[Patriots] Surprised? No

[Yeah]

Seems to me, that means you can't fire your employee for carrying a gun in their vehicle, without repercussions, eh?

The section you quoted applies to section 2 of the bill, which prohibits adopting a policy that forbids firearms being stored in a locked vehicle. It does not create a protected class composed of people who store firearms in locked vehicles, so employers are still free to employ that class of people at will.

 

[ArmyMP]

Not they arent... they are a crock of ****ake questions.... And on the topic of jobs being dangerous your barking up the wrong tree... I was a Combat MP.. my employer put me in dangerous positions everyday... I dont see you advocating the end of war. Instead what I see is that you want to abridge the constitutional rights of a group of people; Rights that I nearly lost my life defending; to appease and advance the rights of another group of people. and it makes me sick.

BillofRights]you do NOT have a right to "feel" safe, to "feel" unthreatened.

You said it yourself. You dont have the right... So keep your guns off my property...

The question still remains who are you to tell me what to do with my property? Just because you have rights doesnt mean you get to execute them everywhere. If we are at a intersection of 2 rights then the answer is go get another job.. Pro Business owners... You have the freedom to go find another job. this isnt communist russia. maybe if people like you would quit driving business under there would be more jobs... between you, OSHA, and the health Nazi's you are doing nothing but make it harder for business.

 

[dburkhead]

My guess is that this is the thing about the BGs breaking into peoples' cars to steal all these guns... Like they'll somehow know which ones do and don't have them, or, since many businesses will have this law applicable to them, the BGs would, for some unknown/unfathomable reason, target this or that business to hit.

Blessings,
Bill

Well, the BG's do know: they're the ones parking "off site" at places where guns are prohibited and the rules are enforced.

It's the current set of rules that mark out where potential guns to steal might be.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Not they arent... they are a crock of ****ake questions.... And on the topic of jobs being dangerous your barking up the wrong tree... I was a Combat MP.. my employer put me in dangerous positions everyday... I dont see you advocating the end of war. Instead what I see is that you want to abridge the constitutional rights of a group of people; Rights that I nearly lost my life defending; to appease and advance the rights of another group of people. and it makes me sick.

Your employer allowed you to be armed. How safe would you have felt if you weren't allowed access to a weapon.
BTW thank you for your service.

You said it yourself. You dont have the right... So keep your guns off my property...

The question still remains who are you to tell me what to do with my property? Just because you have rights doesnt mean you get to execute them everywhere. If we are at a intersection of 2 rights then the answer is go get another job.. Pro Business owners... You have the freedom to go find another job. this isnt communist russia. maybe if people like you would quit driving business under there would be more jobs... between you, OSHA, and the health Nazi's you are doing nothing but make it harder for business.

You never did explain how not allowing guns gives you a business advantage. This law would affect all employers the same, so how does that affect your cost to do business?

 

[dburkhead]

The question still remains who are you to tell me what to do with my property

Roll that back to the 1850's and it's just as valid.

The State has always had the authority to regulate commerce. The Constitution limits the Federal government's authority in that area to foreign commerce and commerce "among the several states" but the individual States have always had the authority within their own borders.

You tell people who don't like the policy to "get another job" well how about you go to another State. That "response" is just as valid (or just as invalid).

The simple truth is that for the majority of people getting another job where guns are permitted is simply not an option. If there are 100 people, but only 10 jobs where guns are permitted, 90 people aren't going to have the option. If you're not one of the first ten too bad so sad.

You can make the argument that one doesn't "need" a gun at work (or going to and from work) because the chance of anything happening at that time is low. But if one accepts that argument then one has to accept the argument that one doesn't "need" a gun when going to the store because the chances of anything happening during that trip is pretty low. And one doesn't "need" a gun while going out for dinner. And one doesn't "need" a gun at home tonight because what are the odds that your home will be picked for a "home invasion" tonight.

The odds of any particular place and time being an event where one might need a gun for self defense are pretty low but those miniscule odds add up. The odds of the average person in the US has "only" a 1 in 200 chance of being a victim of a violent crime (specifically murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault--all of which are crimes for which lethal force is justified under Indiana law) in a given year (using DOJ stats for a rather low-crime year). Looked at one way, that works out to odds of being a victim of 1 in about 73,000 in any given day or 1 in 1.7 million in any given hour.

Go out to dinner? Spend about 1 hour 45 minutes at it. this is the classic "one in a million" in having something happen. Would you bother to carry a gun for that?

