Ohio

Ohio Considers Ban on Vaccine Requirements in Schools and Private Businesses

It's not "freedom" to tell business owners they have to let unvaccinated people onto their premises.

|

Ohio legislation currently under discussion in the state's House of Representatives would prohibit both public and private institutions—including businesses and schools—from denying employment or service to unvaccinated people.

The Vaccine Choice and Anti-Discrimination Act was introduced in early May, and 665 individuals in the last month have testified in favor of the bill. This included the viral testimony by Sherri Tenpenny, a doctor who claimed the vaccine has made some people magnetic. More than 50 business, health, and hospital groups signed a letter in opposition to the bill.

The bill says that "no person, public official or employee, public agency, state agency, political subdivision, school, child day-care center, nursing home, residential care facility, health care provider, insurer, institution, or employer" can mandate that anyone, whether it be an employee, student, resident, or customer, get a vaccine.

In the name of anti-discrimination, it also says that no such institution can segregate people or deny service based on someone's vaccination status, or even provide some kind of privilege to those who do get vaccinated. Not only would this mean that schools could not require students to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to attend, it would make vaccine promotions—like Krispy Kreme's offer of free donuts—illegal.

"I believe in vaccines and scientific research," said State Rep. Jennifer Gross (R–West Chester) in her sponsor testimony. "I also recognize that vaccination is a personal choice and that, for a variety of reasons, not all Ohioans can or want to receive vaccines. I believe that protecting the freedom of all Ohioans is our role as legislators. We need to protect Ohioans from forced vaccination whether it comes from the government, school, an employer, or even a local retailer."

While all this is done in the name of freedom and personal choice, there are compelling reasons why such legislation should be concerning to libertarians.

One issue, noted by a number of Reason's own staff, is that such actions undermine the freedom of employers and institutions to make their own decisions regarding their businesses. Although Gross says that "protecting the freedom of all Ohioans" is her job, that freedom doesn't seem to extend to an immunocompromised Ohioan who wants the employees of her small business to be vaccinated. Or the Shake Shack employees who want to offer people free crinkle-cut fries to encourage them to get vaccinated.

Gross also says that she wants to protect Ohioans from "forced vaccination" by the government or by a private school, employer, and local retailer. But there is a big difference between vaccination being required by the government and vaccination being required by a private business: the ability to opt out by taking your business elsewhere.

If the cruise I go on every year starts requiring everyone to be vaccinated, I can choose to not give that cruise my business and go to a vaccine-free cruise instead. If the government requires I get vaccinated, I have no choice but to comply or be punished.

By forcing employers, schools, and businesses to not require vaccines, the Ohio Legislature wouldn't be ensuring the freedom of its citizens, it would be impeding it.

If people in Ohio don't want to get vaccinated, then they should start their own schools and businesses that don't require vaccines. But they should keep the force of government out of it.

NEXT: Juneteenth Is a Good Holiday. Of Course the Government Is Screwing It Up.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Protecting medical privacy is not freedom. Privacy is slavery. Repeal HIPAA.

    1. HIPAA only pertains to a medical provider releasing your records without your consent.

      1. Yep.

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. No.

        HIPAA is a nebulae of rules and restrictions that cover privacy far beyond the release of a physical (or digital) medical record. There are regulations about what a medical care professional can talk about in public spaces.

        Example:

        I found myself in a las Vegas ER for reasons I won’t go into here. In the ER, they had these little horseshoe shaped waiting areas in which the patients sat until a nurse could interview them about their problem. At one point, the nurse wheeled a computer on a cart over to the lady sitting next to me. The nurse looked at the screen and said (I don’t remember the names, but I’ll just use fillers),

        “So, I need you to confirm some information for me, Susan Smith? Yes, you live at 4225 West Maple Lane? Ok, good. Now, I understand that today you’re in for vaginal bleeding*? Ok, and is that bleeding going on right now?” etc. etc.

        That is a HIPAA violation.

        HIPAA also covers various IT requirements such as data encryption in transit, data encryption at rest etc. It also has rules about who’s AUTHORIZED to LOOK at a medical record, including auditing rules to show who DID look at a record and when.

        It’s far more comprehensive than just the ‘release of medical records’.

        *that was the lady’s real problem.

        1. Unless your Google then hippa doesn’t apply to you

          1. That’s is the fox guarding the hen house if I’ve seen it.

            Looking to Google for patient privacy is like going to O.J. Simpson for marriage counseling.

            1. It’s like Facebook protecting their users’ privacy with WhatsApp.

              Why the fuck would anybody go to Facebook or Google for privacy?

              1. I am making a good salary from home $1300-$2600/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and ADq now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do…. READ MORE

        2. While you’re sorta right that HIPAA is more than just medical “records”, you are entirely missing Jdromb’s point that HIPAA is only binding on the medical provider (and the business associates that do work for the medical provider).

          If a grocery store discloses your private medical information, whether as a customer or an employee, you might be able to sue them under other privacy laws but you can’t sue them under HIPAA. They are not in scope for that law.

          By the way, to your example about the interview in the waiting area, you are wrong. While that’s not a preferred practice, there is an exception in the HIPAA investigation scenarios that covers that exact situation.

      3. Incorrect, it can apply to data processors too. Basically any organization that accepts or stores medical records.

    2. There’s also been numerous Supreme Court cases that uphold individual rights supercede corporate rights.

      Now if the store owner has legit medical or religious objection or need to want people to be vaccinated, or do anything in their store or refuse service, as a poster mentions below, then fine. But it would need to be explained to customers and fit a narrow set of circumstances the same way those exemptions apply to other things, like requiring vaccines for school etc.

    3. The government HIPPA isn’t protecting people who don’t want to associate with others that have communicable diseases, and instead is protecting people who want to hide their communicable disease (or in this case don’t have a vaccination record).

