# And so it officially begins…



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

So it will be a free world for only those who are vaccinated…until they spread Covid amongst themselves while the unvaccinated are safe at home.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

The USA lost its freedom in 1865, nothing new here.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

In my lifetime, I have not (yet) experienced a personal loss of my freedoms and civil rights like this, so this mandate in NY is a big deal to me and is the writing on the wall for whatever future insane mandates these vaccine zealots can come up with.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

_Chip, chip, chip_. The sound of our right to liberty being chipped away, one little bit at a time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jeepgrrl said:


> In my lifetime, I have not (yet) experienced a personal loss of my freedoms and civil rights like this, so this mandate in NY is a big deal to me and is the writing on the wall for whatever future insane mandates these vaccine zealots can come up with.


You‘re young still. I’ve watched many of my freedoms go the wayside over my 70 years. Everything from being able to board an airplane with my pocket knife to buying a gun. Every time some nut feels unsafe I lose more freedom. Today they’re skeered of a bug... who knows what’s going to make them wet themselves tomorrow?!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Come on. 
None of us have the “right” to visit restaurants, theaters, etc.
Try to go into one of them without a shirt or shoes and see what happens. 
I understand the upset but this isn’t denying anyones civil rights.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> The USA lost its freedom in 1865, nothing new here.


Was everyone free before then?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

jeepgrrl said:


> In my lifetime, I have not (yet) experienced a personal loss of my freedoms and civil rights like this, so this mandate in NY is a big deal to me and is the writing on the wall for whatever future insane mandates these vaccine zealots can come up with.


No idea how old you are but I was alive (born in 1964) when women couldn’t get their own credit cards or serve on a jury, blacks were segregated from whites and couldn’t dine in the same restaurants, etc., men could legally rape their wives, and on and on. 
Not getting into the theatre because you’ve made a personal choice just doesn’t rank up there.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> Come on.
> None of us have the “right” to visit restaurants, theaters, etc.


I'm only here for a few but maybe you can help me with something...

I seem to recall something about "unalienable rights", "endowed by their creator", and "Life, liberty and the *pursuit of happiness".*

Maybe you could remind me where that comes from??? Thx...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> I'm only here for a few but maybe you can help me with something...
> 
> I seem to recall something about unalienable rights, endowed by the creator and "Life, liberty and the *pursuit of happiness".*
> 
> Maybe you could remind me where that comes from??? Thx...


No, I really can’t help you, if you think that allows you to do whatever you like.
As I said, try going into any of these places shirtless.
You have the right to get the vaccine and then go where you like.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> No, I really can’t help you, if you think that allows you to do whatever you like...
> 
> ...You have the right to get the vaccine and then go where you like.


Actually, if you read contemporary writings regarding the phrase, you'll find that it allows you to do exactly what you like as long as it doesn't involve breaking any laws or violating the rights of others.

The right to get the vaccine is followed by the right to not get it.

By your argument grocery stores could be listed along with theaters and such... there'd be a lot of starving people if that were the case. How would that work?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Actually, if you read contemporary writings regard the phrase, you'll find that it allows you to do exactly what you like as long as it doesn't involve breaking any laws or violating the rights of others.
> 
> The right to get the vaccine is followed by the right to not get it.
> 
> By your argument grocery stores could be listed along with theathers and such... there'd be a lot of starving people if that were the case. How would tat work?


well I guess you’ll have to wait and see how it plays out in the courts.
Meanwhile there is always curbside pickup at the grocery stores. 
Do you also think a private store owner doesn’t have the right to ask for proof of vaccine or masks?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There is always takeout.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Actually, if you read contemporary writings regarding the phrase, you'll find that it allows you to do exactly what you like as long as it doesn't involve breaking any laws or violating the rights of others.
> 
> The right to get the vaccine is followed by the right to not get it.
> 
> By your argument grocery stores could be listed along with theathers and such... there'd be a lot of starving people if that were the case. How would that work?


Also, how does wearing or not wearing a shirt violate the rights of others


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

homesteadforty said:


> I'm only here for a few but maybe you can help me with something...
> 
> I seem to recall something about "unalienable rights", "endowed by their creator", and "Life, liberty and the *pursuit of happiness".*
> 
> Maybe you could remind me where that comes from??? Thx...


You have the right to pursue happiness just not the right to happiness


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> well I guess you’ll have to wait and see how it plays out in the courts.
> Meanwhile there is always curbside pickup at the grocery stores.
> Do you also think a private store owner doesn’t have the right to ask for proof of vaccine or masks?


Just curious if it is just this vaccine and this disease that your local apple stocker suddenly has more rights to know about than the nurse taking your blood sample? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Just curious if it is just this vaccine and this disease that your local apple stocker suddenly has more rights to know about than the nurse taking your blood sample? Asking for a friend.


is this another HIPAA argument?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> is this another HIPAA argument?


It was a question that you answered with a question.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ehh... I have just very slightly more confidence in the courts as I do with the rest of the government.



Lisa in WA said:


> Also, how does wearing or not wearing a shirt violate the rights of others


It doesn't... but you're comparing apples to oranges with this one. There is no _law_ requiring shirt or shoes... merely store policies. Stores can enforce their own dress code policies as long as it doesn't infringe on anyones civil rights.

As an aside... the no shirt or shoes policy started in the Jim Crow south as a way to keep poor former enslaved persons out of stores as many of those folks could not afford shoes.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> ehh... I have just very slightly more confidence in the courts as I do with the rest of the government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and stores can ask for proof of vaccine or masks Without violating anyones civil rights. 
Unless the unvaccinated were to become a protected class.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Hiro said:


> It was a question that you answered with a question.


Because I’m disinterested in another pointless HIPAA conversation.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> Because I’m disinterested in another pointless HIPAA conversation.