Yet all those "one in a million" events add up. 1 in 200 over the course of a year. But look at it this way. 1 in 200 over the course of a year works out to about one in three. Those odds don't sound so good any more. But surely you have family you care about as well and don't want them to be a victim either. When you include "household size" (averaging about 3 per household) the lifetime odds of someone in an average person's household being the victim of a violent crime 2 in 3.

I don't know which of those "one in a million" odds that go into making up those 1 in 3 individual or 2 in 3 household lifetime risks will be the one that comes in and I strongly suspect you don't either.

So you've not had anything happen to you ... so far. How wonderful for you. I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to the 1/3 of individuals and 2/3 of families who are the victims of violent crime.

And that's just counting being the actual victim and only counting one victim per crime. The actual odds once you count in multiple victim crimes and multiple people "at the scene" who are not nominally victims, are much worse.

Oh, and I'll be happy to show you the math for those extended probabilities if you doubt them. I should point out though that my degree is in physics and I was only 3 credit hours shy of a minor in math (would have had it too but the math course I needed to complete the minor was scheduled opposite a "general studies" course I needed to complete graduation).

 

[jeremy]

You never did explain how not allowing guns gives you a business advantage. This law would affect all employers the same, so how does that affect your cost to do business?

That would be because there is no answer to it...
To wrapped around the axle on the asinine...

 

[Roadie]

Not they arent... they are a crock of ****ake questions.... And on the topic of jobs being dangerous your barking up the wrong tree... I was a Combat MP.. my employer put me in dangerous positions everyday... I dont see you advocating the end of war. Instead what I see is that you want to abridge the constitutional rights of a group of people; Rights that I nearly lost my life defending; to appease and advance the rights of another group of people. and it makes me sick.



You said it yourself. You dont have the right... So keep your guns off my property...

The question still remains who are you to tell me what to do with my property? Just because you have rights doesnt mean you get to execute them everywhere. If we are at a intersection of 2 rights then the answer is go get another job.. Pro Business owners... You have the freedom to go find another job. this isnt communist russia. maybe if people like you would quit driving business under there would be more jobs... between you, OSHA, and the health Nazi's you are doing nothing but make it harder for business.

Allow me to repost something I never saw your response to:

Here you are comparing business property, with private property. You really think they are the same thing? Yes, you can prevent someone from using your yard as a urinal. You can prevent anyone you like from coming to your HOUSE or yard.

However, when it comes to a business, by your post it sounds to me like you would be for allowing employers to ban "negroes", gays, mexicans, women, brunettes, etc on your business property. Really?

Yes, you do have rights to YOUR business property as well, UNTIL they infringe on someone ELSE'S rights. That is the difference between private property, and a business. My rights do not end at your business property line. My car does not stop being MY car. The 4th Amendment still applies to my car, even if it sits in your business's parking lot.

 

[LEaSH]

It's as important as the 1st amendment right.

Nobody has the right to set up a protest on my private property. Nobody has the right to pass out fliers on my property. Nobody has the right to do so while parked on my property - even if they are shouting through their car window or handing out literature or anything.
Even an employee on his or her break.

I do want responsible people to carry. But I don't want the state to tell me that I have to let them. I have them telling me what to do enough as it is.
If an Anti feels that he or she can't disallow guns on thier own property, it only creates more animosity.

You can force it all you want. It's not helping people accept firearms. They'll push back.

 

[dburkhead]

It's as important as the 1st amendment right.

Nobody has the right to set up a protest on my private property. Nobody has the right to pass out fliers on my property. Nobody has the right to do so while parked on my property - even if they are shouting through their car window or handing out literature or anything.
Even an employee on his or her break.

But do they have the right to have fliers in, say, the glove compartment or trunk of their car. Do you really want to justify the authority to fire them because they happen to have a political protest sign secured in the trunk (or because they might but refuse to let you search their trunk).

Or so they have the right to be jewish, or black, or gay (things that can't even be locked in the car).

Nobody is arguing for shooting guns at work, or waving them around, or showing them to other people so arguments based on the functional equivalent of any of those things are what is known as a "straw man" and is a logical fallacy.

I do want responsible people to carry. But I don't want the state to tell me that I have to let them. I have them telling me what to do enough as it is.
If an Anti feels that he or she can't disallow guns on thier own property, it only creates more animosity.

The same thing can be said about fire codes, health codes, and little things like not allowing bosses to make sexual favors a condition of employment.

