Cruise Line Suing Florida Over Vaccine Passport Ban

|

You can read the Complaint in Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Inc. v. Rivkees, filed yesterday. An excerpt:

3. Now, after months of Herculean efforts, NCLH is at last set to resume sailing August 15, 2021, in a way that will be safe, sound, and consistent with governing law, particularly the Conditional Sailing Order administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Yet one anomalous, misguided intrusion threatens to spoil NCLH's careful planning and force it to cancel or hobble upcoming cruises, thereby imperiling and impairing passengers' experiences and inflicting irreparable harm of vast dimensions.

4. While NCLH would require documentation confirming that its passengers have been vaccinated (per the consensus of experts, the desires of passengers, and NCLH's commitments to CDC), the State of Florida has recently enacted a law—Florida Statute § 381.00316—that expressly prohibits NCLH from requiring such documentation as a matter of Florida law. The upshot places NCLH in an impossible dilemma as it prepares to set sail from Florida: NCLH will find itself either on the wrong side of health and safety and the operative federal legal framework, or else on the wrong side of Florida law.

5. Because neither prospect is acceptable, NCLH must respectfully turn to this Court seeking essential relief. Only with the benefit of prompt judicial relief suspending Florida's prohibition can NCLH's passenger cruises proceed as currently planned starting August 15. For the reasons set forth in accompanying submissions, this Court has overwhelming justification to grant preliminary and permanent injunctions suspending Florida's prohibition as applied to NCLH.

6. As set forth herein, Florida's categorical prohibition against requiring  ocumentation of vaccinations from customers, as applied to NCLH, violates federal law in multiple, independent respects: Florida's prohibition (1) conflicts with federal statutes and regulations and is therefore preempted under 42 U.S.C. § 264 and CDC's regulations thereunder; (2) blocks communications between a business and its customers, in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as applicable to the State of Florida under the Fourteenth Amendment); (3) profoundly disrupts the proper flow of interstate and international commerce without advancing any substantial state interest, in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause; and (4) inexplicably precludes this business from protecting the health and safety of its employees and customers against the extraordinary backdrop of a deadly pandemic, in violation of substantive due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'm slammed now and don't have much to say about this, but I thought our readers would be interested in seeing the Complaint.

NEXT: Social Media Platforms' Recommendation and Conversation Functions

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. Test the passengers. Result in 15 minutes. If negative for COVID, leave them alone. Do not impose an unapproved treatment on them.

    1. Impose? Is anyone being forced to take a cruise?

      1. Cool!

        So, I can demand that no one can come into my store if they’ve had an abortion, right?

        Because no one HAS to go into my store.

        It is none of the cruise line’s business whether or not you’ve had the vaccine.

        1: If you’ve been vaccinated, you face no real risk of getting Covid yourself
        2: If you haven’t been vaccinated, you get no complaint if you catch it

        It’s private health information, and it’s none of the cruise line’s business

    2. So “no shoes no shirt no service” is okay but “mask required” or “vaccination required” is an imposition?

      They can always vote with their feet and find a cruise line that is happy to have Norwalk’s newest cousin, COVID, join the cruise!

      1. An imposition? It’s TYRANNY dude!

      2. My wearing of shoes / shirt is not private health information.

        And requiring me to wear a shirt to come into your store can not give me heart inflammation.

        Neither of those is true about the Covid vaccine.

        Got anything other stupid comparisons you wish to try?

      3. I view it more as the right of Massachusetts to say that companies doing business in Massachusetts had to recognize a Massachusetts gay marriage when in Massachusetts — even if they didn’t have to in other states.

        There are a whole lot of states with ocean ports — they don’t have to berth in Florida….

    3. I don’t think you can reasonably call a thing “unapproved” or “experimental” when it has already been given, legally, to more than a hundred million Americans.

      1. It is an experimental vaccine that’s received an emergency FDA waiver.

        Stop parading your own ignorance

  2. So I am to understand you’d have no issue if the vaccine were approved through normal channels?

    1. The lack of approval makes the vaccine still experimental legally. I support vaccinations, but not forced vaccinations.

