Tell that to “right to work” states. There are very few protected categories that an employer can’t use as reasons for firing someone.
Can an employer fire an employee for reducing productivity? If they spread some debilitating disease among the other employees is that grounds for firing them?
See I take a hard line stance on the “normal” vaccines I.e. the ones children are offered when growing up. Personally I feel that refusing to have your child vaccinated against things like MMR should be considered child abuse.
I saw 2 children almost die of measles because there parents believed some bullshit. I fully agree body autonomy should be foremost but this should have been stopped by a doctor or someone who knows what there talking about.
My children can’t take peanuts to school because x is allergic but y is unvaccinated (through choice) and thats fine… no sorry it aint.
Agreed. All I said is that you should bear the societal consequences.
The problem I see today is that people who refuse the COVID vaccine are free to roam around. But that’s fast changing: several major companies like Facebook or Google have decided to require proof of vaccination for continued employment, and that’s a damn good thing.
I recognize that you see that as a hidden form of coercion And to a certain extent, it is. But the ultimate choice is yours.
See I do worry about that to. With a relatively new vaccine it’s a bit different (obviously all vaccines where new at one time) I think with the covid vaccine unless you work say in healthcare it shouldn’t be enforced. However there should be a higher duty of care on companies to make the work place for those people who are at higher risk of covid. I.e. the company having to make sure there work place was “safe”
I’ll admit that’s a bit of a grey area, they aren’t really forcing you to undergo a procedure…
But they are attempting to limit bodily autonomy
The argument can be made for drugs, as they are illegal, but it’s a bit of a shallow argument
But how would you feel if it was caffeine they were screening for? Does that fall under “employers can do what they want” ?
Man this is some interesting conversation.
I’ll say that we believe in body autonomy, for sure. We also believe in doing no harm. I think be free and secure in yourself, be free to do whatever the heck you want with your life - it’s your life! But with the caveat of “as long as it does no harm to others.”
The perspectives themselves are just flat out wrong. We are all human beings. This whole argument is just stupid. We should treat other human beings like human beings and we don’t. There’s no need to be adversarial. There’s no need to think of someone who has a different perspective to you as “the other” or “the enemy.” It’s far too common and only made worse by social media algorithms creating echo chambers.
We (our system) don’t think many drugs are inherently bad - most of the ‘illegality’ of many drugs is because of strongarm tactics by governments in the latter part of the 20th century, and not based on any evidence of danger from the drugs. Yes, there are bad drugs out there. Yes marijuana can cause impairment and there can be a chance of addiction, but tobacco and alcohol are far more toxic and dangerous drugs and kill so many more people across the world both directly and indirectly, and they are perfectly legal with very minor and poorly regulated restrictions. Most of the ‘laws’ around this stuff is just bullshit made up by angry conservative people 40 years ago.
The argument of the church maybe wanting to ensure that you have Christian values if you are working with them I think is valid. The church is a religious institution as are many others, and religious institutions are protected as a universal human right. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” In addition if you are working for a religious institution it’s possible that you would be in a position where you are in a way representing them somehow, and I think it’s fine if they want to be sure that you share their views and beliefs.
The right way to go about these issues is not to say “Hey I have a right to my body and you can’t make me take that drug test” or “Hey I’m you’re employer and I have right to demand you remove those implants or I’m going to fire you” - that’s adversarial. Sit down and have a conversation with the person, as human beings. Don’t attack them. Don’t get defensive. Have a reasonable conversation and treat them as you’d want them to treat you. Anything less is dissappointing.
Be excellent to each other, in all things. Please.
If people had opportunities to become better educated instead of running the rat race of day-to-day survival, they would be able to make the cost-benefits analysis like you did and would inevitably take one of the vaccines supported by the vast majority of the scientific community. If not for themselves then at least for their elderly friends and family who will surely die. The fact that they’re not making that decision inherently proves that they are not of sound mind to make that call. The next step is to educate them about it (which prolific public outreach campaigns are attempting to do). Yet they still kick their legs like an infant and scream “don’t tell me what to do!”, and proceed to blindly follow the dictates of snake oil salesman peddling ivermectin and vitamin D/C supplements.
At that point, they must be forced. This isn’t out of the blue government overreach. This is a response to repeated denial of the facts. Antivaxxers have repeatedly taken direct action to harm themselves and others, which elevates this to the level of a mandate to protect everyone else from them. If there is a reservoir population of covid it will mutate and we will not be able to eradicate it, and it will become annual like the flu, but lethal.
The slippery slope argument is invalid because for the next big issue of government overreach we’ll be starting at the top of a new slide, and the same stupid transgressions will need to play out again in full before mandates occur.