4 ms·

It seems no more bothersome than being required to be licensed to drive or to present a proof of age to purchase alcohol. There are perfectly viable alternative

It seems no more bothersome than being required to be licensed to drive or to present a proof of age to purchase alcohol. There are perfectly viable alternatives - you can eat outdoors, get takeout, exercise outside, just like how you can ride a bike or take a taxi if you choose not to get a driving license. And the decision to require vaccination at hospitals are also made on recommendation of doctors that are as, if not more qualified than the hypothetical doctor. The doctor in question can also open their own practice if they do not want to be employed by the hospital. Licensing systems necessitate some surveillance in the form of identification and data storage, but it's not as if these do not exist already and somehow the driving license has not caused American to spiral into dystopia nor is it even close to being the worst surveillance mechanism that the American government could choose to use if it does turn authoritarian.

quantumBerry 5y ago
The viable alternatives are separate but equal. Where have I heard that before? Driver's licenses are not required on private property, so the driver license analogy doesn't hold when we're talking about private establishments. Requiring a license and government dictating your driving behavior on your own private property would indeed be dystopian.
- mediumdeviation 5y ago
  It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. The government will not let you serve alcohol at a restaurant unless you check the drinker’s age. The government will now also not let you serve diners indoors unless you check they have been vaccinated.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    >It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. Good to know we've established that you're ok with folks being shut out of a diner by mandate of government, so long as the reason is something other than related to a protected class. How about we ban everyone under 40 from dining indoors -- after all age discrimination is legal as long as it's against those under 40. We can also outlaw anyone who makes their living in the information economy, they shouldn't have chosen that career if they wanted to . And I think I want to ban anyone who drives or rides in motor vehicles, because there's a public safety risk as drivers and passengers of motor vehicles are one of the most common causes of traumatic death. >The government will not let you serve alcohol at a restaurant unless you check the drinker’s age. The government will now also not let you serve diners indoors unless you check they have been vaccinated. So you're one of those that thinks those old enough to go to war shouldn't be able to have a drink? The drinking age is one of the weakest arguments for government control and is an excellent example of overstepping gone wrong. I seriously can't tell if you might be using that example as evidence to discredit the mandates.
  - names_are_hard 5y ago
    >It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. Religion is a choice and is also a protected class, so those are not mutually exclusive categories.

quantumBerry 5y ago

The viable alternatives are separate but equal. Where have I heard that before? Driver's licenses are not required on private property, so the driver license analogy doesn't hold when we're talking about private establishments. Requiring a license and government dictating your driving behavior on your own private property would indeed be dystopian.

mediumdeviation 5y ago
It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. The government will not let you serve alcohol at a restaurant unless you check the drinker’s age. The government will now also not let you serve diners indoors unless you check they have been vaccinated.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  >It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. Good to know we've established that you're ok with folks being shut out of a diner by mandate of government, so long as the reason is something other than related to a protected class. How about we ban everyone under 40 from dining indoors -- after all age discrimination is legal as long as it's against those under 40. We can also outlaw anyone who makes their living in the information economy, they shouldn't have chosen that career if they wanted to . And I think I want to ban anyone who drives or rides in motor vehicles, because there's a public safety risk as drivers and passengers of motor vehicles are one of the most common causes of traumatic death. >The government will not let you serve alcohol at a restaurant unless you check the drinker’s age. The government will now also not let you serve diners indoors unless you check they have been vaccinated. So you're one of those that thinks those old enough to go to war shouldn't be able to have a drink? The drinking age is one of the weakest arguments for government control and is an excellent example of overstepping gone wrong. I seriously can't tell if you might be using that example as evidence to discredit the mandates.
- names_are_hard 5y ago
  >It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. Religion is a choice and is also a protected class, so those are not mutually exclusive categories.