judge tells COVID vaccine jabbers to put up or shut up

Not by a "lot". There aren't as many unvaxxed dying as you think. The numbers have been way over estimated by the jabbers. You people are being fed a line of bullshit and you're gobbling it down and asking for more.


Don't expect Lesh to count the millions of those who have had the virus, developed natural immunity, are now COVID free, in her computations.

JWK
 
CDC.

Actually they say actual covid cases could be 10 times higher, not 6. I stand corrected.

The CDC has been politicized during the COVID outbreak. It now acts similar to our Fifth Column media and their Yellow Journalists.

JWK
 
Unvaccinated Americans falsely say the need for booster shots proves Covid vaccines don't work, Kaiser survey shows

Here's the rub...if you aren't vaxxed you likely won't get it.

It's ok... Darwin is still giving out rewards.
Huh?

1632867151977.png


I have no idea what you mean by that post.

JWK
 
Oh, the CDC. Nevermind...lol

Should I continue?
 
Last edited:
Oh, the CDC. Nevermind...lol
An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May shows that “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 107,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 1.1%.

And only about 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average.

The AP analyzed figures provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC itself has not estimated what percentage of hospitalizations and deaths are in fully vaccinated people, citing limitations in the data.

Dope
 
By preventing its citizens from dying?
Hey Dipshit. The communist Chjnese have not come clean about their virus and therefore your ass does not know where else it is in nature. The same goes for ebola and its vaccine fairy tales. How many other viruses should emerge before Homo sapiens gets pissed?
 
See: DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412

15. If the government fails to put on evidence of its compelling state interest, as the City failed to do here, the Court is not required to (and, in fact, cannot) make factual findings that the government has any compelling state interest. Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at 3 (“When the government fails to offer evidence to demonstrate a compelling state interest, the trial court then is absolved of having to make any finding to that effect”). In the instant case, the City failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest.*

16. The City’s Vaccine Mandate facially interferes with its employees’ right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and/or procedures, implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy, and is “presumptively unconstitutional.” Gainesville Woman Care, LLC., 210 So. 3d at 1245; and Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *5.

and see . . .

21. In other words, having determined that the City’s Vaccine Mandate implicates Plaintiffs’ privacy rights (and with no showing of a compelling interest demonstrated by the City), this Court is required to presume that the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated the four elements required for this Court to order the requested injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, lack of an adequate legal remedy, irreparable harm, and the public and private interests at stake. Id.*

22. Therefore, the Court ENJOINS Defendant City of Gainesville, as follows:*
a. The City shall not enforce the Vaccine Mandate policy.*
b. The City shall not terminate or discipline any employee for failure to comply with the Vaccine Mandate.*

23. The Court determines that, giving due regard for the public interest, no bond is required to be posted, pursuant to Rule 1.610(b).*

24. This injunction will continue in force until further order of the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Alachua County Family & Civil Justice Center, *
Gainesville, Florida on Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Monica Brasington, Circuit Judge


Now, perhaps a covid vaccine jabber will demonstrate how the law furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way —also known as the “strict scrutiny” standard. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1252-1253 (Fla. 2017); see also, Green v. Alachua County, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3.

JWK




“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
HOWEVER
A pre employment drug screening is determined at the employers discretion
 
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.
While I agree with you that boat sailed a long time ago. Businesses haven't been allowed to just set any policy they feel is in their best interest since 1971.
 

Forum List

Back
Top