You also can choose to no longer attend. But the faux outrage over this — “they shouldn’t be allowed to do that!” — reads very hypocritical to me, like private entities are allowed to do what they want without interference until they do something that is personally disagreeable.
How does that work if you don’t want to bake a cake?
I’m all for individual rights, but this statement is so hypocritical that I find it hard to not comment on it.
Of course not, the idea is completely bonkers. The point is that protections are not extended solely on the basis of "immutable" or inborn characteristics.
So sexuality is immutable?
It’s a weird legal meme that immutable characteristics should somehow be treated differently for the purposes of moral blameworthiness. I am not really sure where it comes from and why people seem so eager to parrot it, but it looks completely baseless.
This will be a better argument when vaccine choices are added to the list of protected classes. That does not seem too likely, however, given that it is a choice rather than an immutable characteristic.
List of protected classes is just a list that can be amended, changed or entirely removed. I am not really sure how it’s an argument for anything unless you are a hardcore ultra-legalist who believes that a law, a completely artificial human construct, has some sort of divine importance over everything else.
> That does not seem too likely, however, given that it is a choice rather than an immutable characteristic.
It’s a weird legal meme that immutable characteristics should somehow be treated differently for the purposes of moral blameworthiness. Again, I am not really sure where it comes from and why people seem so eager to parrot it, but it looks completely baseless.
>> List of protected classes is just a list that can be amended, changed or entirely removed. I am not really sure how it’s an argument for anything unless you are a hardcore ultra-legalist who believes that a law, a completely artificial human construct, has some sort of divine importance over everything else.
I think that you may need to spend some time thinking about what you just said. Perhaps you need to look at your own actions
The university would probably say they are trying to keep the school safe for vulnerable students. One of my kids would likely be in the vulnerable category, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument.
Yes, but the people who think that decision was wrong and should be reversed are basically the same people who are supporting what Emory is doing.
that said, there are at least two ways to look at this.
the first is that this is a silly policy that seems to have nothing to do with an infectious disease, which for me, brings up memories of all sorts of ridiculous rules that institutions tend to have.
the other way of looking at it is that this policy is really quite mild compared to other measures the school could take to encourage students to get boosters.