President Biden's speech on the virus September 9, 2021

Probably not unfortunately. Most of the Governors try to take the pro-choice middle ground of

“You should all probably get vaccinated, wear masks and social distance but I’m not going to make you, and anyone who gives you any flak for not doing so hates America.”

The issue that me and others have with using this language is that it could literally be applied to almost anything and upset not only the federal/state balance, but the separation of powers. Just a few:

  1. No high calorie snacks at work.
  2. No perfume or hairspray at work.
  3. No smoking, even off site.
  4. Two cups of coffee per day only.
  5. No unprotected sex at any time.

SCOTUS addressed this with the eviction case. We can’t assume that these vague words give such a massive amount of power. If we are going to have this, Congress must speak far more definitively.

IANAL, but it looks to me like that would require a pretty severely alarmist interpretation of the phrase “grave danger”.

Can you really argue that drinking more than two cups of coffee poses a “grave danger” to workers and not get laughed out of court?

And shouldn’t that be the rallying cry for vax-getters and other fans of science?

Everybody is familiar with those rules already and, pretty much everyone, Dem or GOP—Black, White or Purple are in accordance with them and understand if they violate them they gets nothing.

I suggest the “slogan” is memorable and effective and, how do you answer it if you’re an anti-vaxxer? You can’t.

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.

—a mandate all of us mange to live with everyday without any drama. A vax mandate is no different.

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.

Even without any reference to vaccines, pandemics or COVID everyone will get the point.

“That’s different. Because nudity is an actual serious matter that harms our kids, and the COVID hoax is not. It’s like shutting down all commerce to protect against the Purple People Eater.”

Playing devil’s advocate. Telling me I have to put on a shirt and a pair of shoes temporarily while I enter your store is different than a government mandated intrusion into my body regarding my private medical decisions for a medicine that has been out for less than a year and is not working as advertised.

It’d be interesting to know what percentage of Americans have already voluntarily taken a prescription drug that’s been on the market for less than a year.

And goodness knows that the “private medical decisions” of somebody who voluntarily ingests horse dewormer are not exactly covering the ingester with glory here as a responsible and informed healthcare consumer.

This is false. The vaccines offer huge benefits in terms of protection against getting the disease, and even larger benefits against sickness and death.

No it isn’t. The two are precisely equivalent: you are given the options of 1)obeying the property owner’s rules or 2)not setting foot on the property.

for a medicine that has been out for less than a year and is not working as advertised

I see both of these statements have already been shot down in flames.

Reasonable argument, and I’m sure SCOTUS will weigh in eventually. But I’ll point out that none of your examples involve both “exposure” and “grave danger” in the workplace (except perhaps #2, if a coworker is deathly allergic to the ingredients, and speaking for myself I would be delighted if OSHA banned perfume in the workplace. :grinning:)

Someone with Covid, OTOH, does create exposure to others and does put them in grave danger.

One question: If a company gives an employee an exemption, who pays for the weekly testing? Have the health insurers made any statements?