Run away from no-mask people

[jobo]

No Shirt, No Mask, No Service? - FindLaw

I've said this before, as have others, but as long as the store isn't discriminating based on a protected base, they are 100% within their rights to show you the door.

Just to take this further down the logical chain, since we're talking about "rights." You have the right to not wear a mask, but that doesn't protect you from the consequences of not wearing a mask, which could include not being able to by your toilet paper or coffee at the grocery store. In turn, by denying you access to the store (which is the business owner's/manager's rights), you have the right to shop elsewhere. Everyone has to be accountable for their choices.

your tstger distoring the term " right"

clearly if there is legal sanction you dont have the right not to wear a mask, you have the option to not compky with the law, as you do with any law, but you certainly dont have a right to do so

unless you invoke the universal declation of human rights, which doesnt apply to americans anyway and thats a bit silent on the topic of masks anyway, the right to free association, free movement etc is however in there.

there are varius court caes against the uk govenment for breach of the udhr pending

 

[jobo]

I seems some people are completely missing the realistic and practical business matters in all this. By all means a business is within their rights to deny service to anyone for a plethora of reasons, masks being one of many. However, to what end? How strong and long can these actions be against something that is debatable at best and political at worst?
Businesses are already taking an extreme economic hit from all of this. By in large they welcome Any business. Naturally a prudent business owner is going to monitor and remedy any serious infraction (someone appearing sick, being adversarial about wearing/not wearing a mask, etc...). But this idea that the onus is on the business owner it wrong and just does not work. And to compound this by trying to plant the idea that this is okay thinking is also wrong. Why are you advocating More government control? Do you want the guy selling you 'widgets' to have that kind of control over your actions? Do you as a sentient not think for yourself and use caution when caution is due? If you do not want to go buy a 'widget' don't do it. If you need a 'widget' and feel the need, mask up and go. Quit worrying about what everyone else is doing. Silly hall monitor mentality.

You want to talk about something that is easier controlled at the retail level? Distribution of consumables. The average Walmart knows from sales experience what their volume is on consumables is any given month. It is what they do. This is the easiest point of control to prevent glutting and over buying of certain products and greatly reduce the anxiety for many. Really, really common sense that seems to escape many people.
However, from the bean counter perspective I get it since this is the truest form of supply and demand. "Sell it while you have it".
From the manufacturing perspective this is maddening. You would be amazed at how wrong things can go very quickly when trying to manufacture a product beyond the capabilities of the equipment and people making it. I have seen this over and over, and over, and over.

So setting on your high horse and saying any and everything is someone else's responsibility is just very sad and pathetic. And with your apparent level of life experience I would think you see this better. Even non profits have to have at the very least a zero balance sheet. How do you think for profit businesses will ever survive with the mentality you mention?

the issue is they ate scared, they have been told to be scared, even though stadtically most of them are at negligible risk of serious harm, and they javent challenged this intellectually and asked' how much risk EXACTLY.

then they have been told to wear masks to cut a neglable risk by an unspecified amount

and because they are scared, they compky again with out question and blame people who have chalkeng3d the natative for thibgs getting worse, when they would have got worse anyway,

that way the govenment escapes blame for lack of preparation and stupid actions as we all blame each other

i see bidens team of exsperts, has come up with the idea of requesting americans to wear a mask and,,, no thats it, ask them nicely , yes that will work,,,, not

 

[Steve]

your tstger distoring the term " right"

clearly if there is legal sanction you dont have the right not to wear a mask, you have the option to not compky with the law, as you do with any law, but you certainly dont have a right to do so

unless you invoke the universal declation of human rights, which doesnt apply to americans anyway and thats a bit silent on the topic of masks anyway, the right to free association, free movement etc is however in there.

there are varius court caes against the uk govenment for breach of the udhr pending

So then, considering there is a mandate to wear masks in parts of the usa and in the uk, we agree that you do not, in fact, have a right to not wear a mask. Glad that's settled.

 

[jobo]

So then, considering there is a mandate to wear masks in parts of the usa and in the uk, we agree that you do not, in fact, have a right to not wear a mask. Glad that's settled.

yea but thats in direct contradiction to what you claimed above, so its settled only to the extent your admiting what you wrote above is tosh.

your right are govened by the country you live in, they can remove those right by law, leeavibg you only with a claim to a high court or civil disobediance, to yry and reclaim the rights you had removed

in olden days your coubtry would have launched an armed uprising against having its rights removed, now its just a case of not wearibg a mask in walmart

itcseems to have lost some back bone since the days of the founding fathers

as i said american dont have inailable right like most of the rest of the world, so its a slightly diffetent conversation in civilised countries

 

[Steve]

yea but thats in direct contradiction to what you claimed above, so its settled only to the extent your admiting what you wrote above is tosh.

