Then you either go somewhere that has different rules, or use a buying method that doesn't require you to go in the store, or have somebody else shop for you.

I would love to be able to go to the store without pants on but no store will accommodate me. You don't see me going on the internet and saying how businesses should be forced to let me in even though I'm not wearing any pants

title vii recently was altered to include sexual identity, but the ruling was based in sex already being included, so it was grandfathered in.

adding a new class altogether, let alone one that's not even arguably something youre born with, is a stupid thing to expect.

then again u dont even know the first thing about US law so i guess your silliness is understandable.



no. post the law itself and you'll see it doesnt apply to this.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 9 2021 09:28am

Because otherwise it's interference with choice.

Choices have consequences and private entities have a right to refused accommodation based on your choices.

What if I am unable to access the store using other methods? Should I just starve?

Maybe it would be easier if they simply don't demand to know my vaccination status?




If you are concerned about that, then we can sit down and have an open discussion about what sorts of restrictions businesses can and cannot have.

You can pay somebody else to shop for you, you can go to a different store. You have options. Sometimes choices make things less convenient. This is just how life works. You can't legislate away the consequences of your actions like some liberal snowflake wants to.

We have already had that discussion as a society and we decided government should be only minimally involved to protect things that are not based on choice.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Sep 9 2021 09:31am

you're the only one wanting to discuss it.

for the world at large its choice vs born with it. and will remain that way.

Ah, so voting is a right, but eating is not? Gotcha.

As a point in fact, voting is not "a right" in the US, nor was it ever. At the start, only landowners could vote. And if the landowner was female, they needed a proxy to vote. It wasn't until the first draft that the vote was opened up to non land owners. Males earned the right to vote even without having actual stake by willingly taking the chance their number could come up and they could die in combat. Minorities and women were still excluded at that point. Later on, racial discrimination was kicked out, allowing black males to vote, and women at some point also got the right to vote, without the responsibility of the draft.

Now that we've reviewed the history, let's address this "right" and it's qualifications:
1. Be a citizen.
2. Not be a felon.
3. Be an adult.
4. One person gets ONE vote.

So, the positive requirements of this "right" require that you be a citizen. How do you prove your citizenship status, eh? Another requires that you prove you're an adult. How do you go about that? Another requires that you not be a felon, how can that be verified exactly? And last that you only vote once, well, how do we know you only voted once if we aren't checking IDs? Why couldn't I simply fill out 50 ballots and mail them back?

Technically speaking, voting is only a "right" to citizens in good standing, and is a PRIVILIGE because you can lose that "right". Further, without government, the "right" to vote wouldn't exist at all. It's a "right" that is intrinsically linked to government. A person has a right to attempt to obtain food irrespective of government. A person has a right to trade with another person irrespective of government. A person has a right to defend themselves irrespective of government. A person has a right to speak their mind irrespective of government. These rights all exist even when government does not. Anyone who attempts to infringe on these actual rights is a tyrant. The privilege to vote is exactly that, a privilege, and you must provide proof that you are eligible for that privilege.

It's fun that you dodge governments threatening to yank business licenses unless private businesses require vaccine verification though. You know what kind of people allow for "private business" that can only conduct business at the behest of the state? Fascists.

It's stupid to you. Not to me.



If the law as it currently is doesn't apply to vaccination status, it can be amended so as to include it. I don't see what the big deal is.

When you start your post with such a blatant strawman nobody is going to read further.

Just some advice if you're actually wanting to have a productive conversation.

i already addressed this on this page.