      As a libertarian, I see government’s purpose is to protect our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Keeping people with serious communicable diseases from spreading them is protecting our lives. Allowing business and property owners to set their own safety rules is protecting our liberties. Lockdowns don’t respect our liberty, harm us, and don’t work. Further, government is treating us like children when it tells us to protect ourselves in a pandemic; it’s a waste of our money we could be using to protect ourselves.

      1. Sorry, but you need to consider how far this could go. Like how about prove you took the flu vaccine – it’s a serious communicable disease. How about chicken pox/shingles? You may laugh, but it’s very serious for old people to get it.

        I could on, but the point is just because the government scared you about this one single communicable disease to the point of massive overreaction (which they did mostly to win an election) doesn’t mean we should be giving up our medical privacy to random businesses or whomever is at the door (you know, like a local teenager who happens was given the thankless task of watching the door and checking vaccination information – you trust that idiot too?).

  2. It’s not freedom to let them ban unvaccinated people, either.

    You USED to be a libertarian magazine.

    1. This whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense. If the store owners and workers are vaccinated, and most customers are as well, then they will either not get COVID from the unvaccinated or only get a mild case of it. It is the unvaccinated who have the greater risk and, since the author thinks they are idiots, then that’s what they deserve.
      The real issue here is how do we determine who has ben vaccinated and who hasn’t. Vaccine passports are OK but ID for voting is Jim Crow? One is only asked for once, but every store might ask for your passport every day.

      1. There is NO NEED to determine who is vaccinated and who is not, since the only people hurt by not getting vaccinated are the unvaccinated. The vaccinated have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated.

        The outliers are those who are known allergic to vaccinations, or have other real medical reasons for not getting vaccinated. But those people know who they are.

        1. “The vaccinated have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated.”

          Not true. The larger the population of unvaccinated people, the higher the odds of a new vaccine-resistant variant arising.

          1. I was speaking if the individual case. No vaccinated person ever need fear any unvaccinated individual. There is zero need in identifying vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

            1. If a vaccine-resistant variant arises, it will be spread from some individual unvaccinated person to some vaccinated person at some point.

              1. And there is a whole world out there – COVID started in China, not New Jersey – and a variant could pop up anywhere. Even if everybody in the US were to be forced to vaccinate, someone somewhere else will start coughing out a mutated virus. Should we lock the borders, no one in or out (except those deserving refugees that show up in the thousands every day)?
                Most variants are more easily contracted, but less deadly because really sick or dead people can’t go around spreading a virus.

                1. No, none of that stuff. If you are an American take advantage of the free-of-charge vaccine being offered to you. Do your little part to be part of decreasing the odds of a variant, and promoting herd immunity.

                  1. Fuck off, white mike. Where do you draw the line? How much medical information should be provided to businesses? Should Tony have to prove he is on anti-retrovirals before entering the bathhouse? Or is this only for COVID?

                  2. tanstaafl

                    meanwhile mike, you still enjoy the taste of fear juice. that’s so 2020 man.

                    curious, can you explain these two claims?
                    – the vaccine protects against variants
                    – variants can be vaccine-resistant

                    how does it work. do you just pick the one that’s convenient at the moment? or is it the first one is useful as a carrot when assuring someone the vaccine is good to take, and the second as the stick when bullying someone about their personal choice not to?

                    the virus is endemic. ideas of elimination are fantasies. therefore there will always be variants. as a class, all coronaviruses mutate fast. and increased lethality isn’t a successful trait as it limits the chance to propagate.

                    meanwhile, there’s always a good boogeyman around the corner to justify imposing a fear-based future hypothetical for a “greater good” action today. step back and observe when someone is using your brain to think for you.

                    1. – the vaccine protects against KNOWN variants, SO FAR
                      – NEW variants can be vaccine-resistant

                    2. Meanwhile, there is a free-of-charge vaccine, now proven to be very safe, that people are refusing for basically partisan baloney reasons.

                  3. You can get fucked. Free of charge my ass, billions of tax dollars funneled to big pharmaceutical companies.

                    You do know natural immunity has and always will be part of the “herd immunity” equation?

          2. Having a vaccine raises the risk that a new variant resisting a vaccine arises, so stop vaccinating people.

            White Mike logic.

          3. By the way White Mike…

            You do understand that if a virus spreads in unvaccinated people, it isn’t evolving to avoid antibodies produced by a vaccine… right?

            Your talking point is based on bad understanding of antibiotic resistance bacteria, which has increased due to users not completing antibiotic cycles. A vaccine works differently as it is your own antibodies fighting the disease.

            Please stay away from science based talking points.

          4. That’s not how that works.

            Chicken pox, for example, is not becoming more prevalent because of a vaccine resistant strain coming into existence due to the increasing population of anti-vaxxers.

            Its becoming more prevalent because more people aren’t vaccinated at all and its this larger pool of unvaccinated that are catching chicken pox.

            Like, anti-biotic resistance comes into play with diseases exposed to anti-biotics that kill *most* of them, but then you stop taking the pills because you feel better and the remaining strains that breed are slightly more resistant to the next course of treatment. Repeat for 50 years and you get resistant stains.

            Vaccines don’t attack diseases directly. They prime your immune system to attack the disease early.

            And when your immune system swings into action is doesn’t stop until its all dead. So there are no tail-end survivors to be a bit more resistant next time around.

            Now, it swirling around a population can certainly leave the opportunity for mutations to arise. But it doesn’t swirl around populations. You get exposed. You die or survive – you die and that’s it. You survive and now you’ve been vaccinated – so the pool of unvaccinated is smaller.

          5. No, just the opposite. Why would it be any different from the situation with antibiotics, wherein the use of antibiotics selects for resistant strains? The vaccine increases the odds of vaccine-resistant strains emerging.

            1. Read the 3 prior comments.

              Oh, do you know how to read?