your right are govened by the country you live in, they can remove those right by law, leeavibg you only with a claim to a high court or civil disobediance, to yry and reclaim the rights you had removed

in olden days your coubtry would have launched an armed uprising against having its rights removed, now its just a case of not wearibg a mask in walmart

itcseems to have lost some back bone since the days of the founding fathers

as i said american dont have inailable right like most of the rest of the world, so its a slightly diffetent conversation in civilised countries

To be clear, I was using the term in the same way you guys were using it, to make the point that even if you feel you have a "right" to not wear a mask, your free will to act out does not protect you from the consequences of your action. I sincerely appreciate that you are now agreeing with me that you do not actually have that right. I consider that progress. And frankly, if you and others agree to use the term "right" in this way, we'll all communicate better.

Regarding the rest, if you haven't read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, I think you'd enjoy it.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

No Shirt, No Mask, No Service? - FindLaw

I've said this before, as have others, but as long as the store isn't discriminating based on a protected base, they are 100% within their rights to show you the door.

Just to take this further down the logical chain, since we're talking about "rights." You have the right to not wear a mask, but that doesn't protect you from the consequences of not wearing a mask, which could include not being able to by your toilet paper or coffee at the grocery store. In turn, by denying you access to the store (which is the business owner's/manager's rights), you have the right to shop elsewhere. Everyone has to be accountable for their choices.

It might just fall under so petty it hardly ever happens then. Which to be fair banning somone because they come into a supermarket wearing something you dont like is pretty petty.

I am kind of waiting for the case law in this post it not being the law anymore, should be intresting and i wonder how many will adopt the religion reason to circumvent it. There is bound to be a few people who are terrified of it so mandate masks for years to come after it has faded out of legislation, there is always one alarmist after all.

Oh second, since i am exempt, they cant force me to wear a mask really can they? Or would it be as for deemed petty so no one really does it.



Never the less for any opinions on this, the legal cases once this has all passed and the retroactive revision on any disputed legality here on a legal note shall be intresting. (i would say current, but good luck if they shut down lawyers offices )


Addendum: i dont know if it was clear, i meant can they make you wear X or remove X if there is no law mandating you wear X or remove X. And any related case law for forcing somone to say wear a mask years after the law no longer mandates it. (actually i think not just down to the fact people usually dont want you wearing them as you can easily rob the place) But hypothetically we are using masks here.

 

[jobo]

To be clear, I was using the term in the same way you guys were using it, to make the point that even if you feel you have a "right" to not wear a mask, your free will to act out does not protect you from the consequences of your action. I sincerely appreciate that you are now agreeing with me that you do not actually have that right. I consider that progress. And frankly, if you and others agree to use the term "right" in this way, we'll all communicate better.

Regarding the rest, if you haven't read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, I think you'd enjoy it.

so to be clear you wete using it wrongly

as i said now for the third time

the term right has a different meaning in the states than it does in countries that have ratified the declearation of human rights,


here, the govenment cant just pass a law which contradicts the declratation of human rights, with out being able to defend its srlf in court as to the requirment and the proportionality,

so when wr say i have the right to fo something or not do something, it relatrs to an aspect of law not available in yoyr country, so we can both be correct,, unless context is given

 

[jobo]

It might just fall under so petty it hardly ever happens then. Which to be fair banning somone because they come into a supermarket wearing something you dont like is pretty petty.

I am kind of waiting for the case law in this post it not being the law anymore, should be intresting and i wonder how many will adopt the religion reason to circumvent it. There is bound to be a few people who are terrified of it so mandate masks for years to come after it has faded out of legislation, there is always one alarmist after all.

Oh second, since i am exempt, they cant force me to wear a mask really can they? Or would it be as for deemed petty so no one really does it.



Never the less for any opinions on this, the legal cases once this has all passed and the retroactive revision on any disputed legality here on a legal note shall be intresting. (i would say current, but good luck if they shut down lawyers offices )


Addendum: i dont know if it was clear, i meant can they make you wear X or remove X if there is no law mandating you wear X or remove X. And any related case law for forcing somone to say wear a mask years after the law no longer mandates it. (actually i think not just down to the fact people usually dont want you wearing them as you can easily rob the place) But hypothetically we are using masks here.

rat ,shops are not enfocing masks where it is the law, it seems unlikely they will when it isnt.

bussness can generally mandate a dress code, as a conditipn of entry, night clubs and restraunts do it all the time, shops some what less so, though they probebly could if they wanted to, provifed they steer clear of discrimination on protected characteristics, your medocal condition may be one such,

the issue, is touve got to get past the guy on the door, who almost certainly hasnt read the equality act and will stick to what ever his last instruction was or perhaps just make them up,

i couldnt get in a shop with my emotional support dog diring lock down despite the fact id been going in for years before , coz the big guy on the doir said no, had to make a scene, block the queue up and require the manager to protect my equality

