By "anti-covid-vaxers" I mean those who are opposed to the vaccinations (like those who prevented people who wanted vaccinations from getting them in Atlanta). I do not mean simply declining vaccinations.
I am also against forcing people to get vaccinated.
But historically businesses themselves had the right to require vaccines as a condition of employment (most often with the influenza vaccine). I do not find it reasonable to strip this freedom from employers just because some reject the science behind a couple of vaccines.
When we start removing rights to deal with a situation we open up a can of worms for the future.
I asked this question before ... If there was a response, I missed it.
when a mandate of such is in place, particularly after staff were hired BEFORE (in some cases WELL before), why shouldn't the entity requiring the mandate be responsible for their decision?
I used the competing right of a private property owner to prohibit the presence of firearms ... to a citizens right to keep and bear arms. It is reasonable the property owner making that decision should therefore be liable for the security of those who properly access the property.
So ... if the government is going to mandate this cv jab ... or a private business is going to mandate this cv jab ... they must be liable for that decision. It is a change to the status quo (big legal deal to be in business).
And this is before we even wade back into the waters of the real dangers of this cv vax as evidenced by the government's own data system.
Do you think a private business should be liable for adverse reactions to a mandate requiring the cv jab? If not, why not?