This was meant to be a logic exercise/debate. But, it requires both parties to want to participate. Be well.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

No one thinks it not planed that the vaccinated are the ones spreading covid?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> and stores can ask for proof of vaccine or masks Without violating anyones civil rights.
> Unless the unvaccinated were to become a protected class.


Sorry... wrong again. That falls under basic Constitutional rights under the right to privacy which has been determined to apply to violations by individuals, not just the government.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Forcast said:


> No one thinks it not planed that the vaccinated are the ones spreading covid?


I have family in different states. Maryland they are bring told to not get tested if you had your shots and are sick. They just had Night Out events and none but a few photos masked people.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Sorry... wrong again. That falls under basic Constitutional rights under the right to privacy which has been determined to apply to violations by individuals, not just the government.


No. They have the right to ask. You have the right not to answer. They then have the right to refuse service.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Sorry... wrong again. That falls under basic Constitutional rights under the right to privacy which has been determined to apply to violations by individuals, not just the government.


Okay, counselor.
Lawyers say otherwise but clearly you have no confidence in them either And I’m sure you know more than they do as well.
I’ll bow out since you’ve already got this figured out.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Sorry... wrong again. That falls under basic Constitutional rights under the right to privacy which has been determined to apply to violations by individuals, not just the government.


Money will determine everything as it plays out, including morals, ethics and conduct.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Just like they can ask for proof of age for certain services or products they can ask for proof of vaccination if the laws or regulations require it.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> No. They have the right to ask. You have the right not to answer. They then have the right to refuse service.


Also wrong. Under many circumstances they (stores) can refuse entry/service just because they don't like your looks (as long as it's not applied to color or ethnicity) but... they can't refuse service based on their intitial illegal act.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Hiro said:


> This was meant to be a logic exercise/debate. But, it requires both parties to want to participate. Be well.


We have already had this debate. We disagree about it having anything to do with HIPAA.
No need to rehash.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Just like they can ask for proof of age for certain services or products they can ask for proof of vaccination if the laws or regulations require it.



(insert buzzer sound here) Age restrictions are based in law. The NYC proof of vaccine is merely an edict by a Mayor and has no legal standing.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> (insert buzzer sound here) Age restrictions are based in law. The NYC proof of vaccine is merely an edict by a Mayor and has no legal standing.


So, when my husband and I went to Antoine’s in New Orleans and he couldn’t come in unless he wore a jacket, because there is no law that says men must wear jackets, he could have just forced his way in and thumbed his nose at the *maître d'?*


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> Okay, counselor.


No need to insult me just because we disagree 



> Lawyers say otherwise but clearly you have no confidence in them either And I’m sure you know more than they do as well.


Ummm... "lawyers" disagree in every court case and most often have differing views on any given subject. Their opinions/views often follow who is paying them.

But being part of the courts I've alreasy stated my opinion on them.



> I’ll bow out since you’ve already got this figured out.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> No need to insult me just because we disagree
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are a part of the courts or lawyers are?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> So, when my husband and I went to Antoine’s in New Orleans and he couldn’t come in unless he wore a jacket, because there is no law that says men must wear jackets, he could have just forced his way in and thumbed his nose at the *maître d'?*


Nope... he'd likely have been arrested for trespassing. You're trying to compare *store policy* rights and laws.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> (insert buzzer sound here) Age restrictions are based in law. The NYC proof of vaccine is merely an edict by a Mayor and has no legal standing.


Public health regulations. No need to say more.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> No need to insult me just because we disagree


Politicians rail against their counterparts all the time in front of the cameras as if they are good vs evil and then go out to DC parties and social events together.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Nope... he'd likely have been arrested for trespassing. You're trying to compare *store policy* rights and laws.


But the store can’t have a policy that requires proof of vaccine or a mask


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> We have already had this debate. We disagree about it having anything to do with HIPAA.
> No need to rehash.


Dissembling does not become you.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Dissembling does not become you.


how in the world did I dissemble?
If anyone did…you did.
you were just sliding in sideways to another HIPAA argument and I opted out.
Seems pretty direct to me.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Public health regulations. No need to say more.


Several things here... there have to be processes to establish new or modify existing regulations. Whether that was followed or not is unknown to me at this time.

Regardless... a regulation, or law for that matter, cannot violate established rights. This edict does violate established rights.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> But the store can’t have a policy that requires proof of vaccine or a mask


Mask... yes. There are no established rights prohibiting that. They compare somewhat to a dress code.

Vaccines... no. See the aforemention post regard privacy rights.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Several things here... there have to be processes to establish new or modify existing regulations. Whether that was followed or not is unknown to me at this time.
> 
> Regardless... a regulation, or law for that matter, cannot violate established rights. This edict does violate established rights.


Mayors have that power .

" The executive branch (the President, governor, mayor, county executive and agencies such as depart-
ments of public health) may issue rules and regulations based on authority delegated by the legislature through 
statutes. Local boards of health are administrative bodies whose members are appointed or elected to lead, guide 
and oversee the delivery of public health services and activities in their local communities. The role boards of 
health play in public health generally depends on their legal authority and powers as defined in state statutes. In 
addition, executive branch officials are authorized to issue legally binding executive orders. Regulatory decisions, 
and the laws governing executive branch actions, are known collectively as “administrative law.”"



https://www.apha.org/-/media/Files/PDF/factsheets/What_is_Public_Health_Law_factsheet.ashx


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Remember, asking is not illegal. The person is free not to answer but that does not give them rights to enter or use a service.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> how in the works did I dissemble?
> If anyone did…you did.
> you were just sliding in sideways to another HIPAA argument and I opted out.
> Seems pretty direct to me.


Seriously? I actually just wanted to understand your rationale and you could have refused to answer rather than throw chaff.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Mask... yes. There are no established rights prohibiting that. They compare somewhat to a dress code.
> 
> Vaccines... no. See the aforemention post regard privacy rights.


