• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Oregon: Vaccinations, Businesses, Churches, and Masks

kathleenmariekg

Active Member
Things are starting to change faster here. The disparity between the parts of the city that are white are becoming more and more different from those that are brown. The masks are accentuating the differences, but I noticed something else yesterday: the vehicles are all getting bigger and newer.

The slum I live in is the center of the city and the oldest construction. Six to eight lane highways run through the middle of it. No speed limits are posted, and my inquiries to the speed limit are answered with "I don't know." The whites speed through my neighborhood with their windows up and doors locked, on their way from one unmasked gated community to another. We get mowed down. The latest death led to a study of a small area of road that was not the accident site and was carefully chosen to produce statistics that hide the fact that reducing the speed limit could have spared the young mom's life.

But what the speeding commuters are doing in response to the pedestrian resident deaths on these roads is to get bigger and faster cars. My relative that is one of the people that lives behind the gates and must commute through this area described driving through this area as difficult because it is so "competitive". He said that attention to who is on the sidewalks is of secondary concern after first needing to survive what is taking place in the road. Not only are they mowing down the pedestrians, but they are going so fast they are hitting each other. Bigger vehicles make them more "competitive" I guess. And will lead to even more pedestrian deaths.

The masks are becoming a symbol of the divide. The masks eclipse even race. I think the pale hair and white skin that peeks out above my mask might become less of an issue, if this divide of who is and who is not masked, and who is and who is not behind the wheel, remains in place.

I think so many things are just starting. History has this strange way of dividing cleanly into decades. We are just at the beginning of this decade, and I expect all this to culminate in some major mess. Who is allowed to breathe on who is going to be decided this decade. The masks will be one of the primary symbols shown to the school children of the future.
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Very interesting read.
It's an interesting, yet misleading read. Getting the vaccine is not about protecting others, it is about protecting yourself. If others want to be protected, they should get a vaccine. That's the point of vaccines. It isn't to protect other people, it is to protect yourself.

That being said, no private entity actually has the "right" to require you divulge health information. They especially do not have the right to treat you differently based on health information. That's called discrimination.
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's an interesting, yet misleading read. Getting the vaccine is not about protecting others, it is about protecting yourself. If others want to be protected, they should get a vaccine. That's the point of vaccines. It isn't to protect other people, it is to protect yourself.

That being said, no private entity actually has the "right" to require you divulge health information. They especially do not have the right to treat you differently based on health information. That's called discrimination.
Yep. HIPAA is broad, vague, and not fully tested in courts. All the court decisions about vaccines, predate Hipaa. IMO, those court decisions do not apply.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It's an interesting, yet misleading read. Getting the vaccine is not about protecting others, it is about protecting yourself. If others want to be protected, they should get a vaccine. That's the point of vaccines. It isn't to protect other people, it is to protect yourself.

That being said, no private entity actually has the "right" to require you divulge health information. They especially do not have the right to treat you differently based on health information. That's called discrimination.
The context ofvthe article was not protecting others or oneself but trying to eliminate a pandemic (of interest, smallpox).

What made it interesting is that vaccines were mandatory (legally manditory) and proof of vaccine also required.

I did not know thatvabout smallpox. I knew I had a vaccine scar. I also did not realize smallpox is the only disease that had been eradicated.

It was interesting to me.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So the bottom line is to still wear mask at all times. They may have implemented this for the safety of those not yet vaccinated. Though, the question is, what if they intend not be vaccinated at all xp

here oh the great state of Florida some where them some don’t. It’s not enforced. I don’t wear one. Will not wear one. There is no need to wear one.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
... That's called discrimination.

Keep in mind that discrimination is a neutral term - there is good discrimination and bad discrimination.

For example - if a store does not allow men into the ladies rest room - that is discrimination- good discrimination
Lets suppose you have a business that caters to children - say a kids physical activity - bounce house, wall climbing, ect.
and you suspect a child has lice - would you ask the parent if the child has lice -and if so, would you deny entrance.?

if so - that is discrimination.
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
The context ofvthe article was not protecting others or oneself but trying to eliminate a pandemic (of interest, smallpox).

What made it interesting is that vaccines were mandatory (legally manditory) and proof of vaccine also required.

I did not know thatvabout smallpox. I knew I had a vaccine scar. I also did not realize smallpox is the only disease that had been eradicated.

It was interesting to me.
Smallpox was also a very different animal. 30% death rate. Covid is less than 2%. Hardly the same scenario. The freak out over COVID has been RIDICULOUS.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Smallpox was also a very different animal. 30% death rate. Covid is less than 2%. Hardly the same scenario. The freak out over COVID has been RIDICULOUS.
I agree. All of these pandemics are different.

In the last election the GOP used the Obama Administration's reaction to H1N1 in comparison to the Trump Administration's to point out the failure of Biden to handle the pandemic. But that was not the same scenario. The comparison was ridiculous. The diseases were different in the same way small pox is different from COVID.

But what is interesting about the article is how the government can act under the law. They can force immunizations and proof of immunizations. That is the part I did not know.
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
I agree. All of these pandemics are different.

In the last election the GOP used the Obama Administration's reaction to H1N1 in comparison to the Trump Administration's to point out the failure of Biden to handle the pandemic. But that was not the same scenario. The comparison was ridiculous. The diseases were different in the same way small pox is different from COVID.

But what is interesting about the article is how the government can act under the law. They can force immunizations and proof of immunizations. That is the part I did not know.
Interesting read on the Jacobson case...

Can the government force you to get a vaccine? | Pacific Legal Foundation
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Good point. The government cannot force us to get vaccinated ("hold us down and put a needle in our arm") but they can fine us if we refuse to get vaccinated.
And, more importantly, the decision did not allow for the refusal of services based on vaccination status.

That being said, the article also talked about the very limited scope of the decision and not a broad license to require vaccinations in any stretch of the imagination.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
And, more importantly, the decision did not allow for the refusal of services based on vaccination status.

That being said, the article also talked about the very limited scope of the decision and not a broad license to require vaccinations in any stretch of the imagination.
The problem is exactly who makes those decisions. Personally, I do not think people should be fined, but all it takes is a decision.
 
Top