Another epistemological discussion around businesses ensuring that you are vaccinated before entering.
No shirt, no shoes, no vaccine, no service.
It looks like those people that have received that vaccine and are fully vaccinated will be out and about and, for the most part, back to normal. NYC is implementing the COVID passport and so is France. Many businesses are taking it upon their own accord to implement such policies. This is especially so for indoor venues.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56522408
Passports already in use or coming to a country, or state near you; UK, EU, France, Isreal, China, US (several States), Australia.
Businesses with indoor venues should ask for patrons to be vaccinated before entering, am I wrong?
Let's take a little bit of the essence of street epistemology and see where the conversation takes us. Let's see if we can do this without name-calling, downvoting or degrading the conversation to meme's and "watch this video" posts. Be respectful. I will upvote every response that respects the nature of the discussion.
businesses will not, if they hve any sense, treat their customers like this. It is an invasion of their privacy for one and they have not carried out any risk assessment nor considered they could well face many lawsuits. Personally I wouldn't want to frequent ANY business that pokes it's nose into my personal business. Businesses who DO try to go down this route will find their customer base shrinking, they will probably go bust, which is actually the intent as in agenda 2030.
Sometimes I think there are less than 10 people on Hive who have read agenda 2030 and know what this psyop is actually all about!
Ok, we can choose which businesses we frequent does that remove the risk of invasion of privacy? If we don't go to those businesses?
Absolutely yes we can and I think those businesses will be boycotted because if a group of people want to meet up somewhere and there is only one unvaccinated amongst them they will have to choose an alternative venue. They will not profit using facist rules even the vaccinated do not agree with.
there are no "vaccinated" they never made a "vaccine" for the virus, its gene therapy MRNA, thats not a vaccine. IVC or HCQ, those are not vaccines either.
learn about Polio ok? Learn about the old diseases and the first vaccines ... its a real science.... what this crap with mrna injections is? It is not a vaccine, its MRNA gene therapy with spiked proteins and secret "code of life" software only big pharma has access to
Its an experiment and no, the earlier vaccines were not mass experiments.... they were working medicine..... no one knows what this injection will do
and please stop calling it a "vaccine" or you will be downvoted for spreading misinfo
Woah sweetie you're preaching to the converted, I've written articles on the fraud of polio, viruses, vaccines and mRNA. I get downvoted constantly for even writing about the fraud of vaccines too so do not threaten me for misusing one word so people can understand! Follow me. I'm gonna follow you but be nice.
how about instead of arguing how youre going to fail at enforcing imaginary laws like nany state commie hitler in his bunker..... HOW ABOUT INSTEAD .... we focus on the blockchain and a medical distributed network of labs that can finally end all debate about medicine and viral injections and cases etc
Then we have the right to sue you for blatent discrimination of anyone with medical exemption
oh whats that? You want to illegally check or ASK about my medical disability and private medical records? Smells like more lawsuits mmmm yeahhhhh
Perhaps, if they are violating any laws by doing so... and probably not if they offer an alternative method for you to shop. You choose to not get vaccinated, they choose to not serve you.
Businesses have no right to ask for vaccination or HIV or virginity or any other medical-related status!
Ok, we can agree on that. I'll ask a similar question that I asked another. In both the U.S. and Canada State and Provincial laws establish vaccination requirements for school children. Do you feel requiring vaccination to enter a venue different?
No, it is the same injustice. Especially for children who hardly get sick. I hope this won´t come true. If the vaccination would at least work. But it doesn´t, so this apartheid makes not even medically any sense.
How do you know that the vaccine does not work? You seem to be confident. On a scale of 1-10 how confident are you that it doesn't work. And how did you come to that conclusion? Care to source your image for the rest of us?
10...totally confident...23 years research
if US and Canada makes laws preventing Blacks and Jews from entering resturaunts, will you care about vaccinations? The shit you say is just one fascist slipper slope after another like your an AI working for the enemy coming up with new ideas to imprison humanity
i hope you get side effects so people like you are disabled from using internet and are in veg state so you can just get out of our way . you are the worst type of human being, someone who sits theer and comes up with ways to harrass people and businesses online with peer pressure from main stream news
youre the type of person who thinks those who refuse dangerous big pharma injection you call "vaccine" are somehow helping to kill people, who you never gave a fuck about before any of this happened.
Ok, an unlikely hypothetical. AI? Good grief. More cafeteria bullying. Want to flip my tray as well, spill my milk on the floor? Did I use that already?
As a humanist, I care about everyone's well being and how they are treated. Even a little toad like you. When I see and hear people pushing misinformation, I care. It literally hurts people (which you seem to want to do - a few of your other comments are pretty full of bombastic threats and ill-wishes).
You decide on what you want to do with yourself but stopping the spread of wrong and harmful information is something that we should all do.
I'm not sure how to vote on this because you take no position, for or against...
Personally I'll be ceasing all trading with any business that is onside with this.
And that will be perminant.
