5 ms·
/s ?
by totony 5y ago
/s ?
- ghaff 5y agoSeems perfectly reasonable. I would be against vaccinating people by force. I'm not against telling them they can't fly, eat at a restaurant, or attend a concert if they choose to not be vaccinated. ADDED: Governmental mandates vs. rules established by private organizations is a reasonable debate. I probably prefer the latter in most cases. For example, I'm attending an event in about a month and they're requiring vaccinations and masks. If you're not OK with that, just don't go.
- totony 5y agoReplace vaccinated by any race. Does that sound good? I say that in a non-facetious way to expose bias. We don't say "you have the right to X, BUT if you use that right you don't have the right to do what everyone else does." That's not a right. "You have a right to free expression, but if you express dissent you are barred from using the Internet (it's too dangerous!)".
- SECProto 5y ago"You have the privilege to drive a personal car, but if you make yourself a danger to others by drinking and driving, the privilege will be revoked" is a more apt comparison.
- totony 5y agoYou don't have the right to drive a car (and it's pretty well know e.g. you require a license) in this case. Here people say you have the right to choose what goes in your body and to be treated as a normal person (not a "normal person license" or a "body choice license")
- SECProto 5y agoThese persons still have the right to choose what goes in their body, be it alcohol or vaccine. The choice just has certain consequences on available transportation methods.
- totony 5y agoWhy does exercising your right have consequences? If we go that way, why not just jail them? ("You have a right to choose, but if you do you're going to a quarantine facility")
- cardiffspaceman 5y agoExercising your rights has always had consequences, when your rights involve actions that interfere with the rights of others. The U.S. Supreme Court archives are full of examples and analogies.
- mthoms 5y ago>Why does exercising your right have consequences? Exercising your rights is fine until doing so risks the health and safety of others. Other people have rights too.
- ghaff 5y agoYou choose whether to be vaccinated. You don't choose race and other protected classes. You have a constitutional right to free speech with some limitations explored by the Supreme Court over the years. The same Supreme Court (different individuals obviously) who established that Massachusetts could fine individuals who refused to take the smallpox vaccine.
- totony 5y agoFair, then they don't have a right to be vaccinated or not (at least in the US). And it's false to say we "support their right." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts seems to suggest that also.
- ghaff 5y agoAll you can say is that Jacobson established that a state can require vaccination with non-compliance subject to a fine. Given that the case involved police power and its limitations, you probably can't assume that a case of forcible vaccination would be covered by this precedent. Zucht v. King subsequently upheld a rule requiring students to be vaccinated to attend school, which IANAL is probably the more relevant case law for businesses and others requiring vaccination in order to enter a building or attend an event.
- oceanplexian 5y agoWhat about people with allergic reactions or certain types of cancers that prevent them from getting any of the vaccines. What if they need to board a flight to take care of a sick family member or deal with an emergency? I guess they are now second class citizens?
- ghaff 5y agoClearly there should be medical exemptions and Jacobson, the oft-quoted relevant Supreme Court case, even basically said so. But otherwise I don't have a lot of sympathy. They had a choice and their choice now has consequences. Before the vaccines came out, lots of people were kept from visiting sick relatives.