But your position is that ALL BUSINESSES can choose to not serve people who aren't jabbed.
Yup. Every single business has the option of doing this - it’s their property and their choice. Once you have your own business, you too will be able to be selective about your customer base.
And you wouldn't accept your own rebuttal in the case of other forms of discrimination, so what's different about this one?
The law. If that wasn’t the case, I’d be against the existence of *any* protected group - the owner of the establishment should have the final say on who gets to enter and who doesn’t, regardless of whether other people consider that discriminatory or not.
Why are you so sympathetic to religious groups, DNA groups and chromosome groups, but so hostile and zealous towards groups who are pro-consent? Whats the difference that justifies such an extreme swing of your viewpoint? Eventually you'll have to bite the bullet and admit it's all about Covid risk levels.
Here's a hypothetical for you: imagine certain groups had a statistically higher chance of being infected even if they are vaccinated. Is it ok for businesses to turn them away? What if you were part of this group? Suppose we define this group as: vaccinated people who have not tested negative on a RAT test. Statistically these people are around twice as likely to spread Covid, so would you defend testing mandates at the grocery store, hardware store etc? Would you support businesses refusing to serve to gay men in the 80's on the basis they are more likely to have AIDS?
What’s this “support” nonsense? I don’t support anything, I don’t support discrimination on any basis and I’m against vaccine passports ideologically speaking. That being said, I recognise that the owner of the business has the authority in regards to who gets to enter and who doesn’t. It’s their property. They get to decide that, in the same way as you get to decide who enters *your property*. There’s no difference here. I’m not entitled to be your guest, you have to let me into your home. You’re not entitled to be my customer, if I don’t want to do business with you, that’s where our exchange ends. Facing this terrible dilemma I would simply shop elsewhere, or order online. The store would lose my business and somebody else would make money, this is not difficult.
What's the difference? In both cases you want to penetrate my skin and put your genetic material inside me without my consent, or else you'll fire me. How is that any different to what Weinstein was doing? Where is it in my employment contract that I have to take all these injections of novel genetic material? Again you're going to have to bite the bullet and admit you're using my risk level as the basis for your defense of mandates.
Well, for starters, rape (along with other non-consensual forms of sexual activity) is a felony under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2248. We can end it here. This argument is so silly that it can only be described with gamer words, surely you realise this.
So if it's an inherent characteristic, you'll allow people to be superspreaders and put others at risk? Where's the logical pathway between "S can't help injuring others" and "therefore others have to accept being injured by S"?
How are religious beliefs "inherent", but my belief in consent is somehow not inherent and can be trampled all over? Am I capable of waking up tomorrow and just deciding to believe that consent doesn't matter? How do I do that? And even if I could do that, why should I do that?
The law says so. I don’t have an option not to follow those rules.
So prove it. Prove that I'm an increased risk to anyone. You can't win that argument, because:
I already won and am not obligated to prove anything. It’s my business and my property. There is absolutely nothing you can say or do that invalidates that, and that’s the only thing that matters. I can kick you out because I don’t like the shirt you’re wearing. This is not a negotiation as was suggested above - this is happening, you just need to make peace with it. If you refuse to leave, I can call the police and have you done in for trespass, or I can use reasonable force to remove you from the premises, effective immediately.
1. You're already taking the risk of a disease-related scandal by allowing half of your employees to be unvaccinated (since the jabs are only around 50% effective at preventing infections)
2. I'm tested negative. This actually makes me a LOWER RISK than a vaccinated employee who hasn't tested negative
3. I can take an antibody test to show I've got natural immunity, which is superior to vaccination
4. Everyone else is up to date on their vaccinations which provides them with high levels of protection from the virus in the case that they did get infected, so there was never any risk of a scandal in the first place
Any one of the above would be sufficient, but I've got all four. You're nowhere near abolishing my consent.
I can just not care about your consent, have you considered that distinct possibility? You’re not in charge of my business - I am.
The only thing I will say in your favour is that if someone signs an employment contract and gives informed consent to be injected, then you can jab them. But if they get injured or die from your injections, they can still sue you for damages (and hopefully this will bankrupt you).
No, they can’t. That’s not how informed consent works. You take the good with the bad, every medical procedure carries a risk of negative side effects, however infinitesimally small that risk may be. You consented knowing this to be true. You can try suing the manufacturer, but vaccine manufacturers are famously shielded from litigation by the U.S. government, so I’m afraid you’ll be drafting a class action against the fed, not against me - I didn’t make the vaccine you took, I didn’t distribute it and I didn’t administer it. You also can’t sue me for having an accident on your way to work - I’m sorry that your car malfunctioned, but I had nothing to do with that, I just required you to show up at 9:00.
From a moral standpoint The Golden Rule states they could reciprocate any injuries or death back on to you, however that would only apply if they were misinformed about the safety of your injections - this is relevant to the "informed" part of "informed consent". If the safety is not sufficiently "informed", then all injuries and deaths can be reciprocated back onto you the employer. And I'll remind you again that 3 deaths is mass murder according to the US Department of Justice, so you better hope 3 or more haven't died from your jabs.
Tremendously silly for the reason stated above. You gave informed consent and knew the risks, I am not responsible for you, I’m not your dad. I just pay you to show up and do a job according to my specifications. Bark up a different tree, your injury was not caused by me.
Not my "camp" there Mr. Overgeneralizer. I think for myself, and generally follow the science. But don't stop with your pseudointellectual, blindered, hyper-partisan confirmation bias. It's entertaining!
Would you not describe yourself as left-leaning, or liberal, or whatever tag du jour you guys prefer? If you want to out yourself as a conservative then I’ll bake you a welcome cake and prepare your scarlet letter t-shirt, they’re required nowadays.
Saturday dude. 
JM 