What is your policy?
What will you allow and prohibit thru the use of your buying power?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Mayors have that power...


To establish regulations... yes, provided they have been delegated that authority by their respective legislative branch. I have no idea whether that is the case in NYC and it varies wildly from juristiction to juristiction. I have no time nor the interest in researching all the variations and whether they where followed or not.

More to the point is... they don't have the power to establich regulations that supercede existing regulations, laws, statutes or rights.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Seriously? I actually just wanted to understand your rationale and you could have refused to answer rather than throw chaff.


What chaff? What are you talking about?
I was straight up snd direct. No dissembling.
Nor did I insult you like you did me.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Now which one is supposed to be racist, Voter ID or Vaccine Passports?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Hiro said:


> Just curious if it is just this vaccine and this disease that your local apple stocker suddenly has more rights to know about than the nurse taking your blood sample? Asking for a friend.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> To establish regulations... yes, provided they have been delegated that authority by their respective legislative branch. I have no idea whether that is the case in NYC and it varies wildly from juristiction to juristiction. I have no time nor the interest in researching all the variations and whether they where followed or not.
> 
> More to the point is... they don't have the power to establich regulations that supercede existing regulations, laws, statutes or rights.


You don't have the time to research. You don't need to. You just have to admit that you don’t know whether or not your statements are true.

I know the Mayor New York has this power. They have already used it to require masks.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Now which one is supposed to be racist, Voter ID or Vaccine Passports?


I don’t think either are.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Yeah, and I asked if that was a lead in to HIPAA for you.
Very direct.
No dissembling whatsoever.
Do you even know what “dissembling” means?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> What is your policy?
> What will you allow and prohibit thru the use of your buying power?


Well... this whole mask thing has effected me so little I haven't given it a whole lot of thought. The "local" store I go to (so very rarely) did not enforce the mask mandate when it was in effect.

I'll not say whether I got the vaccine or not... too personal for a forum like this.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> We have already had this debate. We disagree about it having anything to do with HIPAA.
> No need to rehash.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Wow. Talk about dissembling.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

I'm sure we'll see more and more of this. No plans on visiting New York anytime soon. 

Whatever happen to "my body, my choice" people? Apparently it only works when you decide to kill a baby....the vaccine you MUST take.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> Wow. Talk about dissembling.


It really is fine that you don't want to discuss the logic of your position.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> Was everyone free before then?


Other than those who had been sold into bondage by their own rulers..... yes.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> You don't have the time to research. You don't need to. You just have to admit that you don’t know whether or not your statements are true.


Ummm... are you reading what I'm writing or just responding ad hominem? I already admitted that I don't know the particulars of NYC's issues. But it's way more that I don't care rather than no time (though time is a small factor).



> I know the Mayor New York has this power. They have already used it to require masks.


I've beat my head against the wall so many times I can't afford another lump but I'll try one more time just for you .

Not wearing a mask is not covered under any rights... there is no right to not wear a mask if mandated.

An individuals vaccine status is an existing right under the 4th Ammendment (the right to privacy "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"... The Mayor of NYC or any other person cannot abridge that right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Ummm... are you reading what I'm writing or just responding ad hominem? I already admitted that I don't know the particulars of NYC's issues. But it's way more that I don't care rather than no time (though time is a small factor).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no right to not be asked your vaccination status. Schools can require it. Businesses can require it. It is settled law.

Remember the 4th only applies to government search and siezure.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Hiro said:


> It really is fine that you don't want to discuss the logic of your position.


Whatever dude.
There wasn’t even logic in your question. It was a nice little straw man you were building.



Hiro said:


> Just curious if it is just this vaccine and this disease that your local apple stocker suddenly has more rights to know about than the nurse taking your blood sample? Asking for a friend.


and “asking for a friend” wasn’t dissembling?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Businesses can require it. It is settled law.


Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
Unfortunately I'm already late headed home and must depart... it's been fun... until later. Be safe.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Just such a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Other than those who had been sold into bondage by their own rulers..... yes.


What about women?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

hiddensprings said:


> Whatever happen to "my body, my choice" people?


Who is taking away the choice?
You have a choice. 
Every choice has consequences.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> What about women?


What about women? They were quite free.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> What about women? They were quite free.


Don't be disingenuous. 
Usually you own your sexism and racism.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> Don't be disingenuous.
> Usually you own your sexism and racism.


No racism or sexism here. Women were quite free to pursue happiness, live their lives as they saw fit, where they wanted and doing what they wanted.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> No racism or sexism here. Women were quite free to pursue happiness, live their lives as they saw fit, where they wanted and doing what they wanted.


They were not. They did not have the same rights and freedoms as men.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> Don't be disingenuous.
> Usually you own your sexism and racism.


Oh, come on Lisa, don't you know we were "quite free"?
Unless we wanted to vote.
Or have our own passports.
Or control our own earnings.
Or not be fired for being pregnant.
Or get a loan without a male cosigner.
Or not be raped by our husbands.
Or use birth control.
Yep, sounds "quite free" to me.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> They were not. They did not have the same rights and freedoms as men.


So you say, my copy of our constitution reads differently.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SLFarmMI said:


> Oh, come on Lisa, don't you know we were "quite free"?
> Unless we wanted to vote.
> Or have our own passports.
> Or control our own earnings.
> ...


Many men were denied the vote.
what law controlled how a woman spent her earnings?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Evons hubby said:


> Many men were denied the vote.
> what law controlled how a woman spent her earnings?


A principle in the law called coverture.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Lisa in WA said:


> Come on.
> None of us have the “right” to visit restaurants, theaters, etc.
> Try to go into one of them without a shirt or shoes and see what happens.
> I understand the upset but this isn’t denying anyones civil rights.


No shoes no service is not a government mandate………..


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Evons hubby said:


> So you say, my copy of our constitution reads differently.


