Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If it wanted to prevent its citizens from dying it would ban cigarettes this afternoon and close all roads tomorrow as cigs kill 480,000 people per year and cars kill 50,000,
I don't think this is what the court findings were. Evasion. What do you think of the court findings, as described in the opening post?My opinion is if they are the direct employer they should be able to set policies in the interests of the entity that writes the paychecks. Where I draw the line is with forcing other employers to force the issue. Employees can always quit and go seek their paycheck somewhere else if they do not like the policies in place over them and I encourage them to do so.
The court is not there to prevent deaths. They are there to enforce laws.By preventing its citizens from dying?
I don't think this is what the court findings were. Evasion. What do you think of the court findings, as described in the opening post?
Gainesville rescinds requirement for city workers to get COVID shots
Gainesville commission tosses out vaccination mandate day after judge blocks it
Well, they sure shut up fast when the alternative was to defend their position.
JWK
Pretty much disagreement.I don't think this is what the court findings were. Evasion. What do you think of the court findings, as described in the opening post?
For right now, it is law.
Sounds like they are going with the court decision at the moment, to me. Did I misunderstand the ruling, or did you think the city would go ahead after the judge issued the injunction and invite liability? Who would do that?View attachment 544609
.
No. It is not. Right after the injunction was issued the Gainesville commission backed down and withdrew their vaccination mandate!
See Gainesville rescinds requirement for city workers to get COVID shots
The City of Gainesville backed down fast when the alternative was to defend their unconstitutional mandate in court.
JWK
you do realize no vaccine does that right?By preventing its citizens from dying?
It lessens the chances of dying from covid by a lot.The vaccine doesn't prevent people from dying.
Unconstitutional?View attachment 544609
.
No. It is not. Right after the injunction was issued the Gainesville commission backed down and withdrew their vaccination mandate!
See Gainesville rescinds requirement for city workers to get COVID shots
The City of Gainesville backed down fast when the alternative was to defend their unconstitutional mandate in court.
JWK
You have failed to demonstrate that you read the title and opening post of this thread. Cheating is natural for lefties, so your evasion is no surprise.Pretty much disagreement.
15/ lack of compelling interest- they had a compelling interest in maintaining a healthy workforce during pandemic, and decreasing medical expenses paid, in my opinion.
16/ It is not like the employees have a right to set policy, nor are they entitled to work there nor obligated to stay.
21/ the court is to presume- No the court is not to presume.
24/ order to remain until court changes- no order will remain until changed on appeal to and at direction of higher court of appeals.
For right now, it is law.
I see you have evaded demonstrating that you read and understood the opening post, and you have certainly evaded talking about what happened in that court.Unconstitutional?
Mass V Jacobson 1905 the SC said vaccine mandates WERE Constitutional
Read it fine, just do not agree with the decision, but totally understand the council acting in accordance with the injunction. If I had an injunction against me, I would comply also. Not how you would go? You advocate, they should resist and ignore the injunction, proceed and terminate noncomplying employee, risking court action and lawsuits? What did you think they would do if they lost in the court, demand a recount and swear it never happened?You have failed to demonstrate that you read the title and opening post of this thread. Cheating is natural for lefties, so your evasion is no surprise.
I see you don't understand the concept of precedentI see you have evaded demonstrating that you read and understood the opening post, and you have certainly evaded talking about what happened in that court.
You came closer than your comrade Lesh did to discussing the premise of the thread title and opening post.Read it fine, just do not agree with the decision, but totally understand the council acting in accordance with the injunction. If I had an injunction against me, I would comply also. Not how you would go? You advocate, they should resist and ignore the injunction, proceed and terminate noncomplying employee, risking court action and lawsuits? What did you think they would do if they lost in the court, demand a recount and swear it never happened?
You directly asked me specifically, so I answered. I understand both sides of it, but tend to side with employers setting their own policy and advise them to use lawyers competent to defend their rights as employers or stay out of courts. This goes for public as well as private employers, whether the issue is vaccines, changes to safety procedures or anything other policy, really.You came closer than your comrade Lesh did to discussing the premise of the thread title and opening post.
It lessens the chances of dying from covid by a lot.
Nothing prevents you from dying.
We all die sometime
Who's "they"?Really? By how much? They say there are 6 unreported cases of Covid for every reported one. So that means the death rate is 6 times less than what they already say.