 

[Steve]

so to be clear you wete using it wrongly

as i said now for the third time

the term right has a different meaning in the states than it does in countries that have ratified the declearation of human rights,


here, the govenment cant just pass a law which contradicts the declratation of human rights, with out being able to defend its srlf in court as to the requirment and the proportionality,

so when wr say i have the right to fo something or not do something, it relatrs to an aspect of law not available in yoyr country, so we can both be correct,, unless context is given

Two observations. First, I agree I was using it wrong, as I was using it as you and others were using it, which was also wrong. As I said before, I will heartily agree that it is not an appropriate use of the term. In fact, much of the debate recently has been trying to get you and others to understand this simple truth. So, I think it's good that we agree that you do not, in fact, have the right to choose to not wear a mask. Progress. You have come around. Now, if we can just get some of the other hold outs to understand that they do not have any rights along these lines, we'd be golden.

Second, a little more meta, but you seem to be compelled to argue against any point, even points you've made yourself. I get a kick out of it, but you should know that it makes you susceptible to being manipulated into literally arguing with yourself. In fact, you seem unable to stop yourself from being contrary, even if someone is agreeing with you. For example, you have argued both that you do have a right to not wear a mask and that you don't. It makes it impossible to believe you are sincere when you discuss things, because you seem to be more interested in the act of arguing than in the discussion itself. You're like Daffy Duck in this cartoon:

 

[jobo]

Two observations. First, I agree I was using it wrong, as I was using it as you and others were using it, which was also wrong. As I said before, I will heartily agree that it is not an appropriate use of the term. In fact, much of the debate recently has been trying to get you and others to understand this simple truth. So, I think it's good that we agree that you do not, in fact, have the right to choose to not wear a mask. Progress. You have come around. Now, if we can just get some of the other hold outs to understand that they do not have any rights along these lines, we'd be golden.

Second, a little more meta, but you seem to be compelled to argue against any point, even points you've made yourself. I get a kick out of it, but you should know that it makes you susceptible to being manipulated into literally arguing with yourself. In fact, you seem unable to stop yourself from being contrary, even if someone is agreeing with you. For example, you have argued both that you do have a right to not wear a mask and that you don't. It makes it impossible to believe you are sincere when you discuss things, because you seem to be more interested in the act of arguing than in the discussion itself. You're like Daffy Duck in this cartoon:

id be intrested if you could quote where ive said you have a right not to wear a mask, by you i mean you, as a american citizen, it sounds like a strawman your outtibg forwarss to cover up you misusing the term right.

but again, its fair to speculate that many aspects of the covid conyrols in the uk have breached my and everyones else human rights as declared in the universal decrlaration of human right and enshrine in uk law as the human right act, this may very well ibclude excluding peipke coz they wont wear a mask.

many of these issues are currently workibg there way through the legal system, so its only speculation at this point, but it could yet turn out to be true that i have a right not to wear a mask, in the uk obviously,

if/ when it gets that far, the govenment will have to prove that the mandate on masks was proportionate, which of course they cant do, as there is no data to supprt there use in lowering the spread of the disease

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How strong and long can these actions be against something that is debatable at best and political at worst?

There's a whole lot of science AND real-world evidence contrary to that statement. They inarguably help reduce spread. The only argument is over the percentages.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

even though stadtically most of them are at negligible risk of serious harm,

You'd have to define negligible. And I think you'd misdefine it. You have bought into the idea that younger and healthy people aren't really at much risk. Talk to the folks treating patients, and to some of the formerly healthy folks who have long-term (we don't yet know how long) cognitive and pulmonary issues from this virus.

 

[jobo]

You'd have to define negligible. And I think you'd misdefine it. You have bought into the idea that younger and healthy people aren't really at much risk. Talk to the folks treating patients, and to some of the formerly healthy folks who have long-term (we don't yet know how long) cognitive and pulmonary issues from this virus.

neglagble means so low as to be statistically insignificant, is your dictonary broken ?

it is nt however zero, so yes an insignificant number of healthy people will be very poirly with it, this isnt of course insignificant to the peopke involved ir there family, just to the population as a whole

 

[dvcochran]

There's a whole lot of science AND real-world evidence contrary to that statement. They inarguably help reduce spread. The only argument is over the percentages.

Agree. Science may be a stretch since science seems impotent in it's ability to do anything about this virus. Now money on the other hand.... In regards to real world evidence; the 'evidence' has been so tainted and convoluted I do not ever see a real truth coming to the surface.
So what are the inarguable percentages of death from cold, flu, pneumonia or other seasonal deaths? What are the inarguable percentages on the number of deaths identified as a Covid "related" death that were anything but? Yes, I know the last question can never be answered but I hope it helps make my point.