So says anyone with a basic understanding of history.
For your edification (although I doubt it will do any good):
Women could not vote until 1920.
Married women could not have a passport in their own names until 1937.
Coverture wasn't abolished until the 1880s.
Women could be fired for being pregnant until 1978.
Women couldn't get a business loan without a male cosigner until 1988.
Marital rape wasn't illegal nationwide until 1993. 
Bans on a married woman's right to birth control were legal until 1965, single women until 1972.

Lisa is absolutely correct. Women did not have the same rights and freedoms as men.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SLFarmMI said:


> A principle in the law called coverture.


Which applied to women who freely chose to give up certain rights in order to have her husband assume her responsibilities. Single women however could spend their money anyway they chose.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Evons hubby said:


> Which applied to women who freely chose to give up certain rights in order to have her husband assume her responsibilities. Single women however could spend their money anyway they chose.


No, nice try. Her rights were taken from her and given to the husband.


----------



## Rchickenlady (Sep 1, 2014)

Totally off topic, but Seneca Falls, the once beautiful location of It’s A Wonderful Life movie fame, is now a place where my family and friends feel it’s not at all family friendly. Lots of crude, offensive windowfront ‘decorations’. Seneca Falls, birthplace of women’s freedoms and location of Women’s Rights Museum. Hillary is due back soon, I heard.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SLFarmMI said:


> No, nice try. Her rights were taken from her and given to the husband.


Nobody forced her to marry, and she knew she was trading her rights off in exchange for her husbands protections and care.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Evons hubby said:


> Nobody forced her to marry, and she knew she was trading her rights off in exchange for her husbands protections and care.


Many women were, in fact, forced to marry throughout the time period covered by coverture and being declared a legal non-person is in no way "protections and care". 

I noticed you ignored everything else on the list. Can't figure out how to spin your sexism in relation to those?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Forced to marry? By whom? By what legal process? No sexism here, that’s your dept.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Just like they can ask for proof of age for certain services or products they can ask for proof of vaccination if the laws or regulations require it.


And proof of ID to vote.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It may be news to some, but I have been in many establishments that served food and alcoholic beverages where there were in fact people without shirts, particularly female employees of that establishment. I'm assuming that shirtlessness was not only encouraged, but perhaps a condition of employment. The point being, in a free society it should be entirely up to the management of that establishment to set rules governing who is admitted into that establishment. And it should be entirely up to the individual to decide if they want to patronize that establishment, based on those rules.I don't like the idea of being forced, through coercion, to patronize an establishment. Particularly if it is the medical establishment that we have available right now. That being a perversion of anything resembling science. Science, when practiced correctly, might have questions that can't be answered, but when it has answers that can't be questioned, it is nothing more than another political cog in a machine designed to destroy the freedoms of the common man.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Remember the 4th only applies to government search and siezure.


Government mandates requiring one to show vaccination status before being allowed to shop in a grocery store are a form of govt search and seizure. The govt demands and if you don't provide the govt seizes your ability to shop for necessities. 

And this is done with no regard to the homeless person who can't get a vaccine because they have no id and no credit card or computer to shop online. 

Requiring businesses to be mask police didn't work out very well. Asking businesses to screen vaccination cards won't work out any better.



SLFarmMI said:


> Bans on a married woman's right to birth control were legal until 1965, single women until 1972.


Even in the 80's a woman who wanted surgical sterilization were required to get permission from their husband. Yet a man could get a vasectomy at any time without input from his wife.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

No one should be surprised.

Expect more to come

There is always Florida. States are going to line up, some pro passport, and some on the other side.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The data just does not back that up


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> No, I really can’t help you, if you think that allows you to do whatever you like.
> As I said, try going into any of these places shirtless.
> You have the right to get the vaccine and then go where you like.


What if you don't trust the vaccine?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> What if you don't trust the vaccine?


Do as your told.

Have blind trust.

Succumb to peer pressure.

Follow the science.

Take you pick. I may have left some choices out. Those seem to be the most popular.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

The vaccines are doing what they are designed to do, further divide the people of this country.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

When do we set up the border crossings between states?
"Papers please"
"What is your reason for going to Kansas?"
"When will you return?"
"Who did you talk to?"


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I got the first shot, next in a few weeks because I want to travel to Canada. The cards they give you as proof are simply filled out at the drug store or wherever shots are given, and could be very easily duplicated. There is nothing special about them where anyone could tell if they are authentic.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Cornhusker said:


> When do we set up the border crossings between states?
> "Papers please"
> "What is your reason for going to Kansas?"
> "When will you return?"
> "Who did you talk to?"


That will only apply to citizens of the US. Just pretend your'e here illegally and you can go wherever and at taxpayer expense.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Hiro said:


> That will only apply to citizens of the US. Just pretend your'e here illegally and you can go wherever and at taxpayer expense.


Yup, and get paid by the US govt to do what your little heart desires.

I hear the Albanian language is very easy to learn.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Fishindude said:


> I got the first shot, next in a few weeks because I want to travel to Canada. The cards they give you as proof are simply filled out at the drug store or wherever shots are given, and could be very easily duplicated. There is nothing special about them where anyone could tell if they are authentic.


I'm seeing a lot of pharmacies offering to provide a QR code so you can carry your information on your phone, which is not something I'm comfortable with but it seems that has a certain amount of failures. My heart hurts for these people. 



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/crane-collapse-victims-stuck-in-quarantine-1.6125858


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> What if you don't trust the vaccine?


Then you don’t get it and don’t go to the theatre, gym or restaurant. You get take out, watch movies on your TV and do push-ups at home. Or go outside of NYC.
With every choice there are benefits and consequence.
No one is banning unvaccinated people from essential places like grocery stores As far as I know.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I think I'm just going to avoid most of the public, even though I'm vaxxed. The public has just become to toxic to be around. Work, home and my vacay is going to be backpacking with friends, as far as possible from people.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> I think I'm just going to avoid most of the public, even though I'm vaxxed. The public has just become to toxic to be around. Work, home and my vacay is going to be backpacking with friends, as far as possible from people.