Exactly the same here
I would hope that you would upvote? This post is purposely not taking any position in order to elicit conversation.
What lead to that decision? If things change and the mandate is lifted would you consider returning to that business?
No they sold out to the agenda so I will support people who are smarter than that
just downvote @verite they are a pro communist canadian bot here from some news agency or george soros, to try and convince people to take some injection
he's probably PAID money for every person he can sell the big pharma drugs to (the covax shot)
who wants to call anyone who doesnt get a big pharma mrna injection some sort of "anti vaxxer" like hes in 2009 fighting alex jones fans or something YAWN
So who's the fascist now? Love how the baseless claims are fabricated much like many of the anti-vaxx theories. Why would I need a pharma connection to do the right thing? It's just incredible how ignorant and insensitive people can be when it's not you or someone you know or love. Isn't it amazing that ignorance and denial still exist... you know it's 2021? Vaccines should not be what we need to help people understand and help people with during a pandemic.
You should have the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. However, people should not be able to mandate who you must refuse.
your private medical history is NO ONE's BUSINESS especially not the grocery store.
Why stop there? Why not ban everyone who has aids or who has any STD.... or cancer too because hey we just dont like you and it could "spread" based on our wacky science ....
why not just ban blacks and jews and women from all stores if they dont obey sharia law too?
I can agree with you. Let me ask this. In both the U.S. and Canada State and Provincial laws establish vaccination requirements for school children. Is this type of mandate not similar to that?
I actually do not think they should be able to do that for school children either. Yes it is similar yet I also see it as authoritarian.
If the school is a voluntary choice then I wouldn't have a problem with it. As soon as they start dictating when, where, and how a parent is permitted to school a child then it should not be permissable.
If people were free to send their children to schools that did not have such requirements, or free to send them to ones that do so it becomes a choice then I would not have a problem with it.
A lot of the times they'll say "you can homeschool" them which they try to discourage as well but often due to how society is structured that is unrealistic for many and thus becomes a kind of coercive force. EDIT: Some states mandate vaccines for children even if they are homeschooled.
It is also important to differentiate between a business and a government funded entity that is funded by taxpayer taxes which are not exactly something you can voluntarily choose to provide or not provide.
Didn't realize that some states mandate vaccines for homeschooled children. You raise a good point to break out business versus government services. So we have in general businesses should have the right to decide who they serve but a government-funded entity must serve the public regardless of vaccine status. It sounds like a bit of an equilibrium, let social norms balance it out - mask mandates seem to be generally followed and accepted do you think over time that will be the case with vaccine mandates?
Nope not at all. For the mask mandate you can use toilet paper held to your face with rubberbands if you want. They don't care what you put on your face as long as you comply.
The vaccines are a point of no return. I absolutely refuse to take these "vaccines" and I will die insuring it remains that way. Though I will not tell anyone else they cannot take them if they want.
I am not alone. If they show up at my home with guns then I will die by guns.
EDIT: And just to be clear I am 99% certain everyone in my house had it before they started testing for it. The symptoms match, and the impact it had on my elderly mother-in-law that lives with me matches.
If we did have it then we have the best kind of immunity available at this point. It would be kind of stupid to take the vaccine as far as I am concerned.
Now some people seem to make a big deal about me only bein 99% certain and think I should go get tested. These tests are a joke. So many false positives, and even some false negatives.
I don't trust this crap at all. The narrative being pushed most definitely does not follow in any way the scientific method.
It is about money, and power as far as I am concerned.
To be clear. If I didn't think I had it I still wouldn't take these vaccines as I don't consider COVID to be particularly deadly unless I am older or have comorbidities. If I get sick. It is likely I'll survive.
If I take the vaccines which are unknown but already have a laundry list of side effects I'll be buying potentially a negative lottery ticket to see what kind of fun negative prize I might win. Many such prizes are PERMANENT.
I think I'll go with being sick over that.
Yes, kicking down the down would be going way too far. Is that case with the COVID vaccine(s) specifically or all vaccines?
I've taken other vaccines before. I tend to read the inserts and consider probabilities of what the illness it is supposed to protect me against occurring and what that means if it happens, and the probabilities of some of the negative interactions on the inserts and what that means to me.
I will tell you since the 1990s when the manufacturers were given all liability protection from their products I have considered them less safe. They have intentionally reverted to less safe versions of their vaccines before because they were less expensive to make.
Due to that liability protection I likely won't ever take one again unless there is a very compelling reason such as I am about to travel to a country with an active Ebola outbreak and an ebola vaccine is available.
Now if that liability protection were removed such that I, or my family could sue them if I am harmed by their product then I might not offer as much hesitation.
A lot of the vaccines though the potential side effects are WAY WORSE than the illness itself. I doubt I'll ever take any that such is the case.
the government has no right telling us what to inject our children with.
Do you think the Amish or Muslims or Kosher orthodox jews are taking this injection? OH and contrary to your FAKE NEWS, they are NOT. They didnt make it this far without technology to just give up and take some nanotech dna re writing injection lol
Can you elaborate on what is the 'fake news'? Not sure that I mention anything about and religious affiliations... just curious as the second part of your comment seems a bit random and off-topic.
However, The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and Imams in the US are encouraging Muslims to get the vaccine. Isreal has one of the highest vaccine rates in the world, the majority of the Ultra-Orthodox community is vaccinated. The Amish are a very closed sect and will likely self isolate as a community. They may see it on more religious grounds as putting faith in man over God.
Sounds like you are convinced that the vaccine rewrites your DNA. Are you sure that is the case? How do you know?
Congratulations @verite! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 100 comments.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Hi,
I find this a good way to leave your readers un-influenced of what you think and to open the space for debate. Interestingly, this form of freedom seems not to be understood by everyone. Strange enough.
Here is what I think:
This question can only arise when things have already run their course. Both individuals and companies now face the dilemma of having to make a decision that, it seems, cannot be fair to anyone. The legislature has basically decided to create a stalemate itself through the Emergency Act, the fixation of a state of affairs that has been called an "emergency of national proportions" and has been in force ever since. Thus there is a great deal of legal uncertainty on all sides, the consumer as well as the business operator. A business operator who observes that a large proportion of his employees have been fearful since the beginning of the whole thing and supposedly want to follow the measures will probably expect difficulties from the workforce, if not fear legal consequences, insofar as he decides not to demand a vaccination card. If he himself has strictly enforced all the measures in his business and has not experienced any particular loss of turnover, this economic calculation will prove him right, especially since he can feel legally on the safer side.
If, on the other hand, he fears that customers or employees could take legal action against him, he may change his company policy. So it depends very much on the mood in one's own company how a business behaves in this matter.
In all of this, one's conscience seems not to have been properly consulted, certainly a dilemma for any business enterprise. The moral question of conscience has already been answered in advance and so people probably don't dare to really speak openly.
One basically makes it impossible for everyone NOT to decide.
For that reason alone, I don't want to answer the question of business owners refusing service to someone who doesn't carry a health certificate. Because this is basically an undecidable matter that masquerades as if one must or should make the decision. A shopkeeper could perhaps stay out of it by saying that he grants free access to everyone and that those who are too scared or afraid of catching a disease do not need to take the risk and can shop elsewhere. In fact, this argument is used in reverse, where it is said that those who do not want to get tested or injected can just go somewhere else.
This cannot really be verified, but the tendency is to observe that there are hardly any shops that leave it up to the customers how to behave. The thing has taken on a life of its own.
The legal uncertainty that prevails everywhere contributes to the fact that presumably only very courageous or disgruntled people break the rules or even seek the path of a legal dispute. The rest wait it out and try to sit it out as well, or take a less obvious view.
From my perspective of a customer, I would no longer enter shops with vaccination pass instructions.
Of course, a business can always refuse someone entry on a situational basis and why not? However, that is different from a prefabricated regulation. There is a big difference between not letting a customer in from the outset and deciding to do so on a case-by-case basis due to a spontaneous occurrence. The best of all situations is that there are unwritten rules that leave a margin for all, as each event is different from the other. Pre-formulations often cause more problems than they solve.
Greetings to you.
Oh, some addition, which is not directly related to your question above but I have already typed it, so here I go:)
A business enterprise cannot even say that it wants to prevent social unrest, because no matter what it decides, this is exactly what will remain. If it says "anyone can shop here", the supporters of the measures may go against it, if it says "only shop with proof of health", it incurs the displeasure of others.
So what is being done? They try it out and see how far it gets them. Behind this lies the assumption of whether one or the other interest group could be a majority or a minority.
It seems to me that so many interests are mixed up here that, as always, if you try to please everyone, in the end you can't please anyone.
Those who chose to keep the crisis in abeyance are basically watching the people divide and they may have taken bets on who will win. Insofar as the people go along quite voluntarily with the quite clear intention of those in power, it can always be said on the part of MPs that "we made it optional and not forced, the people decided for themselves".
In fact, it must be said that this is not entirely untrue. However, there is a certain perfidy in this, because the ignorance of ordinary people with regard to written legislation, just like their dependence in their employment relationships, hardly allows for anything like an intensive, multi-perspective view. Especially not of a philosophical kind.
Fortunately, human beings are less predictable than one would like to claim or would have. To reduce the unpredictability and uncontrollability, there are forces driving automation, because as soon as a human being does not have to decide who gets access to where, any form of possible relationship is disturbed to impossible.
Then the game begins. Again, people will find ways to trick the automation tool, create fakes and so on. People who have lived long enough under totalitarian regimes acquire a resistance over time and do not obey what the authorities expect. A more covert resistance takes place. People simply don't give a damn about their government and don't care about democracy any more. Where this conflict seemed unresolvable, people stop following the hierarchy and become accustomed to distrust and suspicion of those "above them". The rulers are then basically alone on their field and can pretend to have importance - of course they continue to play the field. We all know this from human history.