The idea that private businesses that are open to the public are islands unto themselves and can make their own rules is nowhere near absolute. We impose all sorts of regulations on them including laws against barring customers based on race, religion, etc. In the same vein as race, religion, etc. we also recognize a right to personal bodily integrity and medical choice. Although it may seem minor, a business excluding an unvaccinated customer would be effectively requiring them to submit to an invasion of their body by a needle, containing a substance which the FDA still deems experimental.
Further, although Covid has killed almost 600,000 Americans and is a terrible pandemic, it is not smallpox or the bubonic plague. Fewer than 0.1% of people who contract the disease die from it, and the overwhelming majority have little or no symptoms at all. On balance, requiring people to take an experimental drug in order to conduct basic needed business in life, to protect against a disease that is unlikely to harm them, is not consistent with the idea of personal autonomy and freedom.
In addition, there is no central registry of vaccinations. For now, businesses will require a paper blue card which will cause lines to form at the entrance causing people to congregate, spreading the disease more than it would otherwise spread. Also, these cards are easily falsifiable with modern printers and it would make many people criminals and there would be calls for the state to spend millions of dollars or more to institute an electronic verification system to allow for integrity in the process.
A government controlled computer database in which one’s name must be present in order to go to the grocery store, to the doctor, the bank, or for basic transactions is eerily similar to the Mark of the Beast in Revelation. Although our laws are not Christian laws, many people in this state are Christians and this would add unnecessary fear to them for little purpose.
So…there is the argument. I don’t agree with it, but there it is.
The counter to that is pretty simple. Abortion is not a choice about “your own body.” There is another “body” inside yours that the state has an interest in protecting.
That’s not physically forcing food in your body, it is a regulation on the sale of food. Nothing, AFAIK, stops anyone from sprinkling rodent feces on their pizza as a topping.
I know the OP wasn’t asking for religious views, but since religion and conservatism is so closely intertwined these days, it has to be mentioned that the “vaccine is the Mark of the Beast” or “caving in to governmental restrictions will enable them to enforce future anti-religious laws” sentiment is quite strong in some circles. So one subset of conservative think would be…that.
What? Maybe I’m missing something, but you believe the government would have the power to mandate that you eat below X number of calories per day or do so many minutes of cardio?
I think we’ve drifted far afield of the OP. But yes, if we give the government power to restrict abortions, why couldn’t we give the government power to limit the amount of sugar and fat in our diets? Neither is the kind of government overreach either of us would want to live under, I’m sure.
Back to OP… there is arguably significant overlap between the kinds of controls that some conservatives would resist being placed on their bodies (mandatory COVID vaccination, masks) while being in favor of controls being placed on the bodies of others (women, for example). That was the basis of my earlier “that’s fucking rich!” /s comment.
Recall that we don’t have to agree with this reasoning. Just that that reasoning has been offered up by some.
I agree that we are getting far afield, but you are the one that started this complete non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with abortion. If we outlawed abortion that would not mean that the government can control every facet of our lives and bodies. It is a fallacy.
I could turn this around and say that if the government can force you to get a vaccine, why can’t it force you to get an abortion? Pretty silly, isn’t it?
The abortion hijack was answered. Opponents of abortion do not view at as a regulation of only “your” body. It is a regulation of what you do with another independent human body that is inside of you.
But that is beside the point of this thread but is not some grand inconsistency by conservatives.
But then we could flip it around - sure, you have the right to carry around as much virus in your body as you see fit, but you don’t have the right to spread them to other people’s bodies. So, use a mask or stay home!
If you could show that I was carrying a virus, I would agree with you. But what you are arguing is that there is a possibility that I might be carrying a virus. You have no evidence, but you just want to use a maybe as a reason for restricting my freedom.
Could we exclude random people from airplanes because they might be terrorists?
That list is based on individuals who the government has reason to suspect could present a danger to an airplane. The analogy would be a list of people who are suspected of having Covid.
Also hypothetical conservative argument addendum:
The CDC says vaccinated people need to wear masks? What does the CDC know? First they said no masks, then masks, then no masks if you are vaccinated, and now vaccinated people need to wear masks on days with a full moon and while dancing the jitterbug. They don’t know what they are talking about! How about just letting people make these decisions for themselves?
No, it is not. It’s apparently just a list of names. So if you happen to have the same name as somebody who the government suspects could present a danger, you may be on the list. People with common names like Daniel Brown or Robert Johnson or David Nelson are prohibited from flying because they share a name with some suspect.
First of all, I appreciate you attempting to answer the question even though it’s not a position you agree with. Thank you.
In regards to the above post, an entity doesn’t need to have any justification from the CDC to require masks, as far as I know. I don’t believe CDC is any kind of legal authority.
I agree that mandating vaccines is a sticky wicket that makes me very uneasy, which is the position you graciously defended in your first post in this thread. But I’m having a hard time coming up with any conservative principle that would justify a state prohibiting a local school district from requiring masks. The citizens who live in that school district and voted in those board members are being stripped of their autonomy and right to self-govern by the state, in order to protect the “right” of the state’s citizens not to wear a mask. Which I’m not sure is a right that exists, any more than the right not to wear pants.
I am afraid you are right. The GOP, Fox and Conservative talk radio had to kowtow to trump & co, so masks were stupid, and the vaccination was as dangerous as the virus, , etc
I am sure most of them know better, but if they try telling the truth for a change, their “sheeple” audience want to lynch them.
Here in CA, they are trying to recall Gov. Newsom, as they call him “The Dictator” due nearly 100% to his quite decent covid restrictions.