That sounds good anytime.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Do as your told.
> 
> Have blind trust.
> 
> ...


You forgot mine: Get your medical advice from real experts in the field.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> You forgot mine: Get your medical advice from real experts in the field.


And who, pray tell, might that be?


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Lisa in WA said:


> Who is taking away the choice?
> You have a choice.
> Every choice has consequences.


My point being that there is a large number of people that do not think I should have a choice on whether or not I get the vaccine. These same people who want to make it a "must do" are the same people who say they can choose what to do with their bodies if they get pregnant. Seems a little hypocritical to me.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

hiddensprings said:


> My point being that there is a large number of people that do not think I should have a choice on whether or not I get the vaccine. These same people who want to make it a "must do" are the same people who say they can choose what to do with their bodies if they get pregnant. Seems a little hypocritical to me.


That would be hypocritical but I don’t think this particular mandate is removing choice. I can’t imagine that anyone will be actually forced to be vaccinated, other than perhaps military.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

hiddensprings said:


> My point being that there is a large number of people that do not think I should have a choice on whether or not I get the vaccine. These same people who want to make it a "must do" are the same people who say they can choose what to do with their bodies if they get pregnant. Seems a little hypocritical to me.


On the flip side though, if someone believes that the state has a right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, why shouldn’t it have the right to for e a person to get a vaccine that can save lives?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> On the flip side though, if someone believes that the state has a right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, why shouldn’t it have the right to for e a person to get a vaccine that can save lives?


I'm not negative about vaccinations but that's why I'm so firmly pro choice on any health related issue. 

Just because someone would like to control another person's medical decisions, doesn't mean it should be granted.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I'm not negative about vaccinations but that's why I'm so firmly pro choice on any health related issue.
> 
> Just because someone would like to control another person's medical decisions, doesn't mean it should be granted.


Agreed.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> Then you don’t get it and don’t go to the theatre, gym or restaurant. You get take out, watch movies on your TV and do push-ups at home. Or go outside of NYC.
> With every choice there are benefits and consequence.
> No one is banning unvaccinated people from essential places like grocery stores As far as I know.


Yet


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

no really said:


> I think I'm just going to avoid most of the public, even though I'm vaxxed. The public has just become to toxic to be around. Work, home and my vacay is going to be backpacking with friends, as far as possible from people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> View attachment 98794


Not sure where it went, but it was in a hand basket!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Lisa in WA said:


> On the flip side though, if someone believes that the state has a right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, why shouldn’t it have the right to for e a person to get a vaccine that can save lives?


There's no proof that the vaccine does anything. So forcing someone to get an vaccine that may or may not work, makes no sense.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

hiddensprings said:


> There's no proof that the vaccine does anything. So forcing someone to get an vaccine that may or may not work, makes no sense.


Really? Maybe it is just no proof you accept.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

hiddensprings said:


> There's no proof that the vaccine does anything. So forcing someone to get an vaccine that may or may not work, makes no sense.


Okay, that’s just ridiculous.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

homesteadforty said:


> Also wrong. Under many circumstances they (stores) can refuse entry/service just because they don't like your looks (as long as it's not applied to color or ethnicity) but... they can't refuse service based on their intitial illegal act.


Like Long Hair Hippie Type need not Apply


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Forcast said:


> Like Long Hair Hippie Type need not Apply


Ok supposedly we have people on extended unemployment that make more staying home. I get it
Staying home save money. Less gas bought or transportation pass. No daycare costs. Eligible for other help foodstamps rent assistant food banks i guess too. Biden said to employers pay higher wages. But here is the but. Companies now requiring vaccine. What about the folk s that had covid so should have antibodies? 
Im a smoker I worked for a company that went smoke free. To.the point of employees having to take nicotine tests to stay employed. I left. For less then $10 hr. I sure was not going to let a company rule my life outside the company building. 
Company here in town started fitness program. You are fat.over weight a company nurse gave you a diet to follow
If you lost enough weight in 6 month good for you you got a .3 cent raise..if not you are on probation. And can be fired. 
As to covid once the vaccine is off the experimental list maybe . covid vaccine has created delta gamma and now lambda Its thr people vaccinated that are spreading covid . no one getting this. The vaccine has made a virus worse. No one here in my small town id wearing mask or distance any more. Its a tourists hot spot. We have people from out of state here all.the time since covid started. Our schools have said kids dont have to wear masks. No contact tracing if you had a mask on or had the vaccine. Seems dumb to me.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

How does everyone feel about trying out this vaccine on children and why do you believe it is a good idea?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Elected city officials in Los Angeles introduced a motion on Wednesday that would mandate eligible individuals provide evidence of a COVID-19 vaccination in order to enter certain indoor businesses, including restaurants, health clubs, and retail establishments.



The proposal was put forth by City Council President Nury Martinez and Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell, both Democrats. The move comes a day after New York City unveiled a new program to implement similar restrictions meant to pressure residents into getting vaccinated


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

(CNN)Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is expected to seek authorization to make Covid-19 vaccines mandatory for all active duty troops as soon as this week, following President Joe Biden's directive that the military examine how and when it could make that happen.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Really? Maybe it is just no proof you accept.


If you get the vaccine, you can still get Covid right?
If you get the vaccine you can still be contagious, right?
If you get the vaccine, you still have to wear a mask in some places right?
Are you sure it works?
I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking questions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> If you get the vaccine, you can still get Covid right?
> If you get the vaccine you can still be contagious, right?
> If you get the vaccine, you still have to wear a mask in some places right?
> Are you sure it works?
> I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking questions.


As I understand It the vaccine cuts way down on the bad affects if you do get it.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> As I understand It the vaccine cuts way down on the bad affects if you do get it.