            2. No, that is wrong. The larger the unvaccinated population the larger the chance of a vaccine-resistant strain.

              The vaccine works against the possibility of _any_ variants arising, vaccine resistant or not.

              1. False.

                Jesus christ you’re fucking dumb man. Please just stop posting, you’re a total ignoramus.

                The vast majority of the variants they have been able to trace have come from immunocompromised people whose body struggles to clear the virus, whether vaccinated or not.

                You’re also assuming the virus only mutates in a deadlier way, which is rarely ever the case.

                And you’re also too dumb to realize the virus may become resistant to the vaccines, because at least the mrna vaccines, are designed to target only one protein on the virus. The spike protein. And it’s much easier for a virus to mutate one small protein than an entire chain of them. When you develop natural immunity your body develops antibodies to multiple proteins in the virus, from multiple types of cells in your body. B

                That’s why both eua approved monoclonal antibody treatments (regeneron that trump got, elli Lilly that my mother got) both include a antibody cocktail now. They both target the S spike protein like the mrna vaccines. But they also have an antibody that targets the N protein on the surface of the virus. And thus are more effective against variants than the vaccines.

                Which is why therapeutics and treatments should have been pushed much harder, and probably harder than vaccines. Natural immunity is far superior to the immunity from the mrna vaccines. And natural immunity will be far more effective against variants due to your body developing multiple antibodies and multiple types of cells learning how to attack the virus.

        2. “There is NO NEED to determine who is vaccinated and who is not, since the only people hurt by not getting vaccinated are the unvaccinated.”

          Generally speaking, that is true. However, a lady who runs a gift shop in a nearby town cannot be vaccinated at this point because of a medical condition. She also suffers from a severely depressed immune system, and will be until her treatment is complete.

          Her right to protect her health should NOT be subject by edicts such as this law. She has the right to refuse service.

          1. That’s fine with me, she has that moral right.

            1. +

            2. …she has that moral right.

              Umm…. no she doesn’t. Just because she has an affliction that could get worse by being around others, does not give her the right, moral or otherwise, to invade others’ privacy. I mean really how far does that go? Can she question her waitress? What about the hostess? How about the 3 people who touched her food getting it to the drive thru?

              Either way, she can require this in her home if she so chooses, but she should not be able to do it a business open to the general public or rather people should look to her requirements as if she hung a sign in the front window saying “blacks not welcome”.

          2. Seems like she was at great risk before COVId; a depressed immune system is how AIDS kills. Having a shop and meeting customers who might have just about anything doesn’t seem a good choice for her.

            1. ^^
              this

            2. Even prior to covid, she had a sign asking folks who thought they might be sick to come back later (she had part-time help – a couple of days a week – her daugher-in-law, I believe), to help her out. This is a really small town, pretty conservative, and somehow, nobody seemed to mind at all waiting until she was out of the shop.

              It’s called common decency.

              1. So a one off outlier should be applied to general interactions? You greatly reduce my risk at death by driving at 15 mph.

                1. No, Jesse, that is not what I am saying. But why should a “big government” law insist that she has to let any particular person into her business? I am fully behind opening things up, and have been for quite a long time: laws which require businesses to enforce mask laws are reprehensible.

                  So are laws which declare that businesses are barred from enforcing their own health standards. This should be between the businesses and their customers, and the government should not be involved at all.

                  1. Because we currently live in a time where business and government collusion is rampant and we aren’t talking about one off businesses, but large scale invasions into individual liberty.

                    She is free to continue to have her sign up. Nobody is saying she can’t.

                    I’d rather government err on side of individual liberties than act collusively to enforce their wants on a populace.

                    1. I agree with you on this.

                    2. This dude gets it…

                  2. Let me ask you another way….

                    Right now if someone goes into her store when sick, can they be arrested for trespass?

                    If government allows mask mandates, can the government then arrest the people for being maskless? (They did)

                    So now we have government enforcement on a person for not having an official document on them for vaccination.

                    Remember, there have already been arrests for fake vaccination cards.

                    1. “Right now if someone goes into her store when sick, can they be arrested for trespass?” — Only if the she asks them to leave and they don’t — well, that’s the way it SHOULD be. (Actually, hereabouts, they haven’t been enforcing much of anything for a quite a while — most stores still have the signs up, but are not enforcing it.)

                      “If government allows mask mandates, can the government then arrest the people for being maskless? (They did)” — If a person enters a business, and the business asks them to wear a mask, and they refuse to wear a mask AND then refuse to leave, they are probably guilty of a trespass, since they refused to leave. If one walks into a grocery store shirtless and shoe-less, and the stores policy requires customers to wear shirts and shoes, and this person refuses to leave, they are also guilty of a trespass, for refusing to leave. But it shouldn’t have to involve the government, much less the police.

                      “So now we have government enforcement on a person for not having an official document on them for vaccination…Remember, there have already been arrests for fake vaccination cards.” —- I find this particularly hilarious — nowhere can I obtain an “official” document of my vaccine — I have a card, but that was filled out and “issued” by a medical technician, not the police, and certainly not by the government. Getting arrested for forging an officially unofficial not-an-ID-card? Sounds like a bad comedy sketch.

                      Here is my take, overall:

                      When it comes to private businesses and how they choose to operate, the government should not be in the “business” of telling people what they have to do, or what they can’t do. The wearing, or not wearing, of masks, etc. should be left up to the individuals involved.

                      The government certainly has no legitimate authority to pass a law demanding some kind of ID for a person to enter a business, nor does it have any legitimate authority to penalize a business for NOT requesting such ID. Again, it’s best handled by the individuals involved.

              2. Even prior to covid, she had a sign asking folks who thought they might be sick to come back later (she had part-time help – a couple of days a week – her daugher-in-law, I believe), to help her out.

