How is this any different than requiring people to wear shoes in specific locations? Some people prefer not to wear shoes, but for the legal liability and the risk of injury many locations require shoes. Don't go to those places if you feel strongly about not getting the vaccine or wearing shoes
You can't honestly see the difference between an easily visible piece of clothing versus medical data that many people consider private between them and their physician(s)? There is zero chance this is a good faith argument.
Obviously I can see shoes on people's feet easier than I can see antibodies inside someone. But the point isn't how I find out if you are wearing shoes or not. The point is that someone is telling you that you have to do something to your body. Putting on shoes and getting a vaccine are both actions that you may want to decide to do on your own and not have someone else tell you that you have to do.
True, And people are not calling businesses that require shoes socialist. Social media is making all these idiots act like the world is ending if someone requires a vaccine or refuses to get the vaccine.
There's also a difference when a business decides on it's own to mandate shoes, versus a government mandate for all businesses.
I would be just as against a government mandate that all private establishments must have a no shirt/no shoes policy.
I don't even think a vaccine mandate for private businesses would be constitutional under the first amendment, the courts have recognized multiple times that freedom of association is protected even if it is not explicit in the constitution.
OK so we are on the same page. If every private business requires a vaccine, the people who don't want to get vaccinated can just do something else other than go to businesses.
I don't think it's that simple for "every private business" to collectively all of a sudden decide that vaccines will be mandatory, "businesses" are not a hive mind and it will be inevitable that "no vaccine required" businesses will prop up to fill the void.
I Agree, I wish people would try to find a compromise. Unfortunately the people who choose to not vaccinate will die out and have no voice in the matter.
What is the damage? Telling people that the vaccine may help them not die is damage? Just look at the data, unvaccinated people are dying much more frequently than vaccinated people.
Opening the door to force citizens to carry medical history (and a potential scarlet letter) is not damage?
Do you recognize that SS - when it started - was on the pretext that is was just for retirement? Look as us today. People are even ending up in court...or in debt, because their SS is stolen.
This policy is not just about telling people to take the vaccine. This policy is forcing it and also creating a new system of peeking, stealing, hacking into PHI
I got sick like a dog for a day after my first dose, and had a pain in the arm for a week after my second dose. You can't compare injecting a pathogen in someone's body to wearing clothes.
> You can't compare injecting a pathogen in someone's body to wearing clothes.
A vaccine is not a pathogen, a pathogen is a disease-causing agent, vaccines are not causing disease, they cause an immune response to prevent future disease.