I agree. 

Now lets discuss the many side effects from the shots from all manufacturers that keep coming to the fore.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Hiro said:


> How does everyone feel about trying out this vaccine on children and why do you believe it is a good idea?


I expected it to happen but I wouldn't offer my kids up for trials but I'm sure there will come a day in the very near future that it will be mandatory for school enrollment.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> You forgot mine: Get your medical advice from real experts in the field.


At this point it would be a hand full of veterinarians, and some doctors that are now retired who did not suffer the catastrophic failure of our education system. At this point in time, credentials signify corruption. These folks in the medical branch of the political arena are all in. They obviously hate everything about me, so why would I expect them to tell me the truth?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

🙄


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


>


Some pretty upset people there.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I need to send them that updated guillotine design that I've been working on for a while now.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Hiro said:


> I need to send them that updated guillotine design that I've been working on for a while now.


You could probably make some good money with that. 🤣


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

no really said:


> You could probably make some good money with that. 🤣


No remuneration is required. It is purely an altruistic project.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> No remuneration is required. It is purely an altruistic project.


It actually is very generous


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> It actually is very generous


I am a giver.

One of my favorite new sayings was appropriated:

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can drive out darkness. And muzzle flashes, lots of muzzle flashes can drive out darkness."
Author unrecollected.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423240461209178120


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)




----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

Lisa in WA said:


> Come on.
> None of us have the “right” to visit restaurants, theaters, etc.
> Try to go into one of them without a shirt or shoes and see what happens.
> I understand the upset but this isn’t denying anyones civil rights.


You are correct in that businesses have the right to set such a policy and deny service. Incidentally, back in the ‘70s when that policy was first adopted by business owners, it was an effort to block the hippies from entering their businesses. Imagine that, discriminating against the hippies because of how they looked and dressed!

![/QUOTE]
*“None of us have the “right” to visit restaurants, theaters, etc.”
“I understand the upset but this isn’t denying anyones civil rights.”*

I disagree with you on that. The 4th amendment protects the right of the people, to be secure in our persons, which includes the right to bodily integrity. Bodily integrity is defined by Martha Nussbaum as "_*Being able to move freely from place to place*_; being able to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault ... having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction".[2]* Privacy is also included as a part of bodily integrity.* -Wikipedia

The NY policy also discriminates against those that have natural immunity. Why should I be banned from entering ANY public facility because my immune system is doing the exact same thing naturally as someone‘s immune system that received the vaccine: producing Covid antibodies. Another antibody test I got three days ago continues to confirms this; I had Covid back in January, 2021. So far, I have not been successful in finding any research that supports the hypothesis that unvaccinated people with natural immunity can spread Covid. All that said, I do comply with wearing a mask and distancing guidelines when mandated, but given the option I don’t. 

I am confident that the 4th amendment will also come under fire by the prog liberals if it isn’t already, so I really don’t expect anyone will protect our rights under this amendment as currently written. Instead, it will be rewritten (if not repealed) to fit the current sociopolitical narrative.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

Lisa in WA said:


> No idea how old you are but I was alive (born in 1964) when women couldn’t get their own credit cards or serve on a jury, blacks were segregated from whites and couldn’t dine in the same restaurants, etc., men could legally rape their wives, and on and on.
> Not getting into the theatre because you’ve made a personal choice just doesn’t rank up there.


Actually, I am 3 years younger than you, according to another thread. I won’t repeat myself (b/c I already replied to your above post) other than to say that, of course being denied entry to a theatre doesn’t “rank up there” with the civil rights violations that you mentioned; however, being denied entry is still a violation of our civil liberty of bodily integrity, which is protected under the 4th amendment.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

Forcast said:


> I have family in different states. Maryland they are bring told to not get tested if you had your shots and are sick. They just had Night Out events and none but a few photos masked people.


The CDC doesn’t want a paper trail that would document the actual number of break through cases. Imagine what the international fallout would be like if it was made public that the vaccines aren’t as effective as they proposed them to be. Yep, best to cover that spit up and keep the peons ignorant.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Remember the 4th only applies to government search and siezure.


*^^^This is totally incorrect!!! Please see below for a summary on what the 4th amendment applies to; it’s not “only” limited to ”government search and seizure”.

While it is true that an employer has the right to ask an employee’s vaccine status, only certain authorized individuals (HR, for example) can ask, and then it is only on a need-to-know basis b/c of the pandemic, and my employer has to protect that information and not release it to anyone else, nor can they use that information for anything other than planning for responding to the pandemic, as stated in writing by my employer when the requirement to divulge my vaccine status was made. However, my boss constantly asks me if I am vaccinated, violating my Right To Privacy. I reported my status to my employer/those that needed to know, but my boss? I don’t have to tell her squat diddley as she is NOT on the needs-to-know list; my response to her invasive questions is nothing…all she hears are cricket chirps…*

*United States[edit]*
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution begins with *"The right of the people to be secure in their persons...", a recognition of the universal and fundamental natural right of bodily integrity. *Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right to privacy, which, as articulated by Julie Lane, often protects rights to bodily integrity. In _Griswold v. Connecticut_ (1965) the Court supported women's rights to obtain birth control (and thus, retain reproductive autonomy) without marital consent. Similarly, a woman's right to privacy in obtaining abortions was protected by _Roe v. Wade_ (1973). In _McFall v. Shimp_ (1978), a Pennsylvania court ruled that a person cannot be forced to donate bone marrow, even if such a donation would save another person's life.
Conversely, the Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia, laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners, and forced blood tests.[12]

****Bodily integrity* is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Bodily integrity is one of Martha Nussbaum's ten principle capabilities (see capabilities approach). She defines bodily integrity as: "Being able to move freely from place to place; being able to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault ... having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction".[2] *Privacy is also included as a part of bodily integrity. [7]*

-Sourced from Wikipedia


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

jeepgrrl said:


> *^^^This is totally incorrect!!! Please see below for a summary on what the 4th amendment applies to; it’s not “only” limited to ”government search and seizure”.
> 
> While it is true that an employer has the right to ask an employee’s vaccine status, only certain authorized individuals (HR, for example) can ask, and then it is only on a need-to-know basis b/c of the pandemic, and my employer has to protect that information and not release it to anyone else, nor can they use that information for anything other than planning for responding to the pandemic, as stated in writing by my employer when the requirement to divulge my vaccine status was made. However, my boss constantly asks me if I am vaccinated, violating my Right To Privacy. I reported my status to my employer/those that needed to know, but my boss? I don’t have to tell her squat diddley as she is NOT on the needs-to-know list; my response to her invasive questions is nothing…all she hears are cricket chirps…
> 
> ...


