The choice isn’t in the terms of the contract, as that presupposes you have a right to the job in the first place, rather the bilaterality is in their ability to offer you employment, or not, and your ability to accept or decline the offer of employment, per the offer terms.

That’s bilateral, or at least mutual, as you are not being forced to accept the job in the first place, you can refuse and walk away if the terms displease you.

Does a prospective have the ability to chang the policies of the company? I don’t think so. So it is a unilateral contract.

Tryanny can be imposed by anyone or business that has power. The fact they are not the government does not stop the ability to impose tyrannical conditions.

Employers are already have certain constraints not to fire employeee based on other considerations . The requirement that employers have to respect the private property of the car and its contents is just another common constraint.

If the item was a bible in the car I am certain that the leglistaure would have no probable forbidding private business from firing an employee that had one in his car.

I think that is consistent reasoning.

If the government is forbidden to discriminate (say, ban CHL) on a given piece of public property or venue they should certainly not be able to require private organizations to act as an agent for them on that property in such a way as to discriminate on their behalf.

If anything, they should be required to forbid private organizations wishing to use public property from discriminating in any way that government is forbidden to.

If you want to hold a “gun free event”, and such carry and possession is expressly permitted at a particular public venue available for rent, you should either have to comply with the public use rules or find private property on which to not do so.

If you wish to go “macro” and change what government is able to discriminate against, so as to allow you to rent public property and discriminate as you wish, you should act within the procedures provided by the appropriate governing document or constitution.

If the right involved is fundamental, you should then see your discriminatory wishes dashed on the rocks of liberty and swept into the abyss of failed authoritarianism.

When the issue is use of “public property” if the government is not allowed discriminate then they should not be able require others to do it on their behalf as a condition of use of that “public property”. Otherwise it’s not really “public property”. Otherwise the people in power at the time could say only Republicans/Democrats/Communists/whoever can use the parks and have parades on public streets. Only those in favor by the political elite enjoy the use of “public property”.

Once you accept that then you are nearly forced to accept, by intellectual consistency, that the government may not discriminate against those that do discriminate–i.e. KKK parades on public streets and use of other public facilities.

Granted, in a Libertarian society, the city would not be anti OR pro discrimination.

The city of Seattle is requiring private business who wish to rent city facilities (or have a parade) to discriminate against people with CPLs. This is despite the fact that Washington State has preemption on firearms laws. The city is not allowed to discriminate so they City requires private organizations to discriminate then tells the state AG, “We didn’t do it, it was the private organization that is doing it.”