You can force it all you want. It's not helping people accept firearms. They'll push back.

As opposed to the opposite approach which has given us NFA '34, GCA '68? The machine gun provision of FOPA '86, and literally tens of thousands of state and local laws.

Going along with the antis has been a losing strategy fo at least 75 years and it simply amazes me that anybody who's ostensibly pro-gun can suggest it with a straight face.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not they arent... they are a crock of ****ake questions.... And on the topic of jobs being dangerous your barking up the wrong tree... I was a Combat MP.. my employer put me in dangerous positions everyday... I dont see you advocating the end of war. Instead what I see is that you want to abridge the constitutional rights of a group of people; Rights that I nearly lost my life defending; to appease and advance the rights of another group of people. and it makes me sick.



You said it yourself. You dont have the right... So keep your guns off my property...

The question still remains who are you to tell me what to do with my property? Just because you have rights doesnt mean you get to execute them everywhere. If we are at a intersection of 2 rights then the answer is go get another job.. Pro Business owners... You have the freedom to go find another job. this isnt communist russia. maybe if people like you would quit driving business under there would be more jobs... between you, OSHA, and the health Nazi's you are doing nothing but make it harder for business.

Let me restate this and you tell me if I have it right:

You claim the right to say that a person with a lawfully owned object locked in his vehicle is not permitted on your property because of the right inherent in property ownership. You claim, however, that a supposed right of a business owner to require sexual favors from some employees (who have a right to maintain their virginity, marital fidelity, or simple state of temporary chastity) is a "crock of ("shiitake", BTW, is the word you were going for with the "ake" at the end) question", as is the right of an employee to not work in hazardous conditions without proper protection.
I have to admit, I'm puzzled. How is it that you have the right to demand people not have X object locked in their vehicle, but not a similar right to decide how you run your business in re: who is allowed to keep the job vs. who gets fired? After all, as the business owner, you have ultimate rights in that business, yes? By your stated opinions, comparing me to OSHA and the "health nazis", at the very least you support the owner's right to send employees into confined spaces at questionable levels of risk.

To be clear, it seems that, based on your posts, you're not against guns on the property but against being told you must allow them, just as has been the argument in re: smoking bans a la gov't telling you what you may not allow on your property. I'm there. Really. I've said several times, I like the result of this law, but I do NOT like nor favor the way they're getting there. By my read, you're saying you don't like the slippery slope and are wondering what ELSE you'll be told you either must allow or must forbid on your property.

Lastly, this bill is specific to employees. It does not address customers nor vendors. I would ask you if your "...so keep your guns off my property..." is equally applicable to those people who supply any product you sell or to those who purchase it, providing the money that is what keeps your business alive? If so, how would you respond if you started losing business because word got around of your policies? Would you change the policies or would you go out of business defending your principles? At this hypothetical point, it's not the government making you change your rules, it's the free market. If you would NOT apply that same rule to customers and vendors, who you see once in a while, why would you apply it to your employees, who you can background check and for whom you could choose to arrange a training session, secure in the knowledge that none of them who abide by the law are carrying without already having had at least a state level and probably a federal background check done on them already?

Looking forward to your replies.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jeremy]

It's as important as the 1st amendment right.

Nobody has the right to set up a protest on my private property. Nobody has the right to pass out fliers on my property. Nobody has the right to do so while parked on my property - even if they are shouting through their car window or handing out literature or anything.
Even an employee on his or her break.

I do want responsible people to carry. But I don't want the state to tell me that I have to let them. I have them telling me what to do enough as it is.
If an Anti feels that he or she can't disallow guns on thier own property, it only creates more animosity.

You can force it all you want. It's not helping people accept firearms. They'll push back.

I personally agree that having the need for this to be into a law is BS...
However I also think having someone telling me what I can and cannot have secured inside my vehicle is BS...

This would have been easy to come to terms with if people would have used a little common sense. However that is becoming more uncommon everyday. Nope couldn't do it so a bunch of people started badgering the political critters and done it very loudly.

What gives either group the right to decide what the other gets to do with each others property?! What is so hard about figuring out my property, your property...

If you want the privilege of telling me what I can keep inside my vehicle at work it had better be a company supplied vehicle. Because unless you are paying for it is my property to decide what I want to do with...

 

[LEaSH]

But do they have the right to have fliers in, say, the glove compartment or trunk of their car. Do you really want to justify the authority to fire them because they happen to have a political protest sign secured in the trunk (or because they might but refuse to let you search their trunk)...

It's not the same.

The 1st amendment right is more about the dissemination of information rather than the possession of it. That's what I described. Everything else, you made up. Because I want my property rights doesn't make me prone to racial hatred or sexual impropriety. What are you talking about? Is that a tactic to make others that don't agree to seem lewd?

Whichever way this thing goes, don't think for a minute that all those things you described would be acceptable either way. And they don't have anything to do with what we are discussing.

 

[LEaSH]

...What gives either group the right to decide what the other gets to do with each others property?! What is so hard about figuring out my property, your property...

If you want the privilege of telling me what I can keep inside my vehicle at work it had better be a company supplied vehicle. Because unless you are paying for it is my property to decide what I want to do with...

We're getting closer!

You see, It's not a privilege of mine. But if you drive a foreign make, and I hate them, I don't have to let you park it on my lot. Absurd as it is, I have the right to be a jerk.

 

[dburkhead]

It's not the same.

The 1st amendment right is more about the dissemination of information rather than the possession of it. That's what I described.

Not quite. You chose examples where people were making actions that would be disruptive to business and comparing them to simply having a gun locked in ones car.

If you're going to compare things

Everything else, you made up. Because I want my property rights doesn't make me prone to racial hatred or sexual impropriety. What are you talking about? Is that a tactic to make others that don't agree to seem lewd?

Nope, I'm simply following the "property rights uber alles" line to its conclusion. If you're going to claim your property rights then how can you reject someone elses claim whether it's "racial hatred" or "sexual impropriety" or "jews keep out" or whatever? Is there a line beyond which "property rights" does not go or isn't there? If there is, then the discussion becomes one of where that line is drawn. If there isn't then you have to admit all of the others as well--because to reject them would be to draw a line.

If you really believe that the property owner or the business owner have some kind of unlimited right to control what happens on their property and in their business then all of the others follow. I'm not saying that you support those things. I'm counting on the probability that you don't in fact and hoping you'll realize that not supporting those things means that there is a line beyond where property owners, where business owners, rights do not go. The only question then remains where that line is.

Whichever way this thing goes, don't think for a minute that all those things you described would be acceptable either way. And they don't have anything to do with what we are discussing.

Au contraire. They are all things that could be claimed as "property rights" or "rights to run ones business as one sees fit."

Since you've just implied that property rights are not unlimited ("don't think for a minute that all those things you described would be acceptable either way") then you implicitly admit that there is a line. Now all you have to do is justify why your place to draw that line is better, more correct, or preferable to mine.

 

[LEaSH]

Touche', David.

There is a line. You know this. Legally we can't discriminate (racially, sexually, religiously) against those in our businesses - but we can at our homes. But is that ok? I think it is. But I can make policies against certain other groups for whatever reason I want.
Employees may not chew gum. Employees may not drink Pepsi. But RC is ok. Employees may not smoke. Employees may not chew tobacco. I can even tell them they cannot eat meat on my property.

Disruptive literature or not, it makes no difference. Whether I 'trust' a full time employee or I don't is really not important. Some places have high turn over than others. Nobody gets to know each other very well.

But none of that has anything to do with the way I want my parking lot occupied. I can legally make my employees miserable with restrictions. Of course that would be stupid. But freedom allows stupid.

 

[dburkhead]

We're getting closer!

You see, It's not a privilege of mine.

Says who? Lots of people claim lots of rights. Not all of them are actually rights.

Do you have a "right" to government funded health care? Some people claim such a right. Do you have a "right" to the "not be offended" by others exercise of "free speech"? Some people claim such a right.

Did the Dixie Chicks have a "right" to have their music played on certain radio stations even after the listeners voiced their displeasure? That claim was certainly made.

People claim all sorts of things as "rights." Not all of them actually are.

The power of government to regulate commerce is in the Constitution (specifically interstate and international in the US Constitution--within individual states it would come down to the 10th and such power not being denied the States it would be up to State constitutions to decide what each individual State has in that vein).

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is also in the Constitution.

The right to deny people to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights within locked vehicles while they are parked on your property for legitimate tasks (employees, customers, vendors, etc.) in your business engaged in commerce (which, therefore, the government has authority to regulate) is not listed anywhere in the Constitution. Now something doesn't have to be listed in the Constitution to actually be a right, but things which are in the Constitution pretty much trump things which aren't.

