Quote:

Like I said... you can't force people to treat one another with respect... but if you treat enough people with disrespect... you'll find yourself lonely and unsuccessful in a few years. You'll get what you deserve whether you're an individual... or a company.

---

Exactly.  I think everyone here agrees that it is well within a private company's right to hire who they want to, it is just more of an ethical issue.

However, getting into this topic, how do you guys feel affirmitive action and mandatory requirements of hiring on the basis of race and sex plays into this discussion?  If someone is allowed to discriminate on one basis, why should they not be allowed to discriminate on other principles?  One could argue that an addiction is not necessarily something that is chosen by an individual but is based on genetic and other factors as claimed by researchers as well as government institutions? 

edit: oops i see you have already somewhat covered this topic, my bad. 

vivid said:

BlackSabbath: You being a flying projectile through your windshield isn't what makes you a burden on others. What are the chances that you are going to hit someone else with your flying body? where is your data to support this insane allegation.

The reason there are seatbelt laws and by not using your seatbelt you risk being a burden is because is A: a seatbelt keeps you in your seat, if you are hit but still travelling, you will still be at the controls of the car and may be able to help avoid further damage. B: Seatbelts reduce injury, hence emergency medical costs, especially for people who cannot afford health insurance, which then burdens the tax payers.

Thats what that is about.

now to the original topic. If the government is going to legally allow smoking cigarettes etc. etc., and endorse personal freedom.. then there is a huge problem with allowing a company to fire people based on their personal habits. To allow companies free reign to fire people for smoking cigarettes is a slippery slope to say the least.

I know you spend most of your time with your mouth rapped around the cock of the conservative agenda Black Sabbath.. but come on.. conservatives are supposed to be pro-personal freedom. Liberty! Justice! Fairness and Balance! :p

---

BrAiN said:

blackasbbath.. maybe you should by a little more clear in your posts before calling people dumbasses.

Also.. you're wrong.. NOT wearing your seatbelt DOES increase premiums a bit. Thats the only reason we have seatbelt laws. People that don't wear their seatbelts generally get worse injuries in a car accident.. causing your hospital bill to be tens of thousands of dollars more... which the insurance companies have to pay...

Don't believe me? Call your insurance company right now and tell them to modify your coverage to reflect that you don't wear a seatbelt... and then get a quote.

Hell.. your premiums go up just on the COLOR of your car. :P fucked up, huh?

---

Seuss said:

> Hey genius, I know you spend most of your time with your mouth wrapped around the cock of the dumbass agenda

Please lower the tone a bit... I would hate to see people get banned for flaming one-another. Argue the topic, not each other please.

---

cb9fl said:

So should the Bill of Rights apply to corporations?

---

blacksabbathrulz said:

I'm well aware of the fact that premiums will go up if you don't wear a seatbelt, and this in an instance where I should have clarified. In the real world, most people who are paying their own insurance premiums would not be dumb enough to admit not wearing a seatbelt if asked, and thus their personal premiums do not increase. However injuries resulting from people who don't wear their selt belts do cause premiums to go up for everyone.

---

Ravus said:

This really has nothing to do with government control, it is a private company firing employees because of their lifestyle.

---

wietstocker said:

A risk you take being a smoker. You can be alienated from restaurants and public places, why not workplaces?

---