 I am one of those HR people that knows the rules and how they need to be protected and that has nothing to do with the 4th Ammendment because I am not the government. 

Anyone can ask, anyone can refuse to answer but the employer or business can refuse entry or employment if you don't answer. Still nothing to do withthe 4th amendment because there is no forced search and seizure unwarranted or not by the government.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

SLFarmMI said:


> Oh, come on Lisa, don't you know we were "quite free"?
> Unless we wanted to vote.
> Or have our own passports.
> Or control our own earnings.
> ...


So should women also be entitled to some sort of reparations? b/c you know, after all, we have been discriminated against since the Neanderthal days, dwarfing the timeline for slavery.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

Fishindude said:


> I got the first shot, next in a few weeks because I want to travel to Canada. The cards they give you as proof are simply filled out at the drug store or wherever shots are given, and could be very easily duplicated. There is nothing special about them where anyone could tell if they are authentic.


I


Lisa in WA said:


> That would be hypocritical but I don’t think this particular mandate is removing choice. I can’t imagine that anyone will be actually forced to be vaccinated, other than perhaps military.


IMHO, people whose employers are requiring (blackmailing?) their employees to get vaccinated or face termination are essentially forcing people to (“choose” to) get the jab…get it and they’ll be able to continue to feed their children and pay their mortgages; don’t get it, no income, children starve, bank takes house, car, etc. That scenario is not having the freedom to choose; it’s making a decision based on the threat of loss of income. In Ohio, unemployment will not cover anyone who was terminated from their job for not getting the vaccine as required by their employer (failure to adhere to their work policies).


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

The next decade or so will have fascinating court battles to watch.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

painterswife said:


> I am one of those HR people that knows the rules and how they need to be protected and that has nothing to do with the 4th Ammendment because I am not the government.
> 
> Anyone can ask, anyone can refuse to answer but the employer or business can refuse entry or employment if you don't answer. Still nothing to do withthe 4th amendment because there is no forced search and seizure unwarranted or not by the government.


*HEAVY SIGH, HEAD SHAKE*…painters wife, did you not read my post, as I summarized the 4th amendment for you? Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is myopic and incomplete…YES THE 4TH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURES…:

*I. INTERESTS PROTECTED*
*The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."*

…AND IT ALSO PROTECTS A PERSON’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY:

****The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. Fourth Amendment*

So if you are going to use the Constitution in your arguments, then at least quote it in its entirety, not edit it to suit your narrative.

Here are a couple of links for you to peruse:
U.S. Senate: Constitution of the United States
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Right to privacy has everything to do with the 4th amendment, as I explained to you in my previous post. Just b/c you deny that the right to privacy has “nothing to do with the 4th amendment” doesn’t make that a fact. The proof is there in the writings of the Constitution. So feel free to keep insisting and arguing that the right to privacy and the 4th Amendment have nothing to do with each other until your head explodes.

As an HR employee that ”knows the rules and how to protect them” (by “them“, I am assuming you are referring to protecting information, not protecting the rules), why do you protect information? Hint: because it’s the PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO EMPLOYEES. If you fail to see the connection between the 4th Amendment and Right to Privacy, even after you read the ENTIRE amendment as written, (see above links), then you probably should find another job b/c you are a threat to the safeguarding of the employees’ confidential information.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

Hiro said:


> How does everyone feel about trying out this vaccine on children and why do you believe it is a good idea?


Indoctrination works better the younger they are. (SARCASM, FOLKS!!!)


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

jeepgrrl said:


> *HEAVY SIGH, HEAD SHAKE*…painters wife, did you not read my post, as I summarized the 4th amendment for you? Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is myopic and incomplete…YES THE 4TH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURES…:
> 
> *I. INTERESTS PROTECTED*
> *The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."*
> ...


Your sumerization is wrong. You don't take into account that there is no seizure of your information. You are either volunteering the information when asked for it or you are refusing to give it. The 4th does not apply.

I think you should research case law with regards to providing documentation of vaccinations for schools.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Your sumerization is wrong. You don't seem to understand that there is no seizure of your information. You are either volunteering it when asked for it or you are refusing to give it. The 4 does not apply.
> 
> LOL! ok painters wife, you are right, there is no “seizure of information“, but good try in the attempt to put words into my mouth. Do you even know what “unreasonable search and seizure” refers to? “The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and _*seizures*_ of *PROPERTY* by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to* privacy law*. Fourth Amendment.
> 
> ...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You keep providing proof that the 4th applies to government search and seizure. Why do I need to provide more?

You have provided nothing that proves asking someone to voluntarily provide info about vaccination status is protected by the Fourth. Case law with schools and employers already has ruled that it legal to ask.


----------



## jeepgrrl (Jun 3, 2020)

painterswife said:


> You keep providing proof that the 4th applies to government search and seizure. Why do I need to provide more? *I NEVER ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE ANY MORE PROOF*
> 
> You have provided nothing that proves asking someone to voluntarily provide info about vaccination status is protected by the Fourth. Case law with schools and employers already has ruled that it legal to ask.











This is your post that I originally responded to...do you remember it? “…ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE”. I merely provided quite a bit of information that your statement is WRONG WRONG WRONG. The 4th amendment does NOT “ONLY apply to search and seizure“, which I already pointed out to you. If you had just left off the word “only”, we wouldn’t be here still spinning our wheels in the mud. BUT, you posted something that is blatantly incorrect, see above, and I called you out on it, and yet here you are trying to deflect…

I don’t need to provide you with anything regarding people’s rights to voluntary provide personal, private information to their employer - that idea came from you (see highlighted post below), so don‘t even try to pin that on me, girlfriend:









What I did say, and I already stated this to you when I first replied to your above referenced post, is that according to my employer (a public institution of higher education) they are limited to who can request private information from an employee, only those on a need-to-know basis, i.e., those who are responsible for planning Covid-related policies. Professors, instructors, managers, supervisors, department heads, custodians, cooks, bus drivers, etc., not involved with such Covid-related activities do not have that authority to inquire about one’s vaccine status and it would be a violation of the employees right to privacy for them to do so. Furthermore, one is not “volunteering” their personal information when required by their employer to do so; I sure as hell didn’t “voluntarily” give my vaccine status as my employer required it, and yes, the 4th would not apply here. However, my boss, who is not on the gets-to-ask list, is violating my right to privacy when she inquires about my vaccine status; therefore, the 4th would apply here, especially since it’s in writing that she is not permitted to ask.

Where you are employed must be a free-for-all if everyone can ask anyone anything. I feel bad for the employees who don’t realize that their HR department isn‘t protecting their rights.

It’s clear that you refuse to acknowledge what the law professors are saying, what is written in the Constitution, etc., despite the proof to the contrary. So go ahead and get your last post in, you get the trophy for getting the last word in.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why respond to me if you don't want me to respond? You said you wouldn't but here you are.


Anyone can ask anything. You don't have to ever respond. You do have to provide proof if requested by the correct person and it is a stipulation of employment and you wish to remain employed. Yes, that person is required to keep that info private. 

However the Fourth does not preclude anyone from asking. It only is for unwarranted search and seizure by the government. It does not preclude an employer or business asking for and requiring proof of vaccination for employment or entry. You are free to refuse at any time.

No deflection, just the truth. The Fourth can't prevent any employer or business from asking for you vaccination status. Just what I have been reiterating all along.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

jeepgrrl said:


> View attachment 98919
> 
> This is your post that I originally responded to...do you remember it? “…ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE”. I merely provided quite a bit of information that your statement is WRONG WRONG WRONG. The 4th amendment does NOT “ONLY apply to search and seizure“, which I already pointed out to you. If you had just left off the word “only”, we wouldn’t be here still spinning our wheels in the mud. BUT, you posted something that is blatantly incorrect, see above, and I called you out on it, and yet here you are trying to deflect…
> 
> ...


I am going to say this because you made assertions about me and the privacy of my fellow employees. 

I only know the vaccination status of one of my fellow employees and only because they told me in a non work situation. Other than that I have made it a point to not ask. Our employers do not require it, so I never asked, not even in social conversation. Don't assume you know something about someone because they hope everyone gets vaccinated. I only know the vaccination status of those that want me to know. I don't ask.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423767558654767108


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*SPRINGFIELD* – The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) is launching a new immunization portal, Vax Verify, that will allow Illinois residents 18 years and older to check their COVID-19 vaccination record. Vax Verify can be accessed at https://idphportal.illinois.gov.

“As more businesses, events, organizations, and others require proof of vaccination, Illinois residents will be able to confirm using Vax Verify that they have been vaccinated for COVID-19,” said IDPH Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike. “With the current surge in cases, more people are making the decision to get a COVID-19 vaccine and this new tool will aid residents in confirming their vaccination where needed.”

Illinois State Fair concert goers with tickets for the grandstand track area (also known as Standing Room Only) are required to provide a print or digital copy of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test within the previous 72 hours. Ticket holders can register in Vax Verify to check their immunization record for documentation of COVID-19 vaccination. 






IDPH Launches Online ‘Vax Verify’ System | IDPH


Check your COVID-19 vaccination record on new immunization portal SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) is launching a new immunization portal, Vax Verify, that will allow Illinois residents 18 years and older to check their COVID-19 vaccination record. Vax Verify can be...




dph.illinois.gov


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> Do you also think a private store owner doesn’t have the right to ask for proof of vaccine or masks?


Of course they have the right to ask, and I have the right to take my business elsewhere. I enjoy adding to the list of businesses that I won't trade with. Walmart, Bank of America, California....................


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> Of course they have the right to ask, and I have the right to take my business elsewhere. I enjoy adding to the list of businesses that I won't trade with. Walmart, Bank of America, California....................


I absolutely agree.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Lisa in WA said:


> Come on.
> None of us have the “right” to visit restaurants, theaters, etc.
> Try to go into one of them without a shirt or shoes and see what happens.
> I understand the upset but this isn’t denying anyones civil rights.


The government shouldn't have the right to dictate, to a private business, what is required for entry into said establishment. There is no law that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service". It is a policy that can be enforced by private businesses or not.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The government shouldn't have the right to dictate, to a private business, what is required for entry into said establishment. There is no law that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service". It is a policy that can be enforced by private businesses or not.


They already do though. Try to tell a black person they can’t come into your restaurant.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Lisa in WA said:


> They already do though. Try to tell a black person they can’t come into your restaurant.


How does contradict what I said? Mr. X broke into my house once, does that mean that he can come in at will and make himself a sandwich?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Colleges charge unvaccinated students fees up to $750 to foot additional COVID-19 testing












Colleges charge unvaccinated students fees up to $750 to foot additional COVID-19 testing


Despite the raging virus, vaccine mandates have become a hot button issue.




abcnews.go.com


----------

