NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

[infinite11285]

"It's the law" is not an argument, unjust and unconstitutional laws are to be abolished not respected.

You’re doing it again—

You’re right, there is no argument in regard to the law. The law is the law.

Further, there’s nothing unconstitutional about mandating vaccines as a condition of employment. It’s also not unconstitutional to disclose vaccine status. Not a single American right is being infringed upon in either case.

Employment is not a constitutional right. Period.

Employees have the choice to continue to be employed by abiding by the rules of the employer, or get another job. That choice is protected by the constitution. Employers, as individual entities, also have the right to choose conditions of employment as they see fit. Period.

Part of the issue regarding the entire COVID debate is making declarative assertions that anything we don’t personally agree with is unconstitutional. That’s not how this works.

[Optms]

1) Link?
2) Employers imposing mandates as a condition for employment is settled law that’s generations old. Regardless of your take on the vaccine/COVID, employers enforcing mandates is nearly unrelated.

Ooops, I confused the number from the NHS with the number from NY, it's not 100K, but here is the video of the governer's statement

Read on Twitter

Regarding your comment, it's the employer that's mandating, it's the state, and WRT the NBA, the existing contract does not demand vaccination, you can't retroactively add that, and even if they wanted to, the union would stop them.

Regarding existing contracts, these contract do require that players follow the law. The laws in San Francisco and NYC require vaccinations in order to enter covered buildings (arenas). The NBA cannot say, "just ignore the law." Players have to follow the law, if they don't, they won't be paid because they're not doing their job. This is normal, if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. Why would anyone argue about this?

Choosing not to get this vaccine isn't a law or crime. A local mandate is NOT a law. These players are not criminals and aren't breaking any laws here. Stop reaching.

[Texas Chuck]

[Part of the issue regarding the entire COVID debate is making declarative assertions that anything we don’t personally agree with is unconstitutional. That’s not how this works.

You are not listening to enough Madison Cawthorn. Please rectify that immediately so you understand that in fact you do get to just label things in whatever way is convenient at the time.

Be a good teammate, get the vaccine. This is not a "rights" issue. And sometimes Right needs to take precedence over rights.

[Mavrelous]

"It's the law" is not an argument, unjust and unconstitutional laws are to be abolished not respected.

You’re doing it again—

You’re right, there is no argument in regard to the law. The law is the law.

Further, there’s nothing unconstitutional about mandating vaccines as a condition of employment. It’s also not unconstitutional to disclose vaccine status. Not a single American right is being infringed upon in either case.

Employment is not a constitutional right. Period.

Employees have the choice to continue to be employed by abiding by the rules of the employer, or get another job. That choice is protected by the constitution. Employers, as individual entities, also have the right to choose conditions of employment as they see fit. Period.

Part of the issue regarding the entire COVID debate is making declarative assertions that anything we don’t personally agree with is unconstitutional. That’s not how this works.

Again! I'm not arguing employer's mandate, I am against them, but this is different argument.
I am arguing state and local mandates, you keep circling back to employer's right.
The people in NY aren't getting fired because all of NYs hospital decided collectively to demand vaccination, they are getting fired because the state of NY decided that.

[SFour]

The NBA does not mandate the vaccine, cities are mandating it.

But the NBA should.

If you want to drive a car in the U.S, the government mandates that you drive on the right side of the road. If you drive on the left you endanger yourself and others. Individual freedom is fine when it only involves yourself. When the exercise of that freedom endangers others, the government has the right to forbid or regulate that behavior.

you have way too much trust in the government...I don't think you realize how much corruption and lobbying goes on behind the scenes. At the end of the day governments are made up of flawed human beings who are susceptible to greed, the last thing I would want is for them to regulate what medical injections I have to take....anyone with even slight knowledge in history should know how slippery of a slope that is.

[infinite11285]

"It's the law" is not an argument, unjust and unconstitutional laws are to be abolished not respected.

You’re doing it again—

You’re right, there is no argument in regard to the law. The law is the law.

Further, there’s nothing unconstitutional about mandating vaccines as a condition of employment. It’s also not unconstitutional to disclose vaccine status. Not a single American right is being infringed upon in either case.

Employment is not a constitutional right. Period.

Employees have the choice to continue to be employed by abiding by the rules of the employer, or get another job. That choice is protected by the constitution. Employers, as individual entities, also have the right to choose conditions of employment as they see fit. Period.

Part of the issue regarding the entire COVID debate is making declarative assertions that anything we don’t personally agree with is unconstitutional. That’s not how this works.

Again! I'm not arguing employer's mandate, I am against them, but this is different argument.
I am arguing state and local mandates, you keep circling back to employer's right.
The people in NY aren't getting fired because all of NYs hospital decided collectively to demand vaccination, they are getting fired because the state of NY decided that.

