It’s also the right thing to do.
It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects citizens rights.
It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects citizens rights.
[1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-viol...
I am vaccinated but I stand with my brothers and sisters who demand a choice. Had it been mandated and had I known then what I know now, I would have not taken it.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
There's also no pushback against vaccination requirements for school and universities, but I'm sure that will be coming soon
'strong legal ground' yet the Supreme Court disagreed with you.
You can posit about the future all you want, it won't change the reality of the present.
Now I no longer believe you are commenting in good faith, you are simply pushing an agenda.
State level mandates are considered to be constitutional, it's the broad federal mandate without employment specialization that wasn't considered constitutional.
This isn't moving goal posts but providing context.
These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Drink at home.
Unless you're in Quebec, where the unvax don't have the right to buy alcohol for home consumption, either.
When RESTRICTED CLIENTELE was searched for there were 456 results that were shown. The meaning of restricted clientele meant that Jews and Blacks were not welcome at those establishments which were scattered across the Country.
Does that mean that the government has the right to deny the population anything not spelled out as a right in the constitution? That sounds unlimited to me. Don't western governments usually have their responsibilities a bit more narrowly defined?
Granted covid is an emergency. I guess the question is how big an emergency something needs to be before allowing the government to place restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Reasonable people differ on their opinion of the tradeoffs involved, especially as we move through time.
The people who work at the restaurants have a right to a healthy and safe work environment (this is why smoking was banned in restaurants).
These worker rights trump the "right" of someone to be able to go to a restaurant in a way that puts workers' health at risk. The reasons is because that worker has no choice, while on the other side, the other person has choices of: 1) get vaccinated or 2) feed themselves by making a sandwich at home.
This is why the only stuff that is getting shut down are things at the intersection of "not essential" and "notable cause of cases."
I've felt especially bad for young people who are at minimal risk from covid, having their lives turned upside down, who will inherit the extra trillions of dollars of debt all this will have cost.
For the purposes of covid I'm not sure if that is a black and white situation legally, at least in the U.S. Neither the rights of workers or patrons are spelled out as constitutional rights, because the constitution limits the government. This even kind of came up in the Supreme Court, which said that OSHA does not have the right to mandate vaccines in the name of workplace safety.
But doesn't the degree of danger and the trade-off involved in lockdowns matter? There's been a lot of mitigations against covid, some which make more sense than others as we've learned more, some that have costly effects - both financial and otherwise, especially for young people. Some look at the total count of 931k dead in the U.S. and want to do more. Some look at the same number as 1 out of 350 of the population, skewing old and unhealthy, and think we've done too much. We don't close restaurants for the flu, which kills tens of thousands of people.
I don't think this comes down to just a workplace safety issue. I think the degree of danger is quite important, and honest people have very different opinions of the risks and tradeoffs involved. The degree of danger and the mitigations required to make a difference in that danger are better known and quite different than two years ago. That is why there will be more and more calls to remove the existing mitigations.
A large, large percentage of the population disagrees and we're now playing a game of chicken. Who will win?