my car is my property, regardless of where it is parked. If I’m not using a company car, it’s none of their business what I have in there, guns or otherwise.

Comments are closed.