No, that’s not true. Medical workers in NY are being fired for failing to comply with conditions of employment set by the state, and enforced by the employer. That’s it…

And you deemed it all unconstitutional simply by virtue that you disagree with it. Again that’s not how this works. States (also) have the constitutional right to set their own laws, including when related to public health of local inhabitants.

The state of NY and hospitals did not convene to fire anyone; they simply set another condition of employment through a state health mandate.

You’re blending multiple “buckets” of issues here under the umbrella of things you “don’t like” and deeming it all constitutionally unjust.

[Mavrelous]

No, that’s not true. Medical workers in NY are being fired for failing to comply with conditions of employment set by the state, and enforced by the employer. That’s it…

They are being fired because of vaccine mandate by the state, you're dancing around it to make it something it's not.
To make it simple for you
No vaccine mandate by state --> They wouldn't be fired en masse on July the 29th.
This is the state's doing, not the employer.

[xdrta+]

Of course it's an argument, and your view of what are unjust and unconstitutional laws does not mean you can just ignore them. At least not without consequences. You can work to change laws but you can't just ignore them.

Google "Civil disobedience" by Henry David Thorough

You probably mean "Thoreau." Sure, you could not pay your taxes, like he did, and go to jail for it, like he did. What is your point, if you have one?

[infinite11285]

No, that’s not true. Medical workers in NY are being fired for failing to comply with conditions of employment set by the state, and enforced by the employer. That’s it…

They are being fired because of vaccine mandate by the state, you're dancing around it to make it something it's not.
To make it simple for you
No vaccine mandate by state --> They wouldn't be fired en masse on July the 29th.
This is the state's doing, not the employer.

Doctors aren’t employed by the state and their pink slips won’t come from the state. The state doesn’t sign their checks.

Employers CAN enforce state mandates. I understand you don’t agree with that—but that’s how it is. Claiming that it’s all unconstitutional because you personally disagree isn’t the right way to go about it.

[Mavrelous]

No, that’s not true. Medical workers in NY are being fired for failing to comply with conditions of employment set by the state, and enforced by the employer. That’s it…

They are being fired because of vaccine mandate by the state, you're dancing around it to make it something it's not.
To make it simple for you
No vaccine mandate by state --> They wouldn't be fired en masse on July the 29th.
This is the state's doing, not the employer.

Doctors aren’t employed by the state and their pink slips won’t come from the state. The state doesn’t sign their checks.

Employers CAN enforce state mandates. I understand you don’t agree with that—but that’s how it is. Claiming that it’s all unconstitutional because you personally disagree isn’t the right way to go about it.

Again, you're dancing around to portray something that isn't there.
A hospital can not choose to not enforce mandate, it is licensed by the state.
The hospital did not choose to fire these employees, it was forced to do so by the state, the state made these people turn from productive to be employed to unemployable.
I really have no idea what you are trying to argue, this is similar logic to the state saying you being unvaccinated puts strain on my medical system, and I will fire the unvaccinted staff and go to the national guard to medical care.

[Mavrelous]

Of course it's an argument, and your view of what are unjust and unconstitutional laws does not mean you can just ignore them. At least not without consequences. You can work to change laws but you can't just ignore them.

Google "Civil disobedience" by Henry David Thorough

You probably mean "Thoreau." Sure, you could not pay your taxes, like he did, and go to jail for it, like he did. What is your point, if you have one?

I think your waiving of a historical essay, which was taught to my sister in law school BTW, is very telling about your approach to things that disagree with your worldview.

[LightTheBeam]

Respect to Jonathan Isaac for his kind and wise word, it's important to have these voices while society is being divided around these lines

Read on Twitter

This guy has to be one of the smartest guys in the entire league. Just the way he talks and handles himself. By far one of my favorite individuals in the entire NBA.

[Cartuse]

You're the one who needs to stop and think about that. It's tough to come up with a better testament to the poorly informed and nonsensical nature of the vaccine 'refuser' thought process.

But you're not being objective at all. You part from the premise that anyone who is vaccine hesitant is wrong, and proceed to explain everything based on that presupposition. You're turning things around

If we're supposed to trust the "experts", then nurses that have been on the frontlines of the Covid pandemic treating hundreds of patients and seeing and hearing about thousands of cases should definitely count as experts. If nurses are vaccine hesitant, then it merits to at least stop and try to see why. Dig into what they're saying, and what their reasoning is.

I have all the respect in the world for nurses. They work as hard as anybody, their work is important, and they don't get much appreciation for it. That said, they're not infectious disease experts whatsoever.

Construction workers are not architects, but I'd still pay attention to what they have to say if they think a building is unsafe to live in.

I don't understand how or why infectious disease experts are the only ones authorized to be skeptic. We're talking about people trained in a very specific, highly specialized area of science. They're not the only authorized voices.

