We don't hire your kind

[DuneHopper]

So I wonder is it legal to not hire someone based on their actions of supporting their
Second Amendment Rights ?
Yes I realize a person can not hire you for any reason, but my question is what if that occured is there legal action against a potential employer that wont hire you because of what you legally have a right to ?

Thanks

Read More

 

[2A2Dend]

Interesting.
I'm in.

On another note,
Any place of employment could fire you. They would simply find a reason that's against company policy. I've heard of it happening.

 

[etrain16]

My understanding is that discrimination by employers based on your political views is not something there are strong protections in place for - at least in the private sector. Government employees apparently have better protection for political views. So, it would appear, depending on the city and state you live in, unless there are specific laws prohibiting it, they can choose not to hire you based on political views/statements.

At this point "2nd amendment advocate" isn't one of the protected classes i.e., race, age, religion, sexual orientation.

That said, if you move the question to carrying a gun on their property, they can fire you for violating company policy, if that is in fact a state policy - just as 2A2Dend noted above.

 

[DuneHopper]

My understanding is that discrimination by employers based on your political views is not something there are strong protections in place for - at least in the private sector. Government employees apparently have better protection for political views. So, it would appear, depending on the city and state you live in, unless there are specific laws prohibiting it, they can choose not to hire you based on political views/statements.

At this point "2nd amendment advocate" isn't one of the protected classes i.e., race, age, religion, sexual orientation.

That said, if you move the question to carrying a gun on their property, they can fire you for violating company policy, if that is in fact a state policy - just as 2A2Dend noted above.

I think thats my thought but I am protected by my religious rights why not 2nd Amendment ?
I guess the question bares does not a constitutional right create a protective class ?

 

[PaulB47]

It is moral to hire or fire on any basis at all, and used to be that way legally in this country for most of its history. Nobody is entitled to any particular job. Of course now that government has got into the business of "protecting" certain classes, the right of association has been trashed. Don't expect the rulers to protect gun owners though; that will never happen.

 

[IronMonster]

Its ok, I dont work for your kind.

 

[etrain16]

I think thats my thought but I am protected by my religious rights why not 2nd Amendment ?
I guess the question bares does not a constitutional right create a protective class ?

It appears to, but only if you are a government employee. Private employers have a little more leeway, unless the local city or state has a law specifically identifying another 'protected class'. So while I see your reasoning, it appears, at least for now, the law doesn't protect you as well as you might hope. I suppose if that happened to me, I'd be tempted to go to the ACLU and make them come to my defense

 

[Lilhigbee]

It isn't the Constitution that creates "protected classes", it's politicians meddling in things that they have no business in. The Constitution has no effect on personal interactions, it strictly delineates what the gooberment can and CANNOT do.

 

[Tomoko]

Washington I know is an at-will state.. so they could fire you and not say why they've terminated your job. I think being a minority and a woman that I actually have an advantage. People stereotype. So it has made some things easier for me.

 

[cmica]

NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE is there a difference???

it's their business. just like its just like the bakeries that don't want to serve gays, their cake.

move on

 

[Andy54Hawken]

While I have never been fired for my 2A rights / beliefs , the "cold shoulder" or comments like "But you are so nice" or "But I like you" have come out or happened when coworkers have found out that I own guns or hunt.

One a somewhat related note:
Once at a interview , after the usual questions , the interviewer asked about the metal bracelet I wear.
"Is that a medical alert bracelet?"
"No" I answered , "Its a POW/MIA bracelet."
"Well you do know the war is over and those guys are never coming home , even if there were any?" Was his reply.
"Dosen't matter , I made a promise to the man on the bracelet , to never forget about him". Was my answer.
And more or less with that comment my interview was over and I was not hired.

Now I am not 100% sure that I was not hired because of my bracelet or comments , but the interview was going good until then.

It is interesting when peoples thoughts and feelings about something that will most likely never be an issue at the workplace deter you from work or change workplace relationships.
Andy

 

[308]

As for as not hiring people for certain reasons, I did read a story before the last election where a certain employer, when forced to downsize, chose to lay off the employees with 0bama stickers on their cars before anyone else.

 

[DuneHopper]

Washington I know is an at-will state.. so they could fire you and not say why they've terminated your job. I think being a minority and a woman that I actually have an advantage. People stereotype. So it has made some things easier for me.

Oregon is a fire at will as well, but my question was no so much loop holes they could lie and hire/fire it was more if it was legal or should it be illegal to not hire. Our family has legal documented Cherokee and Blackfoot wife and my side both, why I have nothing against anyone as a legal citizen using their nationality to better themselves based on the racism and ignorance of others. I only used my American Indian registration to get a grant for college. Other the that I look whiter then white on rice so most don't know wife and kids either. Its a personal choice we made again nothing against anyone that legally does what they can it was just something we chose not to do, so not offense intended it was just a choice and also one I don't put on job applications.