                If she has a work-around for other illnesses already, why exactly does she need a peak at my medical records for covid, but nothing else? Like the flu? Pneumonia? Etc, etc, etc….

      2. My problem with vaccine passports is not the idea of showing a vax card, the standard yellow booklet that has been around for years…had one stapled in my passport when I worked internationally in the 90s. My issue is that they expect you to have something installed on a smart phone and to carry that with you at all times. What if I don’t own a smart phone? What if I don’t want to carry it with me at all times? I may be an old fogey but I don’t spend all day staring at my mobile. I use it when I need it, used to just leave it in my car during work hours until recently. Then I saw what happened to people who just happened to be in DC during the Jan 6 protest don’t think I want to carry it anywhere. It seems to me this is just a convenient excuse to back door in what they have in china, a way to track us and next a social score.

        1. ” It seems to me this is just a convenient excuse to back door in what they have in china, a way to track us and next a social score.”

          Yup. You know it’s about something other than health because they’re not acknowledging that people with natural immunity are just as protected as the vaccinated.

    2. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

      No brain!

    3. It’s not freedom to let them ban unvaccinated people, either.

      I agree, but the real problem is when the government does the banning. That’s government treading on our freedom of association.
      The free market will provide the protection people want to protect themselves better than the government ever will. The beauty of the free market is it figures out the best way to satisfy or balance both the desires of some people to protect themselves with the desires of some others who’d rather not be bothered with things like masks or temperature checks.

      We don’t need the government making decisions about how we should protect ourselves during a pandemic. They might be looking for ways to take advantage of us, during a crisis.

      1. That only works if businesses have a reasonable means and don’t collude with each other.

        If you seriously think that if businesses were allowed to check vaccination status they wouldn’t all do it at least for a time you’re sorely mistaken.

        No one should be coerced into taking an experimental jab that has to be “continuously monitored” for safety. Especially when we already have major safety concerns that are currently being ignored or brushed under the rug.

    4. Actually according to libertarianism private property owners have absolute right to exclude anyone from their own property for any reason. So yes as a private business owner I should be able to exclude you for not being vaccinated and to require proof of vaccination before allowing you entry.

      Of course, the same principle means I should also be able to exclude people for their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc etc. There are no protected classes or rights not to be discriminated against in libertarianism.

  3. Can I force anyone to bake me a vaccination cake?

    1. As long as it is a gay vaccination cake.

      1. Or trans; trans is now the point.

        1. Being gay is like having AIDS. It’s so passé. Being trans is like having cancer. Cancer is trendy.

  4. Mostly, I see the problem with the way this is worded is that it justifies keeping restrictions on vaccinated people even if it makes no sense. On the other hand, at what point do property rights impose on people’s right to privacy about their health information or disability that renders them unable to get vaccinated?

    1. There’s also the question of the unaccountability of local health authorities. It may be like a gun rights preemption law. Saving people at the state level from the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats running the health department in certain cities and counties may not be the worst possible imposition on liberty. If the alternative isn’t perfect liberty by default, sometimes the choice is between better and worse alternatives.

      I don’t know the score in this situation, but I suspect the bureaucracy that runs the health department in Columbus isn’t dominated by libertarian capitalists.

    2. I think a lot of this presumes there is robust marketplace competition.

      For instance, one could argue (yes, it would be a stretch, and to some degree only illustrative) that in the height of the pandemic one might literally not be able to provide food for oneself if you were either unable to or unwilling to follow the diktats of local politicians.

      If every eating establishment and grocery store has a requirement that a person is either unwilling or unable to follow, then one would quite literally not be able to feed oneself.

      Yes I know it’s a stretch, yes I know that there are other things that are commonly accepted or required to navigate public life that also could create the same restrictions if you go down the rabbit hole. But I think this is a worthwhile debate because now you could be required to do… something which can’t be proven or shown at face value, which becomes a kind of invasion of privacy.

      1. That you might potentially be put into a form of internal exile if you do not get any and all vaccinations (is there a limiting principle here?) is concerning. Having to show your medical papers in order to live is not good situation even by private institutions.

        1. Not it is not, and you will get no disagreement from me. This situation is what Mr. Douglas Murray refers to as the problem of “competing virtues”. In this case, the two virtues are: the right of property owners/freedom of association* vs. the reasonable Western Liberal ideal that to navigate public life, I don’t have to hand over information from my medical record to navigate said public life.

          *let me be clear, one of the virtues is not “keeping the coof at bay”

        2. In Libertopia, what would prevent any private property owner from demanding anything he/she wishes from any potential visitors to the property?

          1. The fact that we can always refuse to enter the property.

          2. Now apply this to your open border desires.

    3. The article also once again ignores the fact that the CDC was pressuring industries to accept their regulations, such as with the cruise industry. Businesses do not operate in a vacuum, they will often change behaviors based on threats from government.

      Here Reason ignores the pressure from government on a business and assumes all businesses are choosing vaccine passports for fun.

      1. The article also once again ignores the fact that the CDC was pressuring industries to accept their regulations, such as with the cruise industry.

        If that happens then that is wrong. But it’s equally wrong to burden industries with other limitations on their property rights from government in the other direction. Ohio is trying to right a government overstep by committing the same government overstep.

        This issue seems to be pretty clear to me. Governments can’t require vaccines. However, your rights to privacy don’t trump a businesses property rights. If businesses want to make having a vaccine a requirement for entering their property (even if it is dumb) that should be within their property rights.

        1. No, it isnt an overstep to side with individual liberteries. The government has not stopped implementing pressure on businesses to remain compliant to the CDC outputs. Likewise we have direct instances of government influencing compliance through the banking industry or did you forget about operation chokepoint? Here government is actually defending individual liberty from government collusion.

          I honestly don’t understand how you specifically choose to ignore reality under the guise of an ideal system. You don’t live in said system. You live in one with massive market collusion with government. So until that system becomes ideal it is better to err on the side of individual libertarian protection, which is what this is.