But if you drive a foreign make, and I hate them, I don't have to let you park it on my lot. Absurd as it is, I have the right to be a jerk.

Not quite. You have certain rights which permit certain actions. Those actions may or may not be "jerky" depending on the situation. But there is no blanket "right to be a jerk."

What you do not have is the right to infringe on others Constitutional rights. And for your private home you have certain very broad rights but even those are not unlimited and never have been. However once you start a business engaged in commerce the "commerce clause" (if international or interstate) or the relevant powers at the state level come into play and you are subject to regulation. This has always been true since the whole concept of "law" was invented. It was true at the ratification of the Constitution. It was true under the articles of Confederation. It was true in Colonial times. It was true in Roman times. It was true under Ur-Namu.

This whole idea of being able to run one's business without outside "interference" or regulation is a myth. It's never been the case. Businesses have always been subject to regulation. That regulation may have set lightly or heavily depending on the times and the governments or other organizations that enforced regulation, but it was always there.

There are arguments one can make against the guns in locked cars law but some mythical unlimited "private property right" is not one of them. You need to deal with why "this" limitation on that right is unacceptable but "that" limitation is OK.

 

[dburkhead]

Touche', David.

There is a line. You know this.

Of course I know this. That's been my point all along. The question is where that line should be drawn.

Legally we can't discriminate (racially, sexually, religiously) against those in our businesses - but we can at our homes. But is that ok? I think it is.

And I have pointed out more than once that what one can do in one's own home is different from what one can do in a business engaged in commerce.

The law in question is about businesses engaged in commerce, not about ones private home (unless said home is also a business engaged in commerce--but hey, that's the choice of the person to engage in business out of his home).

But I can make policies against certain other groups for whatever reason I want.
Employees may not chew gum. Employees may not drink Pepsi. But RC is ok. Employees may not smoke. Employees may not chew tobacco. I can even tell them they cannot eat meat on my property.

Try telling them they may not have tobacco or pepsi or gum in their car and see what that gets you.

Do try and make your examples actually parallel.

Disruptive literature or not, it makes no difference.

Try firing someone for having a bible, or a koran, or a copy of the Bhaghavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon, or Essential Asatru, or Mao's "Little Red Book", or ... in their car and see what that gets you.

Whether I 'trust' a full time employee or I don't is really not important. Some places have high turn over than others. Nobody gets to know each other very well.

But none of that has anything to do with the way I want my parking lot occupied. I can legally make my employees miserable with restrictions. Of course that would be stupid. But freedom allows stupid.

But there are restrictions you can't legally make. Restrictions on businesses for a variety of reasons since before the Constitution was written and continued since. Hint: the term "blue law" dates back to 1781 and such laws have been a regular feature of communities through to the present day.

You're claiming something as a "right" that has never existed.

 

[MTC]

...pissant people... my way or the highway... property owners rights 1st.....

you have the most asinine and hypocritical point of view I have ever heard.... You think that because you decided to work somewhere or go somewhere that you are entitled to not follow the rules.

No. He believes that his person and property does not become the employer's property the moment he drives onto the lot.

Based on your silly stance why arent you trying to walk into the white house with an assault rifle? or the governors office with a grenade? Yeah you have a right to carry but...

Based on the stance you take lets see what all business owners have lost:
/snip/
Haebus Corpus is lost

You got it backwards. Nice job lumping people here in with smoking and weapons bans, zoning restrictions, etc.

Private property always comes 1st..... sorry to say.....

can i take away your firearm? Nope
Can i tell you what to shoot at or what to fire through it? nope
Can i tell you what color it has to be? nope
Why? Because its your property...

Exactly. My vehicle and its contents are my property, and do not become your property as a condition of employment or by virtue of simply parking on the lot. And employers are, in effect, taking away peoples' firearms off the employer's property by instituting, under threat of termination, 'no guns in the parking lot' rules, since if an employee follows these rules to the letter, he will be disarmed the moment he leaves his house.

...dictate...
...someone trying to act like rambo.

...dictate what anyone does with their own property...

Not really I believe in my rights as a business owner and Im tired of pissants trying to tell me what I can and cant do in my own business. ... you wanna carry at work go find a job where you can. Maybe it makes me feel safe, free and happy to know that my business is weapon free? What about my free speech to say no weapons at work? where do they factor in to your dictatorial world? ... Just because you have a right doesnt mean you can enforce it and use it everywhere......

This works both ways, with the employer having the upper hand...to a certain point. The disagreement is over where that point is.