 

[PaulB47]

should it be illegal to not hire

If you love liberty, absolutely not. If you support a free market, absolutely not. However if people want to live voluntarily in polities that regulate such things, I have no problem with it. It's not for me, though.

 

[JedB]

It is moral to hire or fire on any basis at all, and used to be that way legally in this country for most of its history. Nobody is entitled to any particular job. Of course now that government has got into the business of "protecting" certain classes, the right of association has been trashed. Don't expect the rulers to protect gun owners though; that will never happen.

Just to be clear. Those classes are not 'protected' due to preference on behalf of the government. Those classes are protected due to historical negative bias and prejudicial treatment against someone that fits one, or many of those classes.

 

[JedB]

With regards to the original poster's question, It's not illegal, as firearm owner/enthusiast is not considered a protected class.

It may be short sighted on behalf of the hiring firm/individual, but it's not illegal.

[edit - adding]
If the firm chose to not hire on the basis of the applicant being a firearm owner/enthusiast, it would be completely foolish of them to state so in the rejection of the candidate. No need to provide substance for a potential lawsuit, regardless of validity.
/end

 

[DuneHopper]

JedB :
I should add that a gun ownership is a Constitutional right not just and enthusiast position.
I appreciate everyones response but seems either I was not specific enough in my question or I am crazy .

Freedom of Religion is Constitutional meaning a person can not deny me hire or dismiss me based on my religion. it not optional they would get sued.

Yet, it of to deny me employment or fire me if I own a firearm and enjoy that right ?

I was hoping others would get the irony and legalisms of this if the bases is I can not legally be dismissed exercising my First Amendment, why would it be legal to dismiss or deny hiring if I exercise my 2nd Amendment right ?

 

[Hal Jordan]

I think the federal government lumps all of their protections under what they call Equal Employment Opportunity. If you're an employee or an applicant, most employers can't discriminate against you based on your:

• Age
• Color
• Disability
• Discrimination charges filed against the employer
• Genetics
• National Origin
• Race
• Religion
• Sex

Here's a poster that talks about EEO. If you're working for the federal government, you can add marital status, sexual orientation, political affiliation, and status as a parent to the list.

As far as I know, there's no rule anywhere that keeps a non-government employer from firing me because of something I said. The example I always remember is when Slim-Fast fired Whoopie Goldberg as their spokesperson after she made a dirty joke about the President. There was plenty of whining about First Amendment freedom after that, but it didn't apply to the situation because Slim-Fast isn't a government agency. Another one recently was University of Missouri professor Melissa Click, who was fired after a video showed her asking students for "some muscle" to remove a student reporter from a protest. She has the right to say anything she wants under the First Amendment, but the university doesn't have to keep giving her a paycheck if they don't like what she says. Both of those people go into the "I never liked you anyway" category.

I don't think anyone's employment is protected under the First Amendment, so it wouldn't be protected under the Second.

DISCLAIMER: Not an expert, using Google-Fu to find answers.

 

[tac]

As for as not hiring people for certain reasons, I did read a story before the last election where a certain employer, when forced to downsize, chose to lay off the employees with 0bama stickers on their cars before anyone else.

Ah, the way that I heard it was a a company boss, forced to downsize as a result of falling gubmint contracts had some hard decisions to make involving firing about thirty members of his staff.

Getting the entire workforce in the diner, he upped and told them straight out.

'As you all know, recent policy changes emanating from the White House, especially those intimately connected to the supply of certain high-tech equipment like our products, have led to a drastic downturn in demand for them.

As a direct result of these polices, emanating from the highest level of gubmint, losing members of staff of this company are, sadly, unavoidable. Doing the math with Doug, here, our chief accountant, I had the tough decision to dispense with the services of thirty members of staff, and it occupied my mind and my conscience for the last week or so, which is why I've seemed to be a mite preoccupied, and for that I apologise.

How to do it, keeping the best interests of the company and the well-being of the staff at heart has been very difficult, as I hope you all understand.

So this morning, I took a walk around the company car park, and counted all those vehicles displaying an Obama sticker on the bumper, and figured that since the car owners had actually voted for the person responsible for the downturn in this company's hitherto successful enterprise, that they should be the ones to go. By a lucky coincidence, there were thirty in total. A month severance pay has been included in the parking package - they are on the table by the door marked 'exit'.

'bye.

tac

 

[Member 34319]

Thing about gun ownership is, although it is a constitutionally protected right, for the most part not considered a natural right.

You have the natural right to defend yourself, however many have made good argument that that may not be with a gun. You chose to use a gun.

You have many natural rights. Like not being treated poorly for your birth color/sex/age/or other physical feature. If you have a choice, it likely is not natural.

Somehow sexual preference got put into the "natural right" category. Which I am finding hard to believe. I figure if this one can be put into the mix, why can't gun ownership be thrown in. You choose to be gay, we choose to own guns.

Same laws should apply...