 

[jobo]

There's a whole lot of science AND real-world evidence contrary to that statement. They inarguably help reduce spread. The only argument is over the percentages.

there isnt any argument ovet the % they are effective, coz nobody knows, as no body knows, it be come very arguable if they reduce the spread at all, and even more arguable if this is more than insiginificant,

 

[dvcochran]

It might just fall under so petty it hardly ever happens then. Which to be fair banning somone because they come into a supermarket wearing something you dont like is pretty petty.

I am kind of waiting for the case law in this post it not being the law anymore, should be intresting and i wonder how many will adopt the religion reason to circumvent it. There is bound to be a few people who are terrified of it so mandate masks for years to come after it has faded out of legislation, there is always one alarmist after all.

Oh second, since i am exempt, they cant force me to wear a mask really can they? Or would it be as for deemed petty so no one really does it.



Never the less for any opinions on this, the legal cases once this has all passed and the retroactive revision on any disputed legality here on a legal note shall be intresting. (i would say current, but good luck if they shut down lawyers offices )


Addendum: i dont know if it was clear, i meant can they make you wear X or remove X if there is no law mandating you wear X or remove X. And any related case law for forcing somone to say wear a mask years after the law no longer mandates it. (actually i think not just down to the fact people usually dont want you wearing them as you can easily rob the place) But hypothetically we are using masks here.

Here is a stat I am waiting for; How great the increase in masked robberies has been in 2020.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Two observations. First, I agree I was using it wrong, as I was using it as you and others were using it, which was also wrong. As I said before, I will heartily agree that it is not an appropriate use of the term. In fact, much of the debate recently has been trying to get you and others to understand this simple truth. So, I think it's good that we agree that you do not, in fact, have the right to choose to not wear a mask. Progress. You have come around. Now, if we can just get some of the other hold outs to understand that they do not have any rights along these lines, we'd be golden.

Second, a little more meta, but you seem to be compelled to argue against any point, even points you've made yourself. I get a kick out of it, but you should know that it makes you susceptible to being manipulated into literally arguing with yourself. In fact, you seem unable to stop yourself from being contrary, even if someone is agreeing with you. For example, you have argued both that you do have a right to not wear a mask and that you don't. It makes it impossible to believe you are sincere when you discuss things, because you seem to be more interested in the act of arguing than in the discussion itself. You're like Daffy Duck in this cartoon:

ha ha ha ha. I haven't read the post, but the cartoon is a classic. So much truth in that lol.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

neglagble means so low as to be statistically insignificant, is your dictonary broken ?

it is nt however zero, so yes an insignificant number of healthy people will be very poirly with it, this isnt of course insignificant to the peopke involved ir there family, just to the population as a whole

My dictionary doesn't have that definition. Here's one: "so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant." (Note the lack of "statistically" in that. It's a conceptual definition, not a scientific/statistical one.)
How many deaths are insignficant? How much loss of breathing capacity or cognitive function is insignificant?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree. Science may be a stretch since science seems impotent in it's ability to do anything about this virus. Now money on the other hand.... In regards to real world evidence; the 'evidence' has been so tainted and convoluted I do not ever see a real truth coming to the surface.
So what are the inarguable percentages of death from cold, flu, pneumonia or other seasonal deaths? What are the inarguable percentages on the number of deaths identified as a Covid "related" death that were anything but? Yes, I know the last question can never be answered but I hope it helps make my point.

Science isn't impotent. It's just slower than you'd wish and doesn't seem to give the answer you want. Scientific information clearly supports mask usage and clearly explains most of the effect of the mask. Any "taint" is because people look at answers from early in the disease progression and compare it to more recent advice. Science progresses. That's not a sign of confusion, but of learning and progress. Experts who lean on the evidence are pretty much all in agreement on the big questions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree. Science may be a stretch since science seems impotent in it's ability to do anything about this virus. Now money on the other hand.... In regards to real world evidence; the 'evidence' has been so tainted and convoluted I do not ever see a real truth coming to the surface.
So what are the inarguable percentages of death from cold, flu, pneumonia or other seasonal deaths? What are the inarguable percentages on the number of deaths identified as a Covid "related" death that were anything but? Yes, I know the last question can never be answered but I hope it helps make my point.

I separated this, because you're using whataboutism to change the topic. I'll address it, but want to keep my original topic clear.


You claim there are inarguably a percentage of deaths that aren't Covid-related, but which have been labeled as such. Where's the evidence of that? What's the clear percentage? Look at the excess death rate for 2020, and you'll see that Covid is probably responsible for MORE deaths than have been labeled as such, unless there's another epidemic going on that hasn't been detected.

So, no, you aren't making a good point. You're parroting talking points others are making without evidence behind them.