A new state law went on the books Tuesday saying people could bring guns to work if they kept them locked in their car. Disney, though, said it was exempt from the new law and its 62,000 employees needed to keep their guns at home.This isn't the first time the Magic Kingdom Scofflaws have acted like the law doesn't apply to them.
Friday, a worker who protested the park’s decision told Channel 9 he was suspended.
[Via Jeffersonian]
16 comments:
Maybe they're right. Maybe it DOESN'T apply to them. After all, we talk about how unconstitutional laws aren't laws at all, right? Maybe they're making a stand for property rights - the same kind of stand we admire when it's a gunnie.
If you love your freedom more than someone else's freedom, it's not freedom you love.
Ahh, Nick: Welcome to the debate!
:)
Oh, I've been part of it before... We'll see what SA has to say.
Patrons can still have guns in their cars, but not employees.
I have to wonder how many people took jobs there oblivious of guns and gun rights, and then were victimized and now care, and are being denied their right. Disney has seen their last thou$and$ from ME.
They want your hand geometry too. All visitors are scanned to prevent pass misuse. Used to be season and year-round passes only, but now everyone. It's obvious how they feel about rights vs. privacy.
I agree that Disney, a private corporation, HAS the right, but that doesn't MAKE it right. Don't feed the mouse.
I wonder what other individual rights they'll decide are inconvenient. And whether they'll get away with it.
Oh, about the "Happiest Place on Earth": I've never been there without seeing at least one parent slap a kid upside the head, and I mean HARD. It's stressful, the heat, the outrageous lines for everything, the price of food. Security never seems to be around when these assaults happen.
As offensive as Disney's position is, I imagine that they are correct that their fireworks permit will be enough to render them exempt from the "guns in the parking lot" law.
I wonder how many other businesses will be applying for such permits now.
If Disney can require their employees to be disarmed and helpless inside their own mobile private property, why can't they do the same as regards the employee's fixed position private property?
I know David and others think they are defending property rights, but I believe my position is actually more respectful of private property rights theirs are.
I think it disrectful of private property rights when one property owner can force another to his bidding. I find it amazing that you people don't believe you own your cars and that they are your private property.
With that belief why would any of you refuse a warrantless search of your vehicle by anybody who so desired? Yet, I have read almost all you saying you would not submit. How do you square that with the car not being your private property enough to be respected.
Is this the same Disney that hires war criminals?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/15/crime.haiti.reut/
SA, it's very simple. They don't have the right to disarm you or search you, but they have the right to ask you to leave or prohibit your admittance in the first place if you don't follow the rules of their property. What's so hard to understand about that?
They're not forcing anyone to do or not do ANYTHING so long as no one is forcing them to work or visit there.
I am not prepared to take your comment too seriously until you answer the questions I posed, but I'll give you one more, with the answer.
Then they should plainly state that no customer or employee has any rights on their property and they should disinvite them.
Do not invite me to your house or your business if you believe you have the right to nullify my rights. I assure you, you do not.
If your example was taken to its illogical conclusion, what is to keep Disney from demanding sex from patrons or employees, either for employment or admittance? NOT A FUCKING THING!
If you invite me, you invite all of me. That includes all the rights I was born with.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Since you're having trouble, I'll quote and answer all of your questions:
If Disney can require their employees to be disarmed and helpless inside their own mobile private property, why can't they do the same as regards the employee's fixed position private property?
They CAN. You don't like it? Don't work there. They have no power over peopole who don't enter their property.
With that belief why would any of you refuse a warrantless search of your vehicle by anybody who so desired?
I were on their property, I would leave. They have no right to keep me, but they can require a search as a condition of my admission to their property. That's how I square it.
...What is to keep Disney from demanding sex from patrons or employees, either for employment or admittance?
Besides the law (which I disagree with), nothing. You're right. So don't go there and don't work there. That was easy.
You have your rights, but you may exercise them only to the extent that they do not encroach on others' equal rights.
Nobody invited you to Disney, and if they did, they did it with the condition that you adhere to their policies. If you don't want to go, don't.
Any more questions?
yeah, how long have you been unwilling to stand up for yourself and why do you think I should be as timid?
As I said before, don't invite me if you don't invite all of me.
Disney should openly state that their patrons and employees have no rights on their property and law and/or constitution and human rights are void on their property, or at best at their discretion.
I did read you right, didn't I? That you disagree with the law that stops rape or murder if it is done on private property.
As for not going there, I won't. But if they or any of their minions come on my property, do you agree that any policy I set negates any rights they have. Can I take their cars? Not private enough property to deserve respect in your view, so why not? How about their wallets, my property, my rules, right?
And you cheated on one question; I asked why you would refuse to allow anyone who so desired to search your vehicle. You tailored your answer so you could say you would leave. But how can you if I or someone else demand to search your vehicle and your position is that it isn't enough private property of yours to be respected as such?
Try again.
Well this is depressing. I wrote a reply last night, but Blogger apparently ate it. This won't be as good because I don't have as much time:
Disney should openly state that their patrons and employees have no rights on their property and law and/or constitution and human rights are void on their property, or at best at their discretion.
They did.
I did read you right, didn't I? That you disagree with the law that stops rape or murder if it is done on private property.
It's not rape or murder if it's voluntary, and it doesn't happen if you don't VOLUNTARILY go.
Can I take their cars? Not private enough property to deserve respect in your view, so why not? How about their wallets, my property, my rules, right?
If they're free to leave (reject those conditions), you can set those conditions.
And you cheated on one question; I asked why you would refuse to allow anyone who so desired to search your vehicle. You tailored your answer so you could say you would leave. But how can you if I or someone else demand to search your vehicle and your position is that it isn't enough private property of yours to be respected as such?
It's not cheating when it's a perfect parallel to the situation in question. Does Disney FORCE people to come? Does it HOLD people there against their will? If it did, then I'd be with you, but as long as you're free to come and go as you please, they're free to put whatever conditions on your admittance they see fit.
You and Simon and Garfunkel.
You forgot the one sentence you stated as your underlying principle, or you ignored it. I bet you don't know which it is.
Are you open to the possibility that you might be wrong?
Yes, are you?
Post a Comment