None of this stuff is going to do anything. They need to interpret law to state it is unlawful for an establishment to require masks. This could be done by many means. It is 1) deprivation of pursuit of life and liberty, 2) a safety hazard as it easily makes criminals unidentifiable in public, 3) inherently results in harassment and discrimination towards people with HIPAA protected disabilities, ... and I'm sure there are more angles to take.
Lifting mask "mandates" won't work. The option needs to be removed from public establishments, using language that also doesn't apply to other non-mask distinguishers.
Another possible angle, but idk how much a lawyer could translate this into legalese.
Tbh we have ample evidence masks don't do anything positive. We also have ample evidence that they harm the wearer the way we're told to wear them (as in non-surgical settings as untrained individuals). As there are no benefits to myself and the only concern masks ever had was with protecting other people's health (which doesn't work anyway), the only effect masks have is negative towards the wearer and neutral towards others.
It's against my religious beliefs to self-harm. Every time I see somebody with a mask on, I just have a mental image of that person being at home using a razorblade to cut themselves. I haven't worn a mask and I never will.
Funny thing is their "best" comeback to this is that you're "very rude." Usually a simple "piss off" in return settles that. It's amazing that the Leftists think they are allowed to pull the garbage they've tried the last four years, and the last year in particular, and think making the argument that we should all be "polite" is going to work.
To answer your question, even though I'm not a lawyer: I believe establishments that require masks are discriminating. They're not liable for people contracting a disease or illness who may have been in their establishment. (Unless that establishment served infected foods...like your average Chipotle.)
"No shirt, no shoes" (the general response the Karens throw around) is done to protect themselves from liability since people could injure themselves should they not wear shoes and step on broken glass and makes them more susceptible to slipping. The "no shirt" portion is in place to align with public decency laws. Those pertain to women but have to also apply to men because not to do so would be...discrimination. Public decency laws are in place to address those with the intent of arousing sexual desire or which appeals to prurient interest. Clearly a woman's exposed breasts meets that standard in most cases (regardless of the physical appearance of most Leftist women.) Not wearing a mask does not meet that standard. So if the Left comes back with, "Wearing a mask is the 'decent' thing to do," it still doesn't pertain to public decency standards.
I'm making mental note of that decency law point because that's an argument I hear from maskers all the time. Thank you for that breakdown of that part. I didn't know the shirt part was specifically due to sexual interest rather than just somebody's opinion on what "decent" is. This seems to be common since maskers have extended that to "it's indecent to have your face exposed" as though it's the same as somebody's genitals. Shoes are obvious at least.
I THINK part of the reason why some businesses and colleges are refusing to reopen is because they think they can be held liable for people getting sick (even though people made the choice to go out in the first place) or they're afraid of people trying to anyway. If there isn't already, we need a law stating establishments that don't deal in things like foodstuffs can't be held liable for people getting sick from any illness and just future-proof it.
None of this stuff is going to do anything. They need to interpret law to state it is unlawful for an establishment to require masks. This could be done by many means. It is 1) deprivation of pursuit of life and liberty, 2) a safety hazard as it easily makes criminals unidentifiable in public, 3) inherently results in harassment and discrimination towards people with HIPAA protected disabilities, ... and I'm sure there are more angles to take.
Lifting mask "mandates" won't work. The option needs to be removed from public establishments, using language that also doesn't apply to other non-mask distinguishers.
Another possible angle, but idk how much a lawyer could translate this into legalese.
Tbh we have ample evidence masks don't do anything positive. We also have ample evidence that they harm the wearer the way we're told to wear them (as in non-surgical settings as untrained individuals). As there are no benefits to myself and the only concern masks ever had was with protecting other people's health (which doesn't work anyway), the only effect masks have is negative towards the wearer and neutral towards others.
It's against my religious beliefs to self-harm. Every time I see somebody with a mask on, I just have a mental image of that person being at home using a razorblade to cut themselves. I haven't worn a mask and I never will.
Funny thing is their "best" comeback to this is that you're "very rude." Usually a simple "piss off" in return settles that. It's amazing that the Leftists think they are allowed to pull the garbage they've tried the last four years, and the last year in particular, and think making the argument that we should all be "polite" is going to work.
To answer your question, even though I'm not a lawyer: I believe establishments that require masks are discriminating. They're not liable for people contracting a disease or illness who may have been in their establishment. (Unless that establishment served infected foods...like your average Chipotle.)
"No shirt, no shoes" (the general response the Karens throw around) is done to protect themselves from liability since people could injure themselves should they not wear shoes and step on broken glass and makes them more susceptible to slipping. The "no shirt" portion is in place to align with public decency laws. Those pertain to women but have to also apply to men because not to do so would be...discrimination. Public decency laws are in place to address those with the intent of arousing sexual desire or which appeals to prurient interest. Clearly a woman's exposed breasts meets that standard in most cases (regardless of the physical appearance of most Leftist women.) Not wearing a mask does not meet that standard. So if the Left comes back with, "Wearing a mask is the 'decent' thing to do," it still doesn't pertain to public decency standards.
I'm making mental note of that decency law point because that's an argument I hear from maskers all the time. Thank you for that breakdown of that part. I didn't know the shirt part was specifically due to sexual interest rather than just somebody's opinion on what "decent" is. This seems to be common since maskers have extended that to "it's indecent to have your face exposed" as though it's the same as somebody's genitals. Shoes are obvious at least.
I THINK part of the reason why some businesses and colleges are refusing to reopen is because they think they can be held liable for people getting sick (even though people made the choice to go out in the first place) or they're afraid of people trying to anyway. If there isn't already, we need a law stating establishments that don't deal in things like foodstuffs can't be held liable for people getting sick from any illness and just future-proof it.