How would making the unvaccinated a protected group give corporations more control?

Both you and Luckbox, keep doing this.

You have absolutely zero answer to the question of 'ok if we do as you say and disallow these companies to make their own decisions re risk, who then gets to make it?'

When you come up with no answer you then retreat to empty statements like this one you posted above.

For the record. I would allow companies to post their TOS and then appoint their mods to enforce them.

Yes every time a 2+2 mod tells you, you cannot say that, it is not accurate, a smear or they demand citation or threaten a ban... I am ABSOLUTELY good with them having that right.

You seem to be saying 2+2 and no other business/forum/SM should have that right to determine what they think comports with their rules.

So if not them... AGAIN, who?

Laws regulate companies Cuepee.

You just said upthread you support all corporate power and do so over any citizen rights so what you say here does not agree with your past stated view.

Amazingly Cuepee considers himself libertarian and somewhat ironically enough I could be too at least when it comes to issues of civil liberties.
But Cuepee is a libertarian who doesn't care about civil liberties at all.
What even is a libertarian who only cares about corporate liberties? We used to just call those people Republicans.

No I did not wtf?

No you did not answer is as you seem to be arguing you and I wll always agree as the consumers. What if we cannot agree? How then does it get settled?


I say 'I support Joe diner keeping that guy and I am the consumer. That is my choice. So he must stay out'.

You say " I don't support that. I want him let in. That is my choice. So he must be let in and served'.


How does this get solved? And if you think antitrust is the answer you are hopeless stupid in understanding what antitrust applies to.

Never in areas like this. You show a woeful lack of understanding of the areas laws have reach and do not.

Companies have always been free in areas like to set their own parameters.

Yes you did.

Framing this as a business rights issue is a losing strategy Cuepee rhetorically. Better to take a public health approach.

Quote it in that case plz. Whatever I said it wasn't for corporate power.

Yes. And then we passed the civil rights act.
We used to let companies put kids in coal mines too.

And yet you have utterly failed to counter it with anything resembling a coherent defensible thought.

We are now at 'antitrust' for f*ck sakes.

We are going to deal with Joe Diner when IHIV and me cannot agree on customer safety rules the restaurant must follow by filing an antitrust case.

GTFO.

You first.

QUote me suggesting this "...But Cuepee is suggesting that if want to continue hating corporate power I'm supposed to hate the Democrats.
I don't believe that narrative-.."

Imagine the level of cognitive dissonance to say the above right after thinking you are making a good point with this...

"Framing this as a business rights issue is a losing strategy Cuepee rhetorically. Better to take a public health approach."

It is a good point. I'm going to slaughter you here if you keep trying to defend corporations.

I don't get why this has to be explained to you. You counteract bad ideas with speech (i.e. explaining why it's bad), and that will influence consumer choice. You and I don't have to agree, nor do we have to mandate anything. The issue is, though, speech is being filtered, and anything against the orthodoxy is castigated by a relatively few companies. The orthodoxy has gone off the rails and isn't based on any degree of objectivity any more, and orthodoxy is what's guiding speech regulation.


How the NYP story was treated prior to the election should tell you something is wrong, but it doesn't, becasue you hate the story the NYP reported on.

If you saw what you said in this thread you would know why I find that post laughable Luckbox.

You have not come close to making a single cogent post for your arguments. They are all emotive positions based on what you 'think should be the case' and you having zero intellectual capacity to defend them.

You have embarrassed yourself here.

No.

Your 'Consumer Choice' reply was in response to the ongoing discussion as to whom should regulate business such as local restaurants and others when it comes to safety issues.

Luckbox's position is 'not the owners or shareholders... some 3rd party'

and I asked you to then answer you said 'not the owners and shareholders... consumer choice should'.

So once again. You have these business considering their safety concerns and risks and WHO should be able to dictate what actions they can take?

I'm barely sure how I could put up a cogent argument against your various lines of thought. I'm barely even sure what you're arguing some of the time. I think you're trying to say "rah rah freedom" but all I'm hearing is "fascism fascism fascism".
I get that you think business should have freedom. What are you missing from me? Let's figure this out.
I personally, think people should have freedom.
And yes, that's a value that I hold. (One of those evil right wing values)

If I am able to influence enough customers not to go to a mets game becasue they are mandating children above the age of two to get vaccines in order to participate, using compelling arguments that demonstrate children don't necessarily need COVID vaccinations, eventually the mets are going to have to change their policy, or go broke. If my ability to do that is restricted by a relative few corporations, that's harmful to society, consumer choice, etc, etc.

Cuepee,
Most counties/cities have a health inspector that inspects restaurants in concordance with whatever the state and local health codes are. Businesses are regulated by all sorts of laws regarding safety. I am not advocating that this stop. The same people currently regulating them can continue to regulate them.

I really think you're playing fast and loose with the term fascism. Also covid vaxx won't bring about a two tier system bc a two tier system already exists. You either have money to live comfortably or you dont; that is it

I'm pretty sure you're echoing past sentiments that arose when seat belts became mandatory as well as when anti smoking laws came about. The facism you're worried about isn't coming from carnival cruise lines demanding covid a vaxx from passengers

The long arc of history is tending towards more control and less freedom. Could you honestly say that you expect people to be more free in 10 years and not less?
Power has become concentrated in the hands of a few and it is a world run by oligarchs who make up a tier all to themselves.
I do assume you're right about vaccine passports in the US at least for a little bit-- more states seem to be looking to join Florida and political opposition would be huge and it wouldn't just be from Republicans. But the airlines are a bigger concern than cruise ships. I don't expect that though either too soon.
But if covid just doesn't go away, or if there are new strains in the coming years then bets are off as far as where we go.

This is such an important general point. Being involved in a debaate literally always changes people minds. It rarely results in people changing their mind on firm positions held over the precise point being debated. The former is also far more important.

I call this the Newbury bypass effect. The protests didn't stop the bypass but changed the future dramatically.