What if it Were Guns Employers Were Required To Provide?

Now lets say that a group of people is against guns (since there is such a subsect). People who think guns are harmful and guns kill people. They think that it encourages violence or whatever else. It is their “sincere belief” that guns are morally wrong. Now, part of the law is also that business owners have to provide their employees with these things. Yes the employee pays for their premiums, but the employers are required to chip in, as it works with healthcare. Let’s then say that the employer is one of these anti gun people. Is the employer legally able to argue that this is a violation of their rights? Isit a violation of their rights that the are required to give any money towards this particular portion of security when they believe it is wrong? Here are some arguments about this:

Discrimination

Let’s explore this idea in this scenario:What I was told was that it is discrimination against a group of people who believe differently (discrimination against those that don’t believe gun ownership is wrong). Here’s the question…does that also apply here? The employee in question can still go out and buy their own gun, it’s just more expensive. The option to acquire a gun is still possible. All the employees are still receiving the same benefits as one another from this particular employer, just sans guns. The employee can also choose a different employer. So the employees can work for people who are okay with this particular part of the mandate, they can use their own money to get a gun, or they can go without.

Also, they can explore different methods of protection, yes? I, myself, can not see how this is discrimination. On the other hand, it is a violation of the employer’s rights to force them to financially assist in what they believe is morally wrong. Let’s say that they go so far as to believe that having guns means helping murderers. By financially giving money towards offering guns, they are assisting murderers to murder. Should the employer be required to provide the money to help people to purchase guns?

“Businesses Aren’t People”

I’ve also been told that businesses are not people.  This is true. The thing is that they are run by people. Should a person have to leave their moral beliefs at the door to own a business? Do moral beliefs end once you are in business? I don’t think it does. Just because they run a business doesn’t mean they can’t have and exercise their beliefs. The business isn’t autonomous. The business was created by a person, with their own money (even with investors’ assistance), to sell whichever products or services they want. If the doctrines of our country have said, “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, ” and “…work where he will”, and religion is part of the First Amendment, shouldn’t a business owner, be able to exercise all of those rights simultaneously? Does the First Amendment stop at the doors of enterprise?

Referring back to the original example, imagine if the person against guns was now being told that because they own a business, they can’t carry that belief into the exercising of their own business. “You are now a business, you can’t be against guns while you are at work. ” “Your business has to provide guns for all, no matter what your belief.” Does this really seem reasonable? Yes, employees have rights. They are able to open their own business, work for another employer, buy their own guns with their own money (with no financial help from the business), or to go without a gun, despite believing people should be able to have them.

What this amounts to is suppression of specific political beliefs through enterprise. After all, what this does is forces a political belief onto business owners. The options for the business owner are to not own a business, work for employers that provide such things, provide the service despite their belief, or don’t work at all, and go die in the streets. One of the ideas of owning ones own business is to avoid contributing to things to which they don’t believe. This removes that ability entirely, as either a person has only one option and that is to contribute to this cause, whether via employment to another entity that is contributing to such a cause, or contributing to it themselves.

I have to ask: Who is really more oppressed? The employer or the employee?

Guns Have Other Uses Than Murder

Essentially, some people use guns for protection. They only have it for use if something horrible happens and that person needs it. Something like someone breaking in to harm them. Then the argument becomes: “You must think that victims of breaks-ins and rapes should have to suffer from their attackers because you aren’t helping them to get what they need to protect themselves.” Well, no. Not really. This is a logical fallacy. My statement remains this: why should someone have to violate what they believe is wrong because something bad happened to someone else? There are a lot of people who believe that killing anyone for any reason is wrong. Self defense is not an excuse. So providing guns to anyone would be wrong because providing guns means murder. Are they somehow endorsing people being harmed by non-protection because they won’t provide guns though?

Then I’m told, “Well this method of protection works best for me. Guns work best. I feel safest,” …etc. “Yes, there are other forms of protection, but why should I have to go find a new one because my employer thinks it’s wrong?” Well, because the employer is contributing money to help you.

If you want it, you can still have it. The employer didn’t say you can’t have a gun. He merely says he doesn’t wish to pay for it. Just pay for it on your own or go get a new employer who doesn’t have that problem.  Your requirements for what works best for you, is technically not the employer’s problem. You have other options that he is willing to help you with. Take it or leave it. Why is he helping you with ones that he thinks is wrong because it benefits you best? What about what benefits him?

Summing up…

I chose this scenario-switch topic because it is another passionate topic that is switched for the pro and con roles. The typical democrat believes in pro choice and the typical conservative believes in pro life. The typical democrat also believes in gun control and the typical conservative believes in second amendment rights. What I come back to though, is that either way, it’s wrong. It’s wrong to tell someone that they have to financially provide even $0.01 to violate something they believe so strongly is murder.

I believe this definitely for religions which are protected by the 1st amendment- one of the very first things that was set out by founding fathers. They did that because of the tyranny they had already suffered violating religious freedom. Even if you think that the person who believes these things is a lunatic, or is stupid, or crazy, you still don’t have the right to demand he help you pay for what he thinks is wrong. Pay for it yourself or find someone who believes like you to contribute.