CCW Holder Fired By Pizza Hut

[BoomChick]

Read the thread.

Enjoyed the debate.

I've got to say some things.

1) A company may pay for my time and services, but they don't own me. They don't own my body do with it as they wish. Anubis is correct. There are limits to what an employer may require of their employees. If my boss makes a policy of having to sleep with him, should I find another job? Of course, but that employer should not be allowed to continue with that policy. Most Americans would say that is against the law as it should be, but I want to say that so should be asking employees to disarm themselves -- especially when they are willing to put their life on the line to do the work requested of them. Obviously the man's life was indeed on the line, in spite of his humble job. If there was no law against an employer requiring me to sleep with him, you can bet I still wouldn't do it, and I would hope that my fellow Americans would support me by doing what they could to stop that policy from being continued.

I will not be like a frog that got cooked because he didn't notice the water of the pot he was in was getting hotter ever so slowly. It is unacceptable and unconscionable (spelling?) for employers to discriminate against employees who want to provide for their own defense without being able to supply an alternative. The man knew he might be in danger. I would guess he got the permit to carry because he knew his job was dangerous. So, until his employer can provide some kind of alternative they have no right to cause him to disarm himself. He has a right to safety and to maintain the integrity of his body. Period.

2) A company may not enact policies that discriminate based on race, religion, etc. These things are no more fundamental to humans than the desire to survive -- the desire to protect oneself. Some arguments currently being used on this board to justify PH's position are some of the same ones that were used for a very long time regarding racism, and sexism in this country.

Do employers have the right to choose their employees any way the see fit? Frankly, not entirely. Do people have the right to choose who is present at their domicile? They do to a much greater degree. If someone doens't want Native Americans at their house, I can be legally told to leave for that reason. If my employer doesn't want Native Americans working for them, I cannot legally be told to leave for that reason. Denying someone employment is a serious issue. Very serious. And, for many reasons. If someone abuses me on their private property that is a very bad problem. If someone abuses me and is in a position of authority over me, that is a compounded very bad problem.

3) Where is common sense in all of this? The man was attacked. He defended his life. Obviously PH's policy is wrong and highly, highly, highly unethical. I care about what happens to this man. It is easy to say find another job, but why should he be required to? And why should he have to leave it for taking care of himself? This isn't just a question of practicality, it's about the principle of taking responsibility for one's own life and not accepting maltreatment by one's employer -- something that should be rewarded by this society and respected by employers everywhere. Employers stand to exert a tremendous amount of power over their employees (depending on the situation of the employee), which means they owe it to the employee to be a good employer. I don't care if this attitude isn't practical, or seems naive. I'm fully aware of my idealism here. But, I cannot, and will not endorse anyone knowingly punishing someone for surviving an attack on their own body. Nor will I support an employer who knowingly puts their employee in harms way and then fails to provide for their safety. It doens't matter to me who's car it was, I think it's a bigger issue than that.

Some things are simply sacred. I would encourage everyone to soften their heart and not become numbed by the way things are or have been.

Boomchick