3 ms·

These topics are very clear cut to me. Forcing someone to take an experimental drug is not okay, and murdering small babies is not okay.

by valval 2y ago

johnnyanmac 2y ago
The government did not force anyone to take the vaccine. The death count in US proportionally speaks to that. If you're comparing walking into a store or concert (both private establishments) to your state telling your doctor thru cannot operate on you, you clearly don't understand or won't understand how freedom works.
- valval 2y ago
  You’re talking about a different thing. I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it. Private businesses can place whatever bans on whomever they want, for all I care.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    > I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it. Where? I've yet to hear of a court case where the plantiff is arguing that they were forced to take a vaccine by a government. Bodily automomy has plenty of case studies and it'd be an easy slam dunk if any federal entity tried doing that. There was an executive order: https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investigation-into-federal-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investiga... >the Biden Administration implemented Executive Order (E.O.) 14043. This E.O. required federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 8, 2021, or risk removal or termination from their federal employment. But I believe the precedent for political discrimination in the workplace is thin, at best. I don't think the Hatch Act would have much ground here. You're not owed a job for your political nor religious beliefs if it puts others in danger (there's a lot of case law on the latter with regard to rituals). ---- EDIT: Oh yea, there was the overreaching argument of the president. That one was swiftly shot down: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medical-freedom-v-biden/ https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medica... >Finally, our brief argued that Supreme Court precedent supports the president’s broad authority to regulate federal employees, including their out-of-office conduct, when such regulation is justified by the government’s interest in the safety, effectiveness, and security of government facilities. In one case, for example, the Supreme Court sanctioned Reagan Administration regulations requiring drug testing of government employees and prohibiting drug use outside of the workplace
    - valval 2y ago
      I’m not speaking of any application of such measures, I’m stating my opposition of them. Although now that you’re making my argument for me, it’s not cool that tax payer funded jobs would be terminated over that.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        You were comparing this to abortion, and I'm saying the situations are the opposite. Losing something over your choice is the exact consequences of free speech. Being unable to do something over someone else's choices is the opposite of speech. They would be replaced, not terminated. We lost a few million people in COVID, cso firing a few people is better than the government basically having a class action launched at the United States.
      - consteval 2y ago
        There's no point in stating your opposition to something that does not exist and is not happening. That's just fear mongering and straw-manning. If nobody is doing this, you're simply building a strawman to fight against because it's easy.
        valval 2y ago
        I guess it depends on the definition of "forcing" someone. I was generous in my definition and cited placing legal repercussions on people who wouldn't take the shot. Now that didn't happen (to my knowledge), but people got fired, ostracized, and denied all kinds of services and access because of their choice. That's not cool, and I'd hope we learned from that experience as a society. I didn't mean to fear monger or construct a straw man. I didn't directly address anyone's argument, I stated my own opinion on this subject confidently on this message board that's meant for just that.
        consteval 2y ago
        > but people got fired, ostracized, and denied all kinds of services and access because of their choice. That's not cool, and I'd hope we learned from that experience as a society. Welcome to the free market. If you would prefer a larger government to enforce this lack of ostracization, perhaps a change to the first amendment as well, feel free to advocate for that. Companies are risk averse. They don't want to deal with people getting sick and the PR nightmare of their employees not wearing masks. So that's that, and from a business perspective it's by far the best choice. You're always free to quit your job and go work somewhere that aligns with you more ideologically.

These topics are very clear cut to me. Forcing someone to take an experimental drug is not okay, and murdering small babies is not okay.

by valval 2y ago

These topics are very clear cut to me. Forcing someone to take an experimental drug is not okay, and murdering small babies is not okay.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

The government did not force anyone to take the vaccine. The death count in US proportionally speaks to that. If you're comparing walking into a store or concert (both private establishments) to your state telling your doctor thru cannot operate on you, you clearly don't understand or won't understand how freedom works.

valval 2y ago
You’re talking about a different thing. I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it. Private businesses can place whatever bans on whomever they want, for all I care.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  > I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it. Where? I've yet to hear of a court case where the plantiff is arguing that they were forced to take a vaccine by a government. Bodily automomy has plenty of case studies and it'd be an easy slam dunk if any federal entity tried doing that. There was an executive order: https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investigation-into-federal-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investiga... >the Biden Administration implemented Executive Order (E.O.) 14043. This E.O. required federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 8, 2021, or risk removal or termination from their federal employment. But I believe the precedent for political discrimination in the workplace is thin, at best. I don't think the Hatch Act would have much ground here. You're not owed a job for your political nor religious beliefs if it puts others in danger (there's a lot of case law on the latter with regard to rituals). ---- EDIT: Oh yea, there was the overreaching argument of the president. That one was swiftly shot down: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medical-freedom-v-biden/ https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medica... >Finally, our brief argued that Supreme Court precedent supports the president’s broad authority to regulate federal employees, including their out-of-office conduct, when such regulation is justified by the government’s interest in the safety, effectiveness, and security of government facilities. In one case, for example, the Supreme Court sanctioned Reagan Administration regulations requiring drug testing of government employees and prohibiting drug use outside of the workplace
  - valval 2y ago
    I’m not speaking of any application of such measures, I’m stating my opposition of them. Although now that you’re making my argument for me, it’s not cool that tax payer funded jobs would be terminated over that.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      You were comparing this to abortion, and I'm saying the situations are the opposite. Losing something over your choice is the exact consequences of free speech. Being unable to do something over someone else's choices is the opposite of speech. They would be replaced, not terminated. We lost a few million people in COVID, cso firing a few people is better than the government basically having a class action launched at the United States.
    - consteval 2y ago
      There's no point in stating your opposition to something that does not exist and is not happening. That's just fear mongering and straw-manning. If nobody is doing this, you're simply building a strawman to fight against because it's easy.
      - valval 2y ago
        I guess it depends on the definition of "forcing" someone. I was generous in my definition and cited placing legal repercussions on people who wouldn't take the shot. Now that didn't happen (to my knowledge), but people got fired, ostracized, and denied all kinds of services and access because of their choice. That's not cool, and I'd hope we learned from that experience as a society. I didn't mean to fear monger or construct a straw man. I didn't directly address anyone's argument, I stated my own opinion on this subject confidently on this message board that's meant for just that.
        consteval 2y ago
        > but people got fired, ostracized, and denied all kinds of services and access because of their choice. That's not cool, and I'd hope we learned from that experience as a society. Welcome to the free market. If you would prefer a larger government to enforce this lack of ostracization, perhaps a change to the first amendment as well, feel free to advocate for that. Companies are risk averse. They don't want to deal with people getting sick and the PR nightmare of their employees not wearing masks. So that's that, and from a business perspective it's by far the best choice. You're always free to quit your job and go work somewhere that aligns with you more ideologically.