The layman's cliche' on Liberty is: "Your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins." If you enjoy flailing your fist, spectacular. I enjoy not being punched in the nose. These rights are not mutually exclusive. If you wish to flail your fist, please do so
elsewhere.
During the global COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 - 2022 some U.S. citizens have defied CDC guidelines and common sense, and refused to accept any of the FDA approved COVID-19 vaccines. While there is no shame in remaining an unbridled champion of the Creator endowed, Constitutionally enumerated, unalienable right of Liberty,
Liberty has never been, is not, and must not ever be an absolute right in our Constitutional republic.
"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen
This inevitably becomes a question of: - where do we draw the line? -
If a U.S. citizen is deeply committed to avoiding COVID-19 vaccination they may find justification for an exception to the nation-wide quest for herd immunity.
BUT if that vax averse U.S. citizen is employed as a care provider for senior citizens the calculation changes. Senior citizens may not merely be more vulnerable to contract COVID-19, but may also be at greater risk of life-threatening disease.
Therefore if a U.S. citizen wishes to avoid vaccination, but also works in daily close contact with this disproportionately vulnerable segment of the population, shouldn't that U.S. citizen choose? Which is more important? Keeping the job, or avoiding vaccination?
Is it wrong for the employer of such elder care workers to establish the ultimatum? Get fully vaccinated, or find a different line of work.
"Your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins." Which is the greater? Indulging a vax aversion, or not being killed by the vax averse?
And if we apply that standard in the global COVID-19 pandemic, is there a logical reason to not also apply that same standard to bakery shop owners that wish to discriminate against same sex couples wanting a wedding cake?
If a U.S. citizen opposes same sex couples, dandy. But nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right to discriminate.
elsewhere.
During the global COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 - 2022 some U.S. citizens have defied CDC guidelines and common sense, and refused to accept any of the FDA approved COVID-19 vaccines. While there is no shame in remaining an unbridled champion of the Creator endowed, Constitutionally enumerated, unalienable right of Liberty,
Liberty has never been, is not, and must not ever be an absolute right in our Constitutional republic.
"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen
This inevitably becomes a question of: - where do we draw the line? -
If a U.S. citizen is deeply committed to avoiding COVID-19 vaccination they may find justification for an exception to the nation-wide quest for herd immunity.
BUT if that vax averse U.S. citizen is employed as a care provider for senior citizens the calculation changes. Senior citizens may not merely be more vulnerable to contract COVID-19, but may also be at greater risk of life-threatening disease.
Therefore if a U.S. citizen wishes to avoid vaccination, but also works in daily close contact with this disproportionately vulnerable segment of the population, shouldn't that U.S. citizen choose? Which is more important? Keeping the job, or avoiding vaccination?
Is it wrong for the employer of such elder care workers to establish the ultimatum? Get fully vaccinated, or find a different line of work.
"Your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins." Which is the greater? Indulging a vax aversion, or not being killed by the vax averse?
And if we apply that standard in the global COVID-19 pandemic, is there a logical reason to not also apply that same standard to bakery shop owners that wish to discriminate against same sex couples wanting a wedding cake?
If a U.S. citizen opposes same sex couples, dandy. But nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right to discriminate.