It may not be right

No schitt

You don't have a "right" to work for a specific employer.  The US Government is not requiring that you get a vaccine.  If an employer chooses to make this a term of their employment that doesn't violate your rights.  It may not be right - but that is not equal to violating your rights.

Absolutely not true. If I recall my high school history, the pole tax after the civil war was a way to restrict who voted. It didn’t come out and say blacks can’t vote, but that was it’s intention. Likewise, Employers cannot make the possibility of pregnancy as a reason for not hiring someone. They don’t come right out and say we’re not going to hire you because you’re a woman but that is effectively, de facto, what that requirement would do. It is in fact a violation of that woman’s right.

Governments routinely threaten to withhold funding if states don’t produce a desired result.

So the government does not need to specifically state you have to be vaccinated in order to be employed but they can accomplish the same thing through other methods. Those other methods potentially violate someone’s rights.

Quote:


True.

But when you add government extortion to the mix - however that extortion is accomplished - then you have removed everyone's free choice.

That's not a paradox, that's tyranny.

Eegore wrote on 10/05/21 at 05:46:22:



“ … Requiring vaccination to work for me removes my employee's choice …”

Yes it does. And no it doesn't.


If, you, own the/a business/s,
You decide the perimeters.
 That is your Choice.
The employee decided to, or not to, work for you.
 That is his/her Choice.

If you are part of a larger business/company/entity,
and you have been granted the power to fire and hire people on/by conditions that are set by, ‘Your’, employer.
You, have made a Choice, to work for a company which has made a choice, for you.

“… But saying I can't require vaccinations removes my choice. …”

No, you made a Choice.
You made a Choice, to work for a company,
that has made a choice, for you.

If you own a business that employees less than 100, you have a choice.
If you own a business of over 100, someone else made that, ‘choice’ for you


 “…The US Government is not requiring that you get a vaccine. …”
       
         They will be, if the 100 employee mandate passes.

Then,
   Your Choice,
        has now narrowed.


Instead of Choosing  a employer,
Who has made a Choice.
You can only Choose from companies that employ, UNDER 100.
That have made a Choice.

If you choose a Company of 89 employees, then they grow to 100+,
at that point, your only Choice becomes to have, or not to have a job.
Which you had before !

This is yet another of the small,
    (slowly raising the temp of the water the frog is in)
removal of Freedom.


O.B.T.W.
Who, ‘owns’ the Government ?

Eegore wrote on 10/05/21 at 11:54:30:


Wrong.

If you Chose something,
It is YOUR Choice.

If a potential employee Chose something,
It is their Choice.

No one took any persons Choice away.

If you are a Carpenter/Plumber/Electrician/etc.
you do Not have to,
work at a Union shop.
You do Not have to be a
Union member.
You do Not have to pay Union Dues.

It is a Choice,
for a company/business,
to be, or not to be,
a Union shop / business.

To work or not to work has always been a Choice.

To work doing this, or that.
To work at what shift.
Where to work.
Are all choices.

Yet now (if it passes)
one more Choice, one more Freedom,
is removed.

All because of the mush for brains, puppet masters.

Quote:


"extort tr. v. To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation

extortion n. The act or instance of extorting."

What the government is attempting to "obtain" is consent to taking the drug.

And their method fits the definition perfectly.

The various mandates go only as far as the feds and some of the states believe that they can get away with. For now. If non compliance becomes a problem for those pushing the mandates then the level of coercion and intimidation will be increased.