Currently, federal law allows a business to require a customer to be vaccinated in order to obtain service. However, a state can pass legislation or issue executive orders banning these businesses from enacting such a policy.
But it hit me: what if the unvaccinated person was gay? Does the business ignore the vaccination status in favor of accommodating the customer based on their sexual affiliation, or do they ban them from doing business for being unvaccinated? What if the situation were reversed? What if these things are done for religious reasons?
Then it occurred to me the hypocrisy of a common leftist, which over the past decade, made a big deal of stores and businesses denying service to gay people for religious reasons. Serve them anyway. So, if the gay person is unvaccinated, and the business refuses service to them for (a) being gay, and (b) being unvaccinated, both for religious reasons, what position would the common leftist take? What is the solution here?
The easiest solution to me would be to serve them. Avoid any liability whatsoever. I presume a leftist would want to ignore the vaccination status of homosexual individuals and serve them anyway, which would more than likely present a health risk to the employees of that establishment, according to oft-used liberal arguments regarding COVID. Serve them anyway.
The contrast here is hard to miss. Either force a business to ignore the health and safety of their employees and other customers to serve a gay, unvaccinated customer or force a business to ignore its own religious beliefs and again risk the health and safety of its employees and customers to serve a gay, unvaccinated customer. The common theme here is force, and the rights of the business or the health of the business's employees are moot. It seems to me that the common leftist is not concerned with the double standard that brings.
"Do what we demand or face the consequences. Ethics and standards are irrelevant."
I can scarcely convey to you how scary that is. If businesses can do it, doctors can do it. Anyone providing a critical service to the public can do it. Vaccine discrimination may not be covered under current law, but it is a clear form of discrimination. It opens the door to other forms of discrimination that ARE covered under the law.
I won't stand for it, and neither should you.
But it hit me: what if the unvaccinated person was gay? Does the business ignore the vaccination status in favor of accommodating the customer based on their sexual affiliation, or do they ban them from doing business for being unvaccinated? What if the situation were reversed? What if these things are done for religious reasons?
Then it occurred to me the hypocrisy of a common leftist, which over the past decade, made a big deal of stores and businesses denying service to gay people for religious reasons. Serve them anyway. So, if the gay person is unvaccinated, and the business refuses service to them for (a) being gay, and (b) being unvaccinated, both for religious reasons, what position would the common leftist take? What is the solution here?
The easiest solution to me would be to serve them. Avoid any liability whatsoever. I presume a leftist would want to ignore the vaccination status of homosexual individuals and serve them anyway, which would more than likely present a health risk to the employees of that establishment, according to oft-used liberal arguments regarding COVID. Serve them anyway.
The contrast here is hard to miss. Either force a business to ignore the health and safety of their employees and other customers to serve a gay, unvaccinated customer or force a business to ignore its own religious beliefs and again risk the health and safety of its employees and customers to serve a gay, unvaccinated customer. The common theme here is force, and the rights of the business or the health of the business's employees are moot. It seems to me that the common leftist is not concerned with the double standard that brings.
"Do what we demand or face the consequences. Ethics and standards are irrelevant."
I can scarcely convey to you how scary that is. If businesses can do it, doctors can do it. Anyone providing a critical service to the public can do it. Vaccine discrimination may not be covered under current law, but it is a clear form of discrimination. It opens the door to other forms of discrimination that ARE covered under the law.
I won't stand for it, and neither should you.
Last edited:
