6 ms·

>A statement on Costco’s website states that as per their Code of Ethics, they are required to comply with the law wherever they operate. Either support it or

by daenz 5y ago

>A statement on Costco’s website states that as per their Code of Ethics, they are required to comply with the law wherever they operate. Either support it or don't, but this lukewarm response of "I'm just obeying orders" is cowardly.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
Companies just need to follow laws, they don't need an opinion on everything.
- daenz 5y ago
  Will you maintain that position when you find that a company upholds a horrifying law?
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    If they follow and law because it's the law, yes. My anger would be toward the government or my peers. I live in a democratic society last time I checked, even if it doesn't always move how I would like.
  - gpm 5y ago
    There's a difference between the statement "don't need an opinion on everything" and "don't need an opinion on anything". Your criticism would only apply to the latter statement.
- loceng 5y ago
  Hopefully then the companies are just as willing to pay fines for following illegal rules put in place without following the parliamentary process.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    What does an illegal rule (law) even mean? I'm an American so maybe I'm missing something from another country, but the two are one and the same as far as I know. If I needed to start making judgement calls on every law on whether it's illegal or not, that would be a wild way to live.
    - loceng 5y ago
      Our parliament was closed for most of the pandemic, so 1) opposition wasn't possible, and 2) our Charter of Rights is being violated - due process isn't being followed. Jordan Peterson just released an interview with a now retired First Minister who is last living politician who helped craft our Charter of Rights in 1981/1982, where they go into detail about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM - they include the initial and post interview "behind the scenes" as part of transparency - so there's background noise initially while they're getting setup. An elected government going through a process wrongly and putting it forward as truth, as legal, would be an illegal law. Indeed, that would be a wild way to live - which is why we generally blindly trust our government, which is a huge problem - but when it's as important and critical as moments like this, people start standing up and protesting. There's also the https://FreeNorthDeclaration.ca https://FreeNorthDeclaration.ca with 500+ Canadian lawyers who have signed - their petition and hope is to educate Canadians that laws are being broken and that due process isn't being followed. [I would have replied almost immediately to you but HN's rate limiting number of comments]
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Even if the rule were found illegal, it wouldn't be illegal for any company to refuse access based on vaccination status, so no chance the company would be forced to pay a fine.
    - loceng 5y ago
      I'm not so certain that'd be legal. The idea maybe would have a footing if wanting to prevent those who are actually infectious, e.g. requiring proof of a negative COVID test, and because these vaccines don't prevent infection - and may actually lead to it being easier to catch [and therefore spread] COVID - it isn't akin to a negative COVID test result.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
slackfan 5y ago

by daenz 5y ago

xboxnolifes 5y ago

Companies just need to follow laws, they don't need an opinion on everything.

daenz 5y ago
Will you maintain that position when you find that a company upholds a horrifying law?
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  If they follow and law because it's the law, yes. My anger would be toward the government or my peers. I live in a democratic society last time I checked, even if it doesn't always move how I would like.
- gpm 5y ago
  There's a difference between the statement "don't need an opinion on everything" and "don't need an opinion on anything". Your criticism would only apply to the latter statement.
loceng 5y ago
Hopefully then the companies are just as willing to pay fines for following illegal rules put in place without following the parliamentary process.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  What does an illegal rule (law) even mean? I'm an American so maybe I'm missing something from another country, but the two are one and the same as far as I know. If I needed to start making judgement calls on every law on whether it's illegal or not, that would be a wild way to live.
  - loceng 5y ago
    Our parliament was closed for most of the pandemic, so 1) opposition wasn't possible, and 2) our Charter of Rights is being violated - due process isn't being followed. Jordan Peterson just released an interview with a now retired First Minister who is last living politician who helped craft our Charter of Rights in 1981/1982, where they go into detail about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM - they include the initial and post interview "behind the scenes" as part of transparency - so there's background noise initially while they're getting setup. An elected government going through a process wrongly and putting it forward as truth, as legal, would be an illegal law. Indeed, that would be a wild way to live - which is why we generally blindly trust our government, which is a huge problem - but when it's as important and critical as moments like this, people start standing up and protesting. There's also the https://FreeNorthDeclaration.ca https://FreeNorthDeclaration.ca with 500+ Canadian lawyers who have signed - their petition and hope is to educate Canadians that laws are being broken and that due process isn't being followed. [I would have replied almost immediately to you but HN's rate limiting number of comments]
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Even if the rule were found illegal, it wouldn't be illegal for any company to refuse access based on vaccination status, so no chance the company would be forced to pay a fine.
  - loceng 5y ago
    I'm not so certain that'd be legal. The idea maybe would have a footing if wanting to prevent those who are actually infectious, e.g. requiring proof of a negative COVID test, and because these vaccines don't prevent infection - and may actually lead to it being easier to catch [and therefore spread] COVID - it isn't akin to a negative COVID test result.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

slackfan 5y ago