Invasion of Privacy - Don't say it never can happen.........

[princewally]

I can see a problem though, not being honest. No sir, I don't [hack, hack] smoke. I donnn drink neither any more. (course I don't drink any less either). There's probably tests, which I think are reasonable to conduct without invasion of privacy for things like this.

Now you want to add "testing"?

So what if your family has a propensity for cancer or heart disease or MS, should you be tested and should you pay higher premiums? Should you loose you job or be refused a job?

Should you pay treble if you have a family history of cancer or heart disease AND you smoke?

.

Yep. But only if the government gets out of the market completely and lets individuals buy the insurance plan of their choice. No employer deductions of premiums. Let us buy the insurance, let us deduct the premium from our taxes, let us deal with the problems. Let the insurance companies compete for our business.

If you go for private insurance, you get a medical exam and blood testing anyway. It's the way it works in the individual market.

[Ironbear]

...and I even know that getting my wife mad at me could be more unhealthy for me than second hand smoke.

That's what you get for teaching her how to shoot! As you said, second-smoke is probably not a big concern, especially compared to "lead exposure".

[JonnyB]

I think I stated that the company should be allowed to discriminate in its hiring for any reason or for no reason at all. Wear plaid pants to work? You're fired! Drove a Chevy to work at the Toyota shop? You're fired? Have a firearm in your car in the company's private lot? You, too, are fired! Hey, it's their property! Don't like it? Find a new employer or leave your iron at home. Or take a chance and bring it anyway. I would. Screw 'em; it's my life.

Now, if you're on public property, no discrimination at all is allowed. Sort of like the carry law in Minnesota. You can't be prohibited from carrying in state, county or municipal buildings. That's because the government has a monopoly, so you can't simply "shop" elsewhere. Public entities shouldn't discriminate in their hiring practices (not even using so-called Affirmative Action practices). Hiring and firing should have to be based completely upon qualifications and performance. [Would that it were so...]

Business owners like the new smoke-free law in Minnesota, as it evens the field. Any restaurant or bar could have voluntarily banned smoking. They didn't, knowing it would hurt business when smokers went to other places. Now that every establishment is smoke-free, they're happy as hell. They can tell the customers that they're "just following (orders) the law".

jb

[nyffman]

I can see a problem though, not being honest. No sir, I don't [hack, hack] smoke. I donnn drink neither any more. (course I don't drink any less either). There's probably tests, which I think are reasonable to conduct without invasion of privacy for things like this.

Now you want to add "testing"?

So what if your family has a propensity for cancer or heart disease or MS, should you be tested and should you pay higher premiums? Should you loose you job or be refused a job?

Should you pay treble if you have a family history of cancer or heart disease AND you smoke?

.

You know what, I'm not really sure. On the one hand, these things could be considered private. On the other hand, you are asking a private company to pay your medical expenses. It's not thier fault that your genetics predisposes you to a particular disease. Maybe we have already slid farther than we realized down the slippery slope of socialism?

[nyffman]

The scariest aspect here is in getting a true picture of health and healthcare costs. The medical community often comes out with new and contradicting recommendations all the time as "new information" comes to light. This information would then presumably be used to affect your insurance coverage and premiums. The new part doesn't bother me but the contradicting part does. If I'm a smoker and it turns out that my genetics do not predispose me to cancer, do I then get a refund on my previously paid inflated premiums?

[justaguy]

..

[Pat]

I agree that you should be able to hire and fire for what ever you feel like race, color, creed, religion, hair length, what ever. It is my company and no one should tell me sht about who I hire, and fire.

Ahh, no, you do not have the right to discriminate against anyone, and you never will in these United States.

[justaguy]

.

[princewally]

I agree that you should be able to hire and fire for what ever you feel like race, color, creed, religion, hair length, what ever. It is my company and no one should tell me sht about who I hire, and fire.

Ahh, no, you do not have the right to discriminate against anyone, and you never will in these United States.

As an individual, I am allowed to discriminate against absolutely anybody I want, with no restrictions. When I run a business, my right to discriminate gets restricted, which is a debatable law.

[Dick Unger]

The only reason ANYONE has "private property" or a "private business" is that the ALL rest of the people in this country will defend it for them. Otherwide, somebody bigger would take it away. I'd just as soon not fight or pay taxes to uphold private property rights for somebody who want's to use their property to diminish my liberty, or the liberty of others who help defend these "private property" rights.

If they want to use their property as a profitable "public accomodation", they better agree not to discriminate. Otherwise, don't try to operate a business for "some" special people, and not for others.

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

I agree that you should be able to hire and fire for what ever you feel like race, color, creed, religion, hair length, what ever. It is my company and no one should tell me sht about who I hire, and fire.

Ahh, no, you do not have the right to discriminate against anyone, and you never will in these United States.

As an individual, I am allowed to discriminate against absolutely anybody I want, with no restrictions. When I run a business, my right to discriminate gets restricted, which is a debatable law.

Depends where you are...............can't do it in the workplace for example

[princewally]

Ahh, no, you do not have the right to discriminate against anyone, and you never will in these United States.

As an individual, I am allowed to discriminate against absolutely anybody I want, with no restrictions. When I run a business, my right to discriminate gets restricted, which is a debatable law.

Depends where you are...............can't do it in the workplace for example

Yes, I can, as an individual. The company would probably have to fire me to avoid getting themselves sued, but I wouldn't be on the hook criminally or civilly.

[princewally]

Interesting thing that I didn't know:

Code: Select all

You may embed only 3 quotes within each other.

[Pat]

Yes, I can, as an individual. The company would probably have to fire me to avoid getting themselves sued, but I wouldn't be on the hook criminally or civilly.

Morality of course, is another issue. You note under your avatar that you are from St. Louis Park. Golly, if one were to only consider demographics, one might assume you were Jewish. Or maybe Catholic? Or White? Or (God forbid) a Democrat? How about a Chevy driver, in a town with a Ford plant about to close? Are you a Black guy? What if you married an Asian girl, and have mixed kids?

But then again, none of the above have ever been discriminated against. So I guess you remain off the hook.

Pax.

[princewally]

Yes, I can, as an individual. The company would probably have to fire me to avoid getting themselves sued, but I wouldn't be on the hook criminally or civilly.

Morality of course, is another issue.

IMHO, this is the only issue that should matter. Personally, I don't associate with people who discriminate based on the 'protected' items. That doesn't mean that I think it should be a legal issue.