Nurses have DIRECT EXPERIENCE of both covid and vaccine effects. |If we all agree that there's a bunch of disinfo going on, shouldn't we pay more attention to the people that don't get the news from some salesman, but actually from their own direct experience? I just can't wrap my head around why you think it's not even worth considering finding out where they're coming from.

I can't see what makes you think you already know why nurses think that way (they're gullible and silly to the point of misinterpreting their own experience) and then say you have all the respect in the world for them. In my opinion you're onl;y respecting them as far as they agree with the way you think. When they don't, they're either dumb or naive. That's not respect

[infinite11285]

They are being fired because of vaccine mandate by the state, you're dancing around it to make it something it's not.
To make it simple for you
No vaccine mandate by state --> They wouldn't be fired en masse on July the 29th.
This is the state's doing, not the employer.

Doctors aren’t employed by the state and their pink slips won’t come from the state. The state doesn’t sign their checks.

Employers CAN enforce state mandates. I understand you don’t agree with that—but that’s how it is. Claiming that it’s all unconstitutional because you personally disagree isn’t the right way to go about it.

Again, you're dancing around to portray something that isn't there.
A hospital can not choose to not enforce mandate, it is licensed by the state.
The hospital did not choose to fire these employees, it was forced to do so by the state, the state made these people turn from productive to be employed to unemployable.
I really have no idea what you are trying to argue, this is similar logic to the state saying you being unvaccinated puts strain on my medical system, and I will fire the unvaccinted staff and go to the national guard to medical care.

I’m not dancing around anything. Doctors aren’t employed by the State. Here, I’ll prove it through your own words..

The hospital did not choose to fire these employees, it was forced to do so by the state

Ask yourself, who is “it”? Hospitals, right? Thus, [Hospitals] were forced to fire doctors that failed to comply. Right?

It’s apparent you have an issue with disassociating divisions of power due to personal feelings, leading to false declarative statements.

It’s fine, many are struggling with the same issue.

[Mavrelous]

Respect to Jonathan Isaac for his kind and wise word, it's important to have these voices while society is being divided around these lines

Read on Twitter

This guy has to be one of the smartest guys in the entire league. Just the way he talks and handles himself. By far one of my favorite individuals in the entire NBA.

The level of incitement by the media, rolling Stones for example, who portray Issac as "anti-vaxxer", when in fact you just can't get any more reasonable than that.
This kind of incitement is a major force in the society divide we are seeing.

[Mavrelous]

It’s apparent you have an issue with disassociating divisions of power due to personal feelings, leading to false declarative statements.

It’s fine, many are struggling with the same issue.

I know you are I'm not struggling with this really, it's very clear to me what happened, you on the other hand, have trouble facing the obvious.

[infinite11285]

Google "Civil disobedience" by Henry David Thorough

You probably mean "Thoreau." Sure, you could not pay your taxes, like he did, and go to jail for it, like he did. What is your point, if you have one?

I think your waiving of a historical essay, which was taught to my sister in law school BTW, is very telling about your approach to things that disagree with your worldview.

But your comparing a historical essay to established law in your arguments…it’s not at all in the same ballpark. Simply, one document is an opinion piece and the latter is codified law.

I’m a Lawyer, btw.

[xdrta+]

Google "Civil disobedience" by Henry David Thorough

You probably mean "Thoreau." Sure, you could not pay your taxes, like he did, and go to jail for it, like he did. What is your point, if you have one?

I think your waiving of a historical essay, which was taught to my sister in law school BTW, is very telling about your approach to things that disagree with your worldview.

In other words, you have no point. Actually, my "worldview" says that courts decide what is constitutional. You know, like it says in the Constitution. According to you, apparently, everyone can decide for themselves what is constitutional. You must be big fans of the Bundys, who decided that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to own land, so they can graze their cattle whenever and wherever they want. And defend their "right" to do so with firepower.

[infinite11285]

It’s apparent you have an issue with disassociating divisions of power due to personal feelings, leading to false declarative statements.

It’s fine, many are struggling with the same issue.

I know you are I'm not struggling with this really, it's very clear to me what happened, you on the other hand, have trouble facing the obvious.

Lol ok.

The next time you’re pulled over for speeding, tell the cop that not being able to speed is an infringement upon your constitutional right to choose to speed. Then seek the counsel of your sister for guidance.

See how it goes.

[Cartuse]

I’m not dancing around anything. Doctors aren’t employed by the State. Here, I’ll prove it through your own words..

The hospital did not choose to fire these employees, it was forced to do so by the state

Ask yourself, who is “it”? Hospitals, right? Thus, [Hospitals] were forced to fire doctors that failed to comply. Right?

It’s apparent you have an issue with disassociating divisions of power due to personal feelings, leading to false declarative statements.

It’s fine, many are struggling with the same issue.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that because the hospitals had no choice but to fire their employees they're the ones that made the decision? That's like saying it's a prisoner's choice to remain a prisoner because it's his decision to not run and get killed.

Or am I misunderstanding something here?