      1. Careful, if you point out the COVID vaccines are unapproved and experimental, some people will blow a gasket.

        1. They are “approved”, just “emergency approved”, no?

          (Experimental? Yeah, means nothing here, though.

          True, in that AFAIK they’re the first mRNA vaccines.

          But irrelevant. “Legally experimental” is a legal statement, not a moral, ethical, or scientific one.)

          I don’t want governments mandating vaccines on libertarian grounds (and even that’s no absolute; I’d support mandatory smallpox vaccination if we hadn’t already eradicated it).

          But equally a cruise line wants to mandate it for customers? Their call.

          1. “I don’t want governments mandating vaccines on libertarian grounds (and even that’s no absolute; I’d support mandatory smallpox vaccination if we hadn’t already eradicated it).”

            With so many people arguing vaccines should never be mandated and its tyranny to ever do so, I rarely get to engage with ‘there’s a point at which mandatory vaccines are appropriate, this isn’t it.’ It’s funny, because as much time as I spend pointing out we’ve had mandatory vaccinations in this country before and we hardly fell into tyranny or anything like that, I actually agree with your position. COVID presents a lot of risk, a lot of things are (or were) justified, but we aren’t really even near the point where I’d be comfortable with state governments (to not even speak of the feds) actually mandating vaccination.

            1. This mirrors my thinking exactly.

            2. I’d agree. I’m generally quite pro-vaccine, and had actually planned on getting the Covid vaccine, only to contract Covid before I had the chance.

              Sanely, that altered my assessment of the risk/benefit ratio, since the odds of actually contracting Covid a second time are slim, and of actually contracting a bad case of it that second time vanishingly small. While having had Covid previously naturally would boost the chances of severe side effects from the vaccine. It just isn’t worth it now.

              Still, I’d never think to mandate this vaccine even for those who’ve not yet had Covid. Maybe for restricted categories of health providers, but that’s about it.

              The death rate outside of very high risk categories is just not high enough to genuinely constitute a public health emergency. Even at the peak of this pandemic it wasn’t that bad. And it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad as it was, if certain states hadn’t basically set out to, stating it baldly, kill off their senior citizens. Really, I can’t honestly characterize ordering nursing homes to admit carriers any other way.

              Half the deaths were people over 75, who are only 7% of the population. A third of the deaths were people over 85, who are only 2% of the population. This disease was the grim reaper if you were elderly, and living in a senior home in a state with Governor named Cuomo or Whitmer.

              If not? If you were school age, it was the common cold. Seriously, the influenza hits them much harder, and do we make the flu vaccine mandatory for teens? You have to be at least in your 30’s before Covid became comparable to the flu.

              If they’d talked about mandating the vaccine for seniors, and employees of senior living facilities, there might be some vague sense to it. For everybody else it’s an insane over-reach.

              1. If you look at the top ten states of COVID deaths per capita it’s true the first four are ‘blue’ but there’s plenty of ‘red’ states in there.

                1. California has a lot of deep red counties. Listing it as a “blue” state without recognizing it has more registered republicans than several deeply red state’s entire populations is a bit misleading. COVID outbreaks in California tend to be higher per capita in the redder areas due to the Republican politicization of the disease.

                  1. Shawn,
                    Are you speaking of the deep red counties of Los Angeles, Alameda, San Jose?

          2. The are not “approved”. They are “authorized.” Big difference.

      2. It’s not a forced vaccination. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and requiring you to take a cruise, and there are plenty of other things you can do on vacation. Whatever happened to Republicans opposing government regulations for businesses?

        1. What ever happened to Libs opposing descrimination by huge corporations? Requiring documentation dis-proportionally affects the poor and people of color. And when did you decide big pharma were the good guys?

          1. Libs oppose discrimination based on things that fundamentally form a person’s identity, like race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. Not getting a vaccine is not exactly the same thing. Especially when not getting a vaccine puts others at risk.

            1. You and others in your camp have argued loud and long for a ‘disparate impact’ test of discrimination in other settings. Suddenly it’s “not the same thing” when it’s a program you support.

