Indiana University wins in suit over its mask, vaccine mandates, due to 100+ year old precedent

[ArmenianJohn]

Indiana University wins in suit over its mask, vaccine mandates | Ars Technica

The precedent is from 1905 and was cited and upheld by the court and appellate court.

I am looking forward to seeing more of these suits brought to court only to have the same decision rendered every time.

To the "these vaccine mandates are unprecedented" crowd, check again - they are very precedented.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

Another win for the fascists

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Another win for the fascists

And your avatar hand signal?


reality might be a little more nuanced.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

And your avatar hand signal?


reality might be a little more nuanced.

Do you have a problem with Catholic Saints? You see them as problematic?

 

[Bradskii]

And your avatar hand signal?

Live long and prosper?

 

[Paidiske]

I think it is possible, in context, to disambiguate a hand raised in blessing from a hand raised in a fascist salute, even though the gestures look superficially similar.

More on topic, though, while I think vaccines are a good thing and to be encouraged, I do find coercion on this matter - as on any other - deeply troubling.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

More on topic, though, while I think vaccines are a good thing and to be encouraged, I do find coercion on this matter - as on any other - deeply troubling.

So you find coercion on other public health laws deeply troubling? Shirts and shoes in restaurants? Drunk driving? Restaurant health regulations? I'm actually glad for the coercion to make people follow these public health and safety laws. Really glad. Even with the laws/coercion we still have some problems, I can't imagine how much worse it would be without the coercion. I certainly can't understand why anyone would find these things deeply troubling.

The statement doesn't work with other coercive laws on public health:
"While I think it's a good thing and to be encouraged for restaurant workers to wash their hands after they poop, i find coercion on this matter - as on any other - deeply troubling." Nah, doesn't work for me.

 

[Paidiske]

So you find coercion on other public health laws deeply troubling? Shirts and shoes in restaurants? Drunk driving? Restaurant health regulations? I'm actually glad for the coercion to make people follow these public health and safety laws. Really glad. Even with the laws/coercion we still have some problems, I can't imagine how much worse it would be without the coercion. I certainly can't understand why anyone would find these things deeply troubling.

It's a basic principle of medical ethics that a patient must give informed consent to a procedure. In any other situation, to conduct a medical procedure without consent would be considered assault. That's probably a more relevant referent than saying someone must be sober when they drive.

 

[Belk]

It's a basic principle of medical ethics that a patient must give informed consent to a procedure. In any other situation, to conduct a medical procedure without consent would be considered assault. That's probably a more relevant referent than saying someone must be sober when they drive.

Normally I would agree with you. However think of this the same as pollution laws. An individual who causes pollution has a negative impact on many others. The same is true with those whom do not want a vaccine. If it was only a negative for the individual I would be fine with them making their own choice.

 

[Paidiske]

Normally I would agree with you. However think of this the same as pollution laws. An individual who causes pollution has a negative impact on many others. The same is true with those whom do not want a vaccine. If it was only a negative for the individual I would be fine with them making their own choice.

I can go along with this line of thinking for things like mandating social distancing or mask-wearing or what have you. But for me, the invasiveness and permanence of vaccination crosses a line.

And I'm very pro-vaccination! But that doesn't mean I think it should be forced on people.

 

[Belk]

I can go along with this line of thinking for things like mandating social distancing or mask-wearing or what have you. But for me, the invasiveness and permanence of vaccination crosses a line.

And I'm very pro-vaccination! But that doesn't mean I think it should be forced on people.

Understood. For me the fact that it allows for the mutation of a virus is of paramount importance. It is one of the larger threats to the continuation of the human race.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

I can go along with this line of thinking for things like mandating social distancing or mask-wearing or what have you. But for me, the invasiveness and permanence of vaccination crosses a line.

If we're talking invasiveness and permanence then there's a very large and nasty precedent in the US - one Mary Mallon was forcibly quarantined for the last 23 years of her life by the city of New York as a threat to public health.

She was the first recorded person in the US to be an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid fever, her working as a cook killed three people and hospitalized another fifty.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It's a basic principle of medical ethics that a patient must give informed consent to a procedure. In any other situation, to conduct a medical procedure without consent would be considered assault. That's probably a more relevant referent than saying someone must be sober when they drive.

So you're changing your story?

First you said that you "find coercion on this matter - as on any other - deeply troubling". But now you're saying you find coercion on at least one other matter, that of "someone must be sober when they drive", not to be deeply troubling?

 

[Paidiske]

So you're changing your story?

First you said that you " find coercion on this matter - as on any other - deeply troubling. But now you're saying you find coercion on at least one other matter ,that of "someone must be sober when they drive"?

Ok, let me put that differently. On the whole, I don't have a problem with a democratic society setting some parameters - boundaries - in place to protect safety.

But to my mind there is a world of difference between setting some conditions on driving, and forcing a vaccine.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Ok, let me put that differently. On the whole, I don't have a problem with a democratic society setting some parameters - boundaries - in place to protect safety.

But to my mind there is a world of difference between setting some conditions on driving, and forcing a vaccine.

So forcing people to wear things - shirts, shoes, masks - you find to be deeply troubling, like vaccine mandates?

Also, I am trying to figure out what coercion to vaccine you're talking about. Is that what they are actually doing in Australia? Forcing vaccines into bodies?

