no vaccine - no access ?

Under what conditions are organizations going to be able to deny people access to their facilities, if they have not gotten the covid 19 vaccine shot ?


Will they be able to deny access just because they say so, or their lawyers told gave them that legal advise, or because their board of directors have voted on it ?


Will that legally stand up ?

That's why I said the Supreme Court needs to way in on this right now, it's to important an issue to let linger. Here in Florida it has already been decided that we will not have two classes of citizens and have to "show your papers" to get the rights we all have to go about our lives freely. Our Gov. ( for now, I hope he sticks to his guns ) is willing to give up the entire Cruise Industry, a very big economic deal her in South Florida, in order to not give them the ability to take away the right of an un-vaccinated person to do all the things vaccinated people can do like go on a cruise. I support that decision.


#NO PAPERS NEEDED IN FLORIDA



I've been vaccinated, what business is it of mine if others haven't? I can't get Covid and I can't give Covid, the CDC told me so.

95% isn’t 100 so your statement is intentionally a lie. And you know better.

Private businesses can exclude people if they do choose except for the specifically delineated reasons set by congress and state legislatures. Hence non-bad can be excluded from entry unless the FL TX or wherevers legislature passes a law stating that’s unlawful. The SC has no reason to address this issue unless the law passed is challenged, though right off hand the reasons for such a challenge would be limited.

Vita:

So you missed the federal court ruling on this topic ??

there was a ruling on this 100 years ago. small pox epidemic.



court ruled that govt., in the interest of safety, can mandate small pox vaccinations.


however, this maybe a different issue where private entities are concerned.

https://deadline.com/2021/06/houston...es-1234774420/


Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Houston Hospital Network That Mandates Employee Covid-19 Vaccines

In a case that has far-reaching implications, a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by Houston hospital employees who were ordered to get a COVID-19 vaccine shot or face termination.
The federal case involved Houston Methodist, the first hospital system in the country to require all of its employees to be vaccinated. US District Judge Lynn N. Hughes ruled Saturday that federal law does not prevent private employers from issuing that mandate.


Houston Methodist put more than 170 of its 26,000 employees on unpaid suspension Monday for refusing to be vaccinated. They were also warned they would be fired it they weren’t vaccinated by June 21.


The hospital had already fired its director of corporate risk and another manager in April when they did not meet an earlier deadline for vaccination.


The ruling is the first federal test of vaccination mandates.

Which means it will be appealed and will work it's way to the SC, I would predict. Instead of having a patch work of State laws, it is my opinion that the SC should get involved.

In recent weeks, a few other major hospitals have imposed requirements similar to Houston Methodist’s, including the University of Pennsylvania, University of Louisville, New York Presbyterian and several major hospitals in the Washington, D.C., area.


Houston Methodist’s CEO Marc Boom said the court ruling will allow more hospitals to act.


“We can now put this behind us and continue our focus on unparalleled safety, quality, service and innovation,” Boom said after the ruling. “Our employees and physicians made their decisions for our patients, who are always at the center of everything we do.”


The lawsuit that was dismissed was filed by 117 workers at Houston Methodist. Jennifer Bridges, a nurse at Houston Methodist’s Baytown hospital, led the group and said she turned down a shot because she considered it experimental and dangerous.


The judge did not agree, stating, “This claim is false, and it is also irrelevant.”


“This doesn’t surprise me,” Bridges said of the ruling. “Methodist is a very large company, and they are pretty well-protected in a lot of areas. We knew this was going to be a huge fight, and we are prepared to fight it.” Her group has started a GoFundMe website to raise a warchest in their ongoing legal struggle.


The plaintiffs argued that mandating a vaccine that was not fully approved by the US Food and Drug Administration was unlawful. The FDA has authorized the Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vaccines under a special provision for emergencies.


The judge rejected that claim.


“The hospital’s employees are not participants in a human trial,” he wrote. “They are licensed doctors, nurses, medical technician, and staff members. The hospital has not applied to test the COVID-19 vaccines on its employees.”


I can see the headline now "Move to Florida, the LIVE FREE STATE! Yes, I'm being a bit facetious, blame it on Tiny, he infected me.

Florida is awesome. DeSantis is the clear front runner for President if Trump decides not to run, and the obvious VP choice if he does. And to think you guys were only a few thousand votes away from having a Marxist crackhead homo at the helm. Talk about dodging a bullet.

Florida is awesome. DeSantis is the clear front runner for President if Trump decides not to run, and the obvious VP choice if he does. And to think you guys were only a few thousand votes away from having a Marxist crackhead homo at the helm. Talk about dodging a bullet. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Yep, we got lucky.

95% isn’t 100 so your statement is intentionally a lie. And you know better.

Private businesses can exclude people if they do choose except for the specifically delineated reasons set by congress and state legislatures. Hence non-bad can be excluded from entry unless the FL TX or wherevers legislature passes a law stating that’s unlawful. The SC has no reason to address this issue unless the law passed is challenged, though right off hand the reasons for such a challenge would be limited. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

"Show me your papers or else we will restrict your right of movement and employment" isn't a good enough reason?


And wouldn't this lead to a whole list of medical conditions that would allow an employer or a cruise line from restricting passengers and employees? What if a month or two from now the CDC decides that natural antibodies are just as good as the vaccine?

I'm gay.

95% isn’t 100 so your statement is intentionally a lie. And you know better.
Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Since there is no such thing as 100%, that argue falls fla.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-...ovid-19-2021-3


CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'

Rachel Maddow on Monday,

If the vaccine works, it doesn’t make much sense for vaccinated people to worry about the unvaccinated. If some people want to not be vaccinated and take their chances, why should anyone care? The whole controversy is idiotic.

Under what conditions are organizations going to be able to deny people access to their facilities, if they have not gotten the covid 19 vaccine shot ?


Will they be able to deny access just because they say so, or their lawyers told gave them that legal advise, or because their board of directors have voted on it ?


Will that legally stand up ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

Does an individual have an Obligation to disclose their personal Health Information?

Does an individual have an Obligation to disclose their personal Health Information? Originally Posted by Levianon17

They call that a HIPAA violation.




https://www.hipaajournal.com/what-is-a-hipaa-violation/

• Impermissible disclosures of protected health information (PHI)
• Unauthorized accessing of PHI

Whether this issue is covered by that is up to the courts to decide but one Federal District Judges ruling won't cut it.

If the vaccine works, it doesn’t make much sense for vaccinated people to worry about the unvaccinated. If some people want to not be vaccinated and take their chances, why should anyone care? The whole controversy is idiotic. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Yeah, but you see, that falls under "common sense", something that Democrats do not recognize.


And since 100% doesn't exist, 95% will have to do IMHO.