4 ms·

> Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say? They are not forced to take the medicine. They are given an choice to t

> Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say? They are not forced to take the medicine. They are given an choice to take the vaccine or find another job. If they refused to take the vaccine, that is their choice, period. They cannot claimed they are being forced because they are given an choice in the first place. They are given a free will with their decision. Thousands of Thousands people screeching for being forced when they are given a choice. Society don’t have to conform to those people who want to endanger their people and their livelihood.

everyoneloves84 5y ago
> They are given an choice to take the vaccine or find another job. Interesting line of argument. So, if my boss says: "have sex with me or lose your job", is that freedom of choice or blackmail?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 5y ago
  That's only disallowed because of the sex angle. If your boss tells you "come to this work sponsored luncheon for a person you hate or be fired", that's not blackmail and is perfectly allowed. Don't pollute comparisons with situations that have other considerations
refurb 5y ago
This is an incredibly weak argument and the courts have already ruled similar issues. The government can’t violate your right to free speech. They also can’t “ask” a private company to censor you as it effectively the same thing. Telling someone “its your choice but if you don’t do it you’ll lose your livelihood” is not a choice at all.
- cmh89 5y ago
  Choices have consequences. I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job and the consequence of that choice is that my job would fire me. The ability of the government to establish vaccination requirements is long established. It's only becoming a hot topic now because anti-science folks have been programmed to fear a safe and effective vaccine.
  - refurb 5y ago
    It's clearly not an established process since Biden's mandates is being struck down.
    - cmh89 5y ago
      The court really has nothing to do with whether or not something is well-established. The judge who blocked the mandate is an ideological, inexperience trump appointee. I'm talking about 'well-established' in that it's been happening for 200+ years. The conservative right-wing theocratic extremists that trump appointed will destroy our judicial norms for the next 50 years but that doesn't make them right.
  - exodust 5y ago
    > I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job The difference is you flipped the switch and decided to turn up to work without clothes. You decided to radically change your behavior and actions in the workplace. This will obviously have consequences due to your unsightly naked body offending co-workers. When someone doesn't flip any switch, but continues to work exactly as they did before, they have not done anything you can label a "choice with harsh consequences". Unvaccinated people are not suddenly shedding and dangerous, in the way a naked person is shedding pubic hairs everywhere.
    - cmh89 5y ago
      The difference is totally irrelevant. >Unvaccinated people are not suddenly shedding and dangerous, in the way a naked person is shedding pubic hairs everywhere. Unvaccinated people are inherently dangerous. The change is that we now have the ability for them to become vaccinated people who aren't nearly as dangerous to their clients. In June 2020, we had no choice but to have unvaccinated health care workers. Today, we do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

everyoneloves84 5y ago

> They are given an choice to take the vaccine or find another job. Interesting line of argument. So, if my boss says: "have sex with me or lose your job", is that freedom of choice or blackmail?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mrguyorama 5y ago
That's only disallowed because of the sex angle. If your boss tells you "come to this work sponsored luncheon for a person you hate or be fired", that's not blackmail and is perfectly allowed. Don't pollute comparisons with situations that have other considerations

refurb 5y ago

This is an incredibly weak argument and the courts have already ruled similar issues. The government can’t violate your right to free speech. They also can’t “ask” a private company to censor you as it effectively the same thing. Telling someone “its your choice but if you don’t do it you’ll lose your livelihood” is not a choice at all.

cmh89 5y ago
Choices have consequences. I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job and the consequence of that choice is that my job would fire me. The ability of the government to establish vaccination requirements is long established. It's only becoming a hot topic now because anti-science folks have been programmed to fear a safe and effective vaccine.
- refurb 5y ago
  It's clearly not an established process since Biden's mandates is being struck down.
  - cmh89 5y ago
    The court really has nothing to do with whether or not something is well-established. The judge who blocked the mandate is an ideological, inexperience trump appointee. I'm talking about 'well-established' in that it's been happening for 200+ years. The conservative right-wing theocratic extremists that trump appointed will destroy our judicial norms for the next 50 years but that doesn't make them right.
- exodust 5y ago
  > I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job The difference is you flipped the switch and decided to turn up to work without clothes. You decided to radically change your behavior and actions in the workplace. This will obviously have consequences due to your unsightly naked body offending co-workers. When someone doesn't flip any switch, but continues to work exactly as they did before, they have not done anything you can label a "choice with harsh consequences". Unvaccinated people are not suddenly shedding and dangerous, in the way a naked person is shedding pubic hairs everywhere.
  - cmh89 5y ago
    The difference is totally irrelevant. >Unvaccinated people are not suddenly shedding and dangerous, in the way a naked person is shedding pubic hairs everywhere. Unvaccinated people are inherently dangerous. The change is that we now have the ability for them to become vaccinated people who aren't nearly as dangerous to their clients. In June 2020, we had no choice but to have unvaccinated health care workers. Today, we do.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]