 

[Paidiske]

So forcing people to wear things - shirts, shoes, masks - you find to be deeply troubling, like vaccine mandates?

Context is everything. There are some contexts in which dress requirements are appropriate, and others where they are not.

Also, I am trying to figure out what coercion to vaccine you're talking about. Is that what they are actually doing in Australia? Forcing vaccines into bodies?

No, but making someone's access to education or employment dependent on getting the vaccine - which is starting to happen here - is coercive.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Context is everything. There are some contexts in which dress requirements are appropriate, and others where they are not.

But in your own words in "all other matters" other than drinking and driving laws coercion is "deeply troubling". So now you're taking another step away from the "all other matters" extreme that you started with?

No, but making someone's access to education or employment dependent on getting the vaccine - which is starting to happen here - is coercive.

So you are saying businesses and schools should have no right to coerce anyone to be vaccinatred? Australia has never mandated any vaccinations for students?

In the US it's an old precedent that the government can mandate vaccines for public health reasons. Romans 13 gives the government this authority. It's upheld by law if the government does mandate the vaccine, but they haven't yet. As for schools and businesses, they can't coerce anyone to do anything; those people can choose to not do business with them.

But you seem to want to coerce businesses and schools to do things that endanger their own employees and customers.

This is getting more clouded as we peel back the layers of your original absolute opinion about coercion in "all other matters". Your story continues to evolve and change.

 

[Paidiske]

But in your own words in "all other matters" other than drinking and driving laws coercion is "deeply troubling". So now you're taking another step away from the "all other matters" extreme that you started with?

I don't see rules setting some parameters as being the same as forcing someone to do something against their will. It's that kind of coercion - forcing someone against their will - which I referred to as deeply troubling.

So you are saying businesses and schools should have no right to coerce anyone to be vaccinatred?

After giving it much thought over the last little while, that's the position I've come to, yes. In particular I view it as a problem for employers to be given that kind of power over their employees.

Australia has never mandated any vaccinations for students?

As I understand it, generally not. An unvaccinated child may be excluded from school during a disease outbreak, but we do not absolutely require vaccination.

In the US it's an old precedent that the government can mandate vaccines for public health reasons. Romans 13 gives the government this authority.

It's being debated here, but personally I would feel that that was an abuse of government power. Not everything governments do is right, just because they can.

As for schools and businesses, they can't coerce anyone to do anything; those people can choose to not do business with them.

It's not really so simple if that's your only way of keeping a roof over your head, or food on the table, is it?

But you seem to want to coerce businesses and schools to do things that endanger their own employees and customers.

We can manage risks, but I think absolutely requiring a vaccination in order to access education or employment goes too far.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So you find coercion on other public health laws deeply troubling? Shirts and shoes in restaurants? Drunk driving? Restaurant health regulations? I'm actually glad for the coercion to make people follow these public health and safety laws. Really glad. Even with the laws/coercion we still have some problems, I can't imagine how much worse it would be without the coercion. I certainly can't understand why anyone would find these things deeply troubling.

The statement doesn't work with other coercive laws on public health:
"While I think it's a good thing and to be encouraged for restaurant workers to wash their hands after they poop, i find coercion on this matter - as on any other - deeply troubling." Nah, doesn't work for me.

None of those other laws are invasive, demanding one ingest chemicals with unknown outcomes into his body against his consent.

Cleanliness of restaurants and not driving under the influence are legal requirements of long standing, not recently mandated top down without legislation. With consumed chemicals, we do not know the long term effects. Vaccines take decades to get approved.

Not to mention millions have already had Covid, and are immune. You will notice your friends that had it last year, whether front line workers, or medical, or food service aren't getting it now.

Coercion is always dangerous and troubling and should set anyone's radar off. We are a nation governed by consent, not fiat.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

None of those other laws are invasive, demanding one ingest chemicals with unknown outcomes into his body against his consent.

Mandatory vaccination doesn't involve "demanding one ingest chemicals with unknown outcomes into his body against his consent". It doesn't involve ingestion of anything, actually.

Cleanliness of restaurants and not driving under the influence are legal requirements of long standing, not recently mandated top down without legislation. With consumed chemicals, we do not know the long term effects. Vaccines take decades to get approved.

Cleanliness of restaurants is health code, not statutory/codified law - it is mandated by government agencies, not by laws on the books. The fact that they are long-standing proves that we have a long-standing precedent for mandates related to public health and Covid-related mandates fit right in. There are no "consumed chemicals" in the vaccine, so I don't know where you're coming up with the idea that vaccines are consumed or ingested. And apparently vaccines don't take decades to get aproved - we hvae vaccines approved for use right now and more approvals are on the way.

Not to mention millions have already had Covid, and are immune. You will notice your friends that had it last year, whether front line workers, or medical, or food service aren't getting it now.

Wrong. I have one friend who already got Covid twice. many have gotten Covid twice already and people who have had Covid are still TWICE as likely to get it again as people who are vaccinated:
CDC: People who contracted COVID can get it twice, urged to get vaccinated (wreg.com)

Coercion is always dangerous and troubling and should set anyone's radar off. We are a nation governed by consent, not fiat.

The entire justice system is based on coercion to one extent or another. It is what God has ordained - it's the nature of Law. You are "coerced" to abide by the law because of the threat of punishment if you don't. Do you think coercion is wrong when it's coercing people to not murder or rape or steal? Is coercion dangerous when it's against those things?