              Personally, I think ‘disparate impact’ is a test with more social negative consequences than positives. But if you’re going to support it, don’t be a hypocrite.

              1. Disparate impact on what? Disparate impact tells us whether a specific group suffers disproportionate results, not which specific groups should be protected from discrimination.

                1. “Disparate impact on what?”

                  African Americans.

                  In virtually every state, African Americans have significantly lower rates of vaccination, compared to Caucasian Americans.

                  Laws that “mandate” people be vaccinated before being able to participate in many events would effectively have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, and be “racist” as some would consider them.

                  1. But they can choose to get vaccinated. So it’s not discriminatory based on an inherent trait like race or sex.

                    1. Doesn’t matter.
                      It is the disparate impact that counts.

                    2. Doesn’t matter. It’s the impact that counts.

                      It’s the same argument used for “racist” voter ID laws. African Americans can choose to get voter IDs.

              2. I think the arguments for disparate impact have been applied to education, employment and voting, but not to public accommodations.

                1. I don’t think there’s been a “qualification” like this to access a public accommodation. Requiring a “vaccine” card for entrance.

            2. A homosexual man’s attraction to other men is part of his identity. His acting on it and buggering other men in the rear end is a choice, much like getting a vaccine.

              1. For someone who claims to be straight, you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing about gay sex.

                1. Krykry, by their sexual selfishness the gays killed 20 million people.

                  1. Right, and Jews poison wells, nuns wear habits to hide their horns, and no white woman is safe around a black man (and they have such big ones, too). If you’re going to traffic in vile group slanders, do a good job of it.

                    1. The gays criminalized case reporting and contact tracing. A doctor could go to prison for asking a question. They opposed the quarantine of the early cases that would have save millions of people.

                    2. You will enjoy this one. The most powerful ally at blocking the quarantine of the AIDS gays? None other than that notorious quack, the Ivy indoctrinated Dr. Fauci. He blocked the lockdown of the infected gay with 2000 sex partners. He supported the lockdown of the non-infected in COVID. He supported travel by young, infected but asymptomatic workers to givd intimate care to nursing home patients. They wiped them up and wiped them out. We are stuck in an Ivy indoctrinated TwightZone of utter incompetence.

                  2. Gay men think it’s perfectly normal to have orgies with hundreds of men.

                    1. So organise a few straight orgies if you’re jealous.

                    2. Right, and Jews drink the blood of Christian babies.

                      Aktenberg, assume your claim is true. The point still stands that your utter obsession with gay sex marks you as someone not entirely straight. Straight men do not think about gay sex. They just don’t.

                      You’ve already told us you’re a self-hating Jew, so that you could also be a self-hating homosexual isn’t unbelievable.

                    3. Leaving aside your snide remark, I’m not a Jew

                    4. But as I recall, you were born Jewish?

                    5. This is a troll/novelty account, right?

                      Right?

            3. “Libs oppose discrimination based on things that fundamentally form a person’s identity, like race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.”

              No, not really. At this point, ‘libs’ oppose disparate outcomes correlated with things that fundamentally form a person’s identity. If eliminating the disparate outcomes actively requires discrimination, they demand discrimination.

              1. The Dems are now making all the stale talking points of the Chinese Commie Party from the Sixties. All diversity is treason.

              2. Libs are politically realistic enough to understand that results trump formalism every time. But the goal is to eradicate discrimination, your continued nonsense about libs being the true racists notwithstanding.

                1. Eradicating discrimination by practicing it, how obvious!

                  1. You’re looking at formalism versus results, and it’s a silly formalism. It’s like arguing that the death penalty is murder, that incarcerating criminals is kidnapping, and that a firefighter breaking a window to save someone from a burning building is breaking and entering.

                    Well, technically, the firefighter is breaking and entering, but if you try making that argument, everyone else will point and laugh. Just as they do when you claim that my side practices discrimination.

                    1. They used to claim that the discrimination itself was the wrong. That’s a really hard position to maintain when you’re practicing the discrimination itself.

                      Look