I don't see you trying to have a sit in in th state capital with assault rifles, or at the white house with UZI's....

Get your nose out of my business and quit telling me how to run it

Your care is parked on my parking lot is it not? you brought your gun, bomb, mortar, poison gas what ever on my property.

i dont care its on my property....

Its not the business owners fault if you get mugged on your way home from work. its your own fault... your actions after work affect you...... You chose to work in a place that doesnt allow weapons.. You chose

The bill is not about guns in the workplace. It is about protecting the employee's right to leave his gun - his property - locked in his vehicle - his property - out on the parking lot.

So as I see it you want to strip or remove one groups right so you get that warm fuzzy feeling, that warm blanket of safety..... I am a lower class of person according to you so you can strip my rights from me to feel safe?

You got it backwards again.

And how far will it go?

It ends at the car door.

Now you want you gun toting friends to hang out around my business? I think not... The business next door cant tell you to move because the feel unsafe with your guns or your gun toting friends being there... And they cant make you let people park on your yard because their lot is full and its good for their business.. so why should you be allowed to tell them what to do? You want a gun in your car at work go for it... you get fired sucks to be you...

This is the position most folks are in already.

I believe my company is a safer place with no weapons in the equation... How do you justify telling me what I have to believe?

Believe what you will. What you are arguing for is the creation of more and more "gun free zones", and using the private property argument to do so. To illustrate to you the absurd extreme of the absolute private property argument: I will be the employer. The very second you cross my property line in your vehicle, you will be stopped, boxed in, and met by armed guards with weapons pointed at you. "Get your hands over your head, or you ain't gonna have no head to put your hands over!" Oh, and your vehicle is subject to search because it's on my property. Pharaoh: "The slaves are mine. Their lives are mine. All that they own...is mine." And you accuse others of being dictatorial.

Im not afraid of someone going postal.. i dont want someone thinking they are Rambo or Chuck Norris and getting someone else killed. ... You are the one advocating giving guns to terrorists and criminals.

You said it yourself. You dont have the right... So keep your guns off my property...
The question still remains who are you to tell me what to do with my property? Just because you have rights doesnt mean you get to execute them everywhere. If we are at a intersection of 2 rights then the answer is go get another job...

No, the answer is to determine as best we can where that line should be drawn. Nobody here particularly likes having to do this through a codified law, especially concerning two of the most highly valued rights. Your arguments might carry more weight if you would refrain from using the oft-repeated Brady/VPC/media talking points and misdirection highlighted in red above. This issue has already been exhaustively argued here, notably by two of our most eloquent posters, without ad hominem attacks or argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[LEaSH]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is also in the Constitution.

There are arguments one can make against the guns in locked cars law but some mythical unlimited "private property right" is not one of them. You need to deal with why "this" limitation on that right is unacceptable but "that" limitation is OK.

And so it goes David. Mythical? Unlimited? C'mon...

What will be acceptable and not acceptable when legislation is proposed to allow something that you don't like being done to business owners?

Putting business owners property rights above individual employee 2nd amendment rights is what this is. And it's never been unconstitutional to demand visitors at farms, factories, and other businesses to not bring guns onto the properties of those that want it that way.

Do you want legislators to make the rules? They can keep making them - even the ones you don't like.

 

[dburkhead]

And so it goes David. Mythical? Unlimited? C'mon...

Mythical, yes, in that the lack of rules that you seem to be advocating has never existed.

Unlimited--if it's not to be unlimited, then the question is about where to draw the line and you would then have to justify why your line is better than some other line.

What will be acceptable and not acceptable when legislation is proposed to allow something that you don't like being done to business owners?

I will try to find reasons to argue against that specific location of the line. Not try to argue as if there is no line.

Putting business owners property rights above individual employee 2nd amendment rights is what this is. And it's never been unconstitutional to demand visitors at farms, factories, and other businesses to not bring guns onto the properties of those that want it that way.

Didn't say it was. Just that it's not been unconstitutional for regulate commerce since there's been a Constitution.

Do you want legislators to make the rules? They can keep making them - even the ones you don't like.

That works both ways. Are you truly advocating abolishing all rules? If so then all the things that you have been avoiding (sexual favors, discrimination against race, creed, religion, etc.) become "permissible".

Yes, legislators can make rules one doesn't like. That's why it's incumbent on the citizenry to ride herd on the legislators. There's going to be a line. It's up to us to determine where that line will be.