4 ms·

Surely this is a violation of civil rights law. The law is going to have a disparate impact on minority groups since there is a difference in vaccination rates

Surely this is a violation of civil rights law. The law is going to have a disparate impact on minority groups since there is a difference in vaccination rates between different racial groups. The law doesn't seem narrowly scoped to achieve a specific compelling government interest. People from the government seem to be claiming this is being used to incentivise vaccine uptake. If the government made the claim that the vaccine was necessary in an indoor setting in order to reduce the spread then the law might be ok but because they have been caught making these other claims then it could burn them in court.

dcow 5y ago
Then close the gaps.
cududa 5y ago
Wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
- grammarprofess 5y ago
  Wow that's interesting, sadly immigrants have to cheat the system, cant play by the rules like this, I'm sure he learned his lesson, bullshit till you make it
- benmmurphy 5y ago
  this is not enforcing vaccination it is denying services based on vaccination status. i think there is a distinction. like what if a state decided to make the franchise dependent on whether your were vaccinated or not in order to 'encourage' people to vaccinate similar to how they are trying to deny people access to indoor dining in order to 'encourage' people to vaccinate. i'm sure that would be challenged under the civil rights act. the key thing here is that if they wanted to increase vaccination rates it could be done in a more direct and narrow way like enforcing people to get vaccinated rather than doing it indirectly. also, this case was not about the whether it was a breach of the civil rights act which is what i contend this law violates. in fact, the civil rights act was established after this case so it couldn't possibly have factored into the decision.
  - ok123456 5y ago
    The New York rules are less restrictive than Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Jacobson v. Massachusetts actually forced people to get a smallpox vaccine, this is about getting into Fudruckers and Planet Fitness. The Supreme Court found, 7-2, that it was not a 14th Amendment civil rights violation to have compulsory vaccination and that police powers extended to protecting public health.
  - ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
    Reminds me when in California they shut off the water to someone's house when they had a party during lockdown. [1] They knew arresting them wouldn't work, so instead they went with what they thought was more of legal grey area, just shut off their access to water. They're not forcing you to get vaccinated you see, you could obviously just buy bottled water! [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53680761 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53680761
kook_throwaway 5y ago
>there is a difference in vaccination rates between different racial groups Considering that people of color have been the targets of medical experimentation under the guise of public health by both our government and the same drug makers peddling the vaccines (usually in other countries), this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

dcow 5y ago

Then close the gaps.

cududa 5y ago

Wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

grammarprofess 5y ago
Wow that's interesting, sadly immigrants have to cheat the system, cant play by the rules like this, I'm sure he learned his lesson, bullshit till you make it
benmmurphy 5y ago
this is not enforcing vaccination it is denying services based on vaccination status. i think there is a distinction. like what if a state decided to make the franchise dependent on whether your were vaccinated or not in order to 'encourage' people to vaccinate similar to how they are trying to deny people access to indoor dining in order to 'encourage' people to vaccinate. i'm sure that would be challenged under the civil rights act. the key thing here is that if they wanted to increase vaccination rates it could be done in a more direct and narrow way like enforcing people to get vaccinated rather than doing it indirectly. also, this case was not about the whether it was a breach of the civil rights act which is what i contend this law violates. in fact, the civil rights act was established after this case so it couldn't possibly have factored into the decision.
- ok123456 5y ago
  The New York rules are less restrictive than Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Jacobson v. Massachusetts actually forced people to get a smallpox vaccine, this is about getting into Fudruckers and Planet Fitness. The Supreme Court found, 7-2, that it was not a 14th Amendment civil rights violation to have compulsory vaccination and that police powers extended to protecting public health.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  Reminds me when in California they shut off the water to someone's house when they had a party during lockdown. [1] They knew arresting them wouldn't work, so instead they went with what they thought was more of legal grey area, just shut off their access to water. They're not forcing you to get vaccinated you see, you could obviously just buy bottled water! [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53680761 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53680761

kook_throwaway 5y ago

>there is a difference in vaccination rates between different racial groups Considering that people of color have been the targets of medical experimentation under the guise of public health by both our government and the same drug makers peddling the vaccines (usually in other countries), this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.