          Non infected people have zero risk posture to you. You want a business to force those individuals to do something for zero net benefit. Go fuck yourself.

          1. What individual right are they protecting? Your right to avail yourself of someone else’s property? Your right to force someone to associate with you?

          2. You want a business to force those individuals to do something for zero net benefit.

            I’m pretty sure you don’t understand what force actually is.

  5. “It’s not “freedom” to tell business owners they have to let unvaccinated people onto their premises.”

    I suppose the lesson is that we shouldn’t sell association rights short, in so may ways, and then expect the people we’ve savaged to care about association rights in other ways.

    I suppose it works that way with everything.

    Don’t sell free speech short, in one regard, on social media and expect the people you’ve savaged to care about the free speech rights of the platform owners–not even if they should.

    1. I suppose the lesson is that we shouldn’t sell association rights short, in so may ways, and then expect the people we’ve savaged to care about association rights in other ways.

      This is exactly right. However, creating a new class of protected people under public accommodation (the non-vaccinated) is not the answer. That moves us in the wrong direction on property rights and rights to associate.

      It would be a better solution if Ohio were to pass a law stating that the CDC has no authority to tell business how to operate and that enforcement of such a CDC overreach within Ohio is illegal, rather than overstepping and forcing association.

  6. Businesses agree to a lot of oversight when they apply for a business license.

  7. Look, at the very least, if you’re going to make a Freedom of Association argument, you should make an attempt to put it in the context of the 100 other ways we currently force businesses to take customers. Seems rather ludicrous to draw the line here.

    1. While I agree with the high level premise here, these laws are actually necessary. The legislative bodies in most places in the country have completely lost control of the executive and burocratic parts of the government. If they don’t set these rules, random regulating bodies will impose the opposite or even conflicting and inconsistent rules. Most businesses will actually welcome these rules, because it prevents some random burocrate from telling them they have to turn away 50% of their customers.

      1. Good summary.

  8. I see we’re still supposed to pretend that private businesses spontaneously decided to start demanding vaccinations without any government input whatsoever.

    1. The cruise ship industry is currently doing just that. Because they have to deal with multiple governments outside the USA, not just the State of Florida. However, I get that this is not a clear cut let the businesses decide issue. The question is, if you had a kid growing up today, and they could get vaccines that would protect them from Ebola, Rotovirus, Flu, Malaria, HIV, Herpes, etc, would you tell them to not get vaccinated? Or is this all blow back from still not believing that COVID-19 is worse than a cold?

      1. The cruise industry didn’t your second sentence shows they were prompted by government.

        For your second point he isn’t telling them not to get this, but I think you sort of touch on something with your last statement but rather it might be blow back that yes it is worse than a cold but it isn’t the second coming of the black plague or 1918 flu. Btw both didn’t need a vaccine to end (this one wasn’t going to be the first to buck past viruses yes and I understand it will/is be endemic) some I’m not sure why this is the only solution now (it may be the best but not the only thank you media).

      2. You can’t blame people for not wanting to be early adopters of a brand new way to make a vaccine. Why is their precaution not valid, but everyone else’s precaution last year was totally valid?

        Also, if 9 out of 10 people died of covid like they do with Ebola, people’s calculus would 100% be different.

      3. It’s blowback from the many studies not yet done on the various vaccines for the Communist Chinese Virus.
        Like the effect(s) on those who have had the virus and recovered.
        Like the effect(s) on fertile women should they become pregnant after the injection.
        Like the effect(s) on everyone, long term. Because there hasn’t been long term yet.
        Customers can make their own choices, but employees, particularly employees with significant careers at stake, do not have all that much real choice. As long as the business accepts full and unlimited liability for any future effects that can reasonably be traced to the vaccine(s), maybe. But no one should be pressured into becoming what amounts to a lab rat for unapproved vaccines. Emergency use authorization is for emergency use, not immediate general acceptance.

    2. Exactly. This is government fighting itself.

    3. I see we’re still supposed to pretend that private businesses spontaneously decided to start demanding vaccinations without any government input whatsoever.

      Whether that’s what happened or not doesn’t change Ohio’s overreach. If that is what happened then why not remedy that government overreach, rather than creating your own shiny new government overreach?

      1. This is just naivete based in ignorance. You do understand this influence is occurring right Leo? You ignoring facts doesn’t make those facts not exist.

        1. I didn’t ignore anything. I don’t understand how anyone can conclude that the answer to government regulatory overreach is government statutory overreach. This law doesnt limit government, which would be a legitimate response. Instead it limits individual rights.

          1. Do you have any idea how a state can put the burden on federal enforcers of federal law? In other words, make the illegal act the carrying out of federal law? That’s where you want the burden, right?

            But does post-civil war American law make that possible? Or do you have to nullify by making following federal laws illegal to follow in your state?

          2. …it [the law] limits individual rights.

            Limiting businesses is not limiting individuals. I understand that on very small businesses it may only be one person there, so in that particular case it limits individual rights, but many businesses have multiple owners, might be a public company traded on the stock exchange, etc, etc, etc.

            So the law limits businesses, not individual rights.

  9. Even though I am mostly pro vaccines, I am surprised that Reason is pro requiring vaccines. I get that many of you think that is BS. But, I think that opposing vaccine requirements is not a clear cut libertarian issue, though I get that big government mandating that people do things is against personal freedom. I understand that people are paranoid about their privacy and wary of vaccines. The root of the problem is that we have had it good in the USA for so long when it comes to contagious diseases that we have become a rather spoiled and stupid nation in this regard. So we have learned to be contemptful of vaccines, rather than seeing them for the medical wonders that they are.

    I am hopeful about the new types of vaccines that were launched as part of Operation Warp Speed and delighted that this next generation will have the protection of the new ones that are being developed by those technologies. If they create an HIV, Herpes, Ebola, Malaria, or whatnot vaccines in the next many years, I would expect my kids to get them and be happy that they are protected from such vicious diseases. But I support your right to be an idiot. If you are worried about getting vaccinated and getting magnetized, or getting a biochip, or whatever other crap people are spouting out nowadays, I say I believe in your right to be a fool. You have the right to discourage your children from getting protection from life threatening and life challenging diseases. I believe in the freedom of religions that refuse any medical care, though I think they are nuts as well. I believe in the Darwin rule.

    1. Rights are the obligation to respect other people’s choices. They arise naturally from our agency like ethics itself. Your ethical obligation to respect the choices of other people doesn’t disappear when you’re scared, and your legal obligation to respect other people’s choices shouldn’t disappear because you’re scared either.

      Your obligation to respect other people’s choices is only compromised when they choose to violate your right to make choices for yourself. If you’d rather not go out in public without being vaccinated, you should be free to do so. You should be free to isolate yourself, so long as you’re not violating anybody’s rights. Leaving the house puts you in danger. Violating other people’s rights by forcing them to be vaccinated against their will won’t change that fact.

      It just creates a more oppressive and more unjust society.

      1. “If you’d rather not go out in public without being vaccinated, you should be free to do so.”

        The real world doesn’t always conform to our libertarian ideals. The real world is sometimes messier, as is the case with communicable diseases. The scientific truth is that everyone who refuses to be vaccinated is adding to the chances of a new COVID-19 variant arising. They are violating other people’s rights by acting as a Petri dish for new variants to evolve in, and then spread to other people.

        1. Stop using first person possessive when discussing libertarian ideals.

          Thanks.

        2. Wait, are you actually advocating for a right to not get sick?

          I could maybe see an argument for intentionally infecting someone being aggression, but you have done nothing wrong if you don’t know you’re sick.

        3. The real world doesn’t always conform to our libertarian ideals. The real world is sometimes messier…

          I’ve found that this copout is generally the way that unprincipled people validate their illiberal leanings.

          Yep… this one checks that box too!

          1. Disagree. It’s not a cop out. The real world does not always present clean-cut scenarios where there is a clear libertarian right thing to do.

            The classic example is parenthood. Young kids are not mature enough to make their own decisions and support themselves, so they do not have complete liberty.

            Another classic example is abortion. The woman and the child are tied together biologically. They aren’t quite separate people and they are quite the same person.

            1. But there are no rights in conflict here. Government has no legitimate role in this situation because they aren’t protecting any legitimate rights. You dont have a positive right to health… meaning you can’t force me at the point of a gun to do something that might benefit your health.

              1. It’s about forcing you to not do something detrimental to public health, a commons. It’s a negative right, not a positive.

                1. Your understanding of the nature of rights is incorrect. To steal a common saying, your right to health ends at my shoulder. If you have to force an individual to give up their autonomy of their body, namely not to have it compromised by a needle, then your “right” isn’t valid at all.

                  I’m not anti-vax at all, but I respect the rights of others who are. Especially in the face of an experimental vaccine.

                  1. No, spreading your viruses to other people is just like polluting the air. It is a fouling of the commons, shared with other people.

                    1. The difference here is that your proposed way to stop me from “spreading my virus” is by disregarding my personal autonomy by requiring me to accept a needle in my arm.

                      That is the very definition of a positive right. It requires action on my part for you to exercise your “right” to health, which therefore isn’t a legitimate right at all.

                      It’s no different really than requiring a doctor to perform surgery against his will because you think you have a right to health.

                    2. Leftists are comfortable with positive ‘rights’, which are merely excuses to oppress and control others.

          2. I am wary of anyone who touts their own perfect adherence to abstract philosophical principles. There is no justification, epistemologically, to assume that any purist philosophy works in the real world.

          3. The real world is always going to have weird edge cases that don’t fit tidily into any political philosophy.

            1. Do you find it weird that in edge cases you side with government coercion over individual freedom?

              1. I wouldn’t find that weird. Where else but edge cases would libertarians find themselves siding with government coercion? And how else would edge cases be if not deviations from the norm?

                1. Fine. The word “weird” isn’t important to the argument I am making.

              2. Says the guy defending the Ohio government telling businesses whom they must do business with.

                1. I don’t believe I have said anything on that subject.

                  1. I was responding to Jesse

                    1. Oh, sorry. I have him muted so I didn’t see the whole conversation.

                    2. So Mike L – you have blocked someone who had a good response to you and you could’ve engaged them in a debate.

                      But all this makes sense, if Jesse scares you and unvaccinated people scare you, you just refuse service to them and all will be well.

        4. The scientific truth is that everyone who refuses to be vaccinated is adding to the chances of a new COVID-19 variant arising.

          And, as we all know, viruses evolve to become less virulent with time. So those people who refuse to get vaccinated are providing a valuable service by assisting in the evolution of a kinder, gentler Chicom flu. We should thank them for being the guinea pigs in this endeavor!

          1. Not always. That’s the very nature of mutations: there isn’t some mechanism or intelligence telling the mutations that there are constraints on the direction in which they can mutate.

            If enough people would get vaccinated there would be NO new variants of COVID-19. It would be eradicated.

            1. If it does all those wonderful things, then maybe we should force everyone to get the vaccine by not allowing them to interact with any business or government service (like the DMV) before they turn over their medical records.

              This is what you claim is the “libertarian” position.

              You’re an idiot and not a libertarian – please stop acting as if you are one. I have a difficult enough time explaining what libertarianism to interested people and that’s without them thinking ideas like yours are based in libertarian philosophy.

          2. From today’s news:

            https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-delta-coronavirus-variant-particularly-dangerous-young-people-2021-6

            “Experts increasingly worry that young people will be less protected against severe disease caused by a Delta infection: Researchers in Scotland found that getting infected with Delta doubles the risk of hospital admission relative to Alpha.”

            1. “Experts”…

              Where are all the young people dying in the UK and Europe? Haven’t seen it yet.

              Here is the study:
              https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994839/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_16.pdf

              Out of 60,624 cases, 73 deaths resulted and 1294 hospitalizations requiring an overnight stay.

              6.2% relative risk of an ER visit
              2.1% relative risk of hospitalization
              0.12% relative risk of death

            2. Well, if Business Insider quoted experts about it, then I’m sold. Force everyone to get the vaccine or arrest them tomorrow!

              /sarc

              Fucking idiot.

    2. I don’t think anyone being unvaccinated is automatically an idiot. It’s a person that has done a self risk analysis and found it not to be high risk for whatever reason. Flu shot for example I get it every year because it’s on site at my work, if I actually did a risk analysis I’d probably not bother but I don’t think I’d be an idiot for not getting it. I’m reaching here with this example but would be an idiot for driving at night because you want to get home sooner rather than waiting for day to have better conditions or did you do a risk analysis and determine the higher risk was acceptable?

  10. now do cakes?

    1. The cake is a lie.

    2. Reason has been pretty good and consistent on the cake issue.

      1. Would you bet on them to take the same stance today as they did in 2014?

        1. Maybe not, because I believe it was Sullum who called the government forcing Donald Trump no not block users on his personal twitter account “reasonable”.

          My problem with Reason as of late is not any picayune matters of “consistency”, it’s the white-knuckled hanging on to consistency while seemingly being unable to criticize the motives of the biggest cultural actors savagely buggering the principles of free speech and open discourse.

          You can do both. You can stand up for private property rights while calling the property owner an asshole– and criticizing his behavior as unlibertarian.

          It’s been my experience that if you’re unable to do the latter at all, then you’re probably sympathetic with the motives.

          1. >> unable to criticize the motives of the biggest cultural actors savagely buggering the principles of free speech and open discourse

            totes this.

          2. My issue is that they’re making excuses for the enemies of libertarian capitalism with bullshit arguments.

            Deplatforming people for fear that the government will break your company into little pieces–because you tolerated “misinformation”–isn’t an excellent example of private companies exercising their property rights and free speech rights.

            Wasn’t someone the other day making excuses for teaching what amounts to Marxism in public schools–and suggesting that voters, instead of silencing teachers, should look to homeschooling instead?

            They’re using the language of libertarian capitalism to make bogus excuses for why we shouldn’t fight back against the expansion of authoritarian socialism–and those are just two examples. I’ll point out others in the future as they happen.

            It’s like when chemjeff or Tony know enough about libertarianism to suggest that we raise the corporate tax up to 70%–because libertarianism is all about balancing the budget. It’s just that when the staff do it on other issues, it isn’t as stupid. It’s more sophisticated.

      2. ya i mean i want to think so but then there’s today’s article …

      3. Shackford was not when that ssue first came to national attention.

  11. It’s not “freedom” to tell business owners they have to let unvaccinated people onto their premises.

    Nor is it “freedom” to tell business owners that they have to let [list government-favored grievance groups] onto their premises, but here we are.

  12. What’s amazing here is that now some are stating which vaccine someone has to take to be allowed in.

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fans-with-astrazeneca-vaccine-wont-on-broadway

  13. Sounds to me like they are just cutting the trial lawyers off at the knees. I am sure they are just champing at the bit to start suing people over Corona/Wuhan (I can see the adds now, have you our anyone you know been exposed to Corona/Wuhan by a business that did not require a mask). But if the state says you cannot mandate a mask then your liability is secure. This is also a reaction to Methodist firing those who refused to get vaccinated and would not make up a religious excuse (because as you know being a Christian Scientist shields you from the virus). The whole “Immune compromised” shtick is a weak excuse. There were compromised people before Corona/Wuhan, you could spot them because they wore real masks not these paper things but plastic ones with big round filters on them. Not to mention even with this law all they have to do is put up a sign asking people to wear a mask before entering because of their medical situation. I have yet to meet an anti-mandate person who is such a dick that they would not comply. It is the mandater’s that are the ones pushing their agenda on others.

  14. If the schools are private institutions and are not taxpayer-funded, then this article’s position is the proper libertarian one.

    But “public” institutions are supposed to be bound by nondiscrimination rules.

    1. This guy gets it.

  15. “It’s not “freedom” to tell business owners they have to let unvaccinated people onto their premises.”

    It’s not “libertarian” for business owners to monitor their customers private lives either.
    Imagine if Masterpiece Cakeshop didn’t just refuse to bake gay themed cakes, but wouldn’t let anyone who’d taken a dick up their ass to shop there at all.

    Reason has this stupid fucking idea that libertarianism isn’t a social philosophy that we should encourage everyone to follow, but a set of restrictions on the American government.

    1. It’s both. But the answer to everyone not buying into libertarianism isn’t government forcing them to. Part of respecting freedom is understanding that it applies even in cases where you don’t like the outcome of an individual’s free decision.

      If people aren’t violating your rights then government has no legitimate role inserting itself in the situation. By the way, you don’t have a right to shop at any business that doesn’t want you there no matter how stupid the reason… be it bigotry or vaccine status.

      1. Conservatives aren’t libertarians, though, and believe people only stay out of other people’s business if incentivized to do so.

        In other words, the central role of government should be protecting our rights from those who would trample them, including our neighbors.

        In which case, this law is perfectly in keeping with conservative ideals. The libertarian principle that should weigh on any conservative is just how far should this law go and at what point are we trampling on others’ rights? But for a conservative, that argument only goes so far.

  16. It’s not “freedom” to tell business owners they have to let unvaccinated people onto their premises.

    Its not freedom to tell them they can’t.

    But, you guys don’t seem to care much about it when its in that form.

    And, frankly, its a dead letter anyway. If you’d had more support for freedom of association and fought harder against the creation of protected classes and the idea of ‘public accommodation’ . . . well, we wouldn’t be in this position.

    But ‘public accommodation’ is the law of the land and we don’t allow discrimination in places that serve the public.

    1. What about the very rural, isolated hotel that refuses blacks to stay there, or the restaurant that refuses service?

      There is a role for public accommodation. Drawing the boundary is tough.

      1. Pack a tent.

  17. Why is this different from the laws banning discrimination against those with AIDS?

    Yes, we now know that the transmissibility of AIDS is quite low unless you’re either sleeping with or sharing needles with someone – or a healthcare worker or first responder exposed to their blood and other bodily fluids. We also now know that the transmissibility of COVID to someone who has been vaccinated is quite low (and remains low even if you’re sleeping or sharing bodily fluids with the infected person). There is a difference in degree but not an especially big one. So why is AIDS discrimination bad but COVID discrimination good?

    1. Because, lacking a vaccinated population large enough to achieve herd immunity, there is a non-negligible chance a vaccine-resistant variant will arise among people who decline to be vaccinated. That variant would spread to vaccinated people, through no fault of their own, but because of the neglect of the commons of public health among those who refuse to be vaccinated.

      1. Sorry, no. That’s not how vaccine-resistant variants develop.

        Or more precisely, variants develop in the reservoir which does include non-immune humans but more importantly includes a very large body of other species (sometimes mammal but other cases avian, etc).

        Within that reservoir, variants develop only when there is an evolutionary pressure toward it. Remember that the ability to defeat an organism’s defense mechanisms generally requires additional resources. As long as there is a large population of susceptible targets, resistant strains are less likely to develop.

        1. variants develop only when there is an evolutionary pressure toward it.

          Random mutation not a thing?

          variants thrive only when there is an evolutionary pressure toward it.

          1. Well said.

  18. that squeamish business owner, be,iveing she is at high risk, has protective optioins she can employ. Once I’ve been forced to get stabbed, I have nO optioins to prevent or avoid the far too common serious side effects, including death.

    IF the vaccine works, let HER take it and that will protect her, right? If it does NOT work to prevent getting or spreading the disease, they WHO does she tthink SHE is to demand I take the risk of death, sterility, blood clots, heart issues, parkinsons…
    can
    t have it both ways. IF it works SHE can take it and let me come in as SHE will be protected. If it does NOT work, neither she nor I will be “protected” so WHY force me to take that risky thing?

    You people are talking out of both sides of your mouths. “Almost” as if you were a crewofgovernment dweebs.

    1. Your logic doesn’t follow.

      If she is wearing shoes, why should she care if her customers (who are just there for a temporary time) are wearing shoes?

  19. If people in Ohio don’t want to get vaccinated, then they should start their own schools and businesses that don’t require vaccines.

    Reason should stick to writing about Juneteenth and Flaming Hot Cheetos

  20. So, what kind of business does this “immunocompromised” woman have? A candle store? Maybe she sells essential oils?
    Well, no matter. I won’t be buying anything from her; because I won’t wear a mask, because I won’t accept a vaccination, and for any number of other reasons she has lost my business… forever.

    1. This is an appropriate response. Claiming victimhood and some “right” to force yourself into a store against the owner’s will is not the answer.

      Don’t like a business’s decisions? Don’t do business with them. Using the force of government to force them to make your preferred decision is authoritarianism.

  21. I’m curious of the details of this. Are private hospitals allowed to require vaccination of employees but government hospitals not? I’ve worked in hospitals for years, and am required to present vaccination records (had to do the entire Hep B series twice) and have been for many years. Nobody would question requiring vaccination around very ill and potentially immunocompromised patients as a job requirement. If you don’t like it, don’t work there.

    1. The requirements should be job specific. The accounting department might not need to be required to be vaccinated if they are not in contact with patients, for example.

      1. Certain jobs and activities do require vaccinations, yes. One of my friends works with horses a lot, and she is vaccinated for rabies.

        The problem is people are trying to leverage private vaccine requirements to coerce strangers into undergoing experimental pharmaceutical procedures, which, regardless of libertarianism or lack thereof, and also regardless of intent, is extremely unethical.

  22. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. WERTU This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  23. Bringing traffic to the site https://mediaonemarketing.com.sg/the-ultimate-gov-and-edu-link-building-guide/ is only half the battle. It needs to be converted into applications, and applications – into a contract. Only large companies will be able to process Customers in real time in 2021 and beyond. Small businesses will feel a lack of resources to communicate with a potential customer in real time.

  24. After having to endure over a year of politicians dictating health decisions and killing businesses, I have zero problem with it. You beltway libertarians can shove it.

    1. It’s the same social media defense with these goons.

    2. They’re not real libertarians if they only speak against one party’s tyranny.

  25. ‘It’s not “freedom” to tell business owners they have to let mentally ill people who don’t undergo electric shock therapy onto their premises.’

  26. There are two things I find hilarious about this article. The first thing is that the author has the audacity to claim they are libertarian and clearly does not support human rights. You are not a libertarian. You are a cold hard liberal plain and simple no doubt about it. Don’t ever claim to be a libertarian. You’re not. The second thing i find hilarious is this fake attempt of an argument. You might as well just come out and admit now that you are a racist I mean if we can discriminate against the unvaccinated and segregate them from society and most anti-vaxxers are in fact African American cause they’ve been smart enough not to trust this bioterror weapon then yeah…..maybe you would then have a case to go ahead and come out of the racist closet and proclaim that your store has the right to refuse anyone in the name of your fake idea of freedom and you can finally slap that whites only sign on your store. I see you. You liberals are getting more evil by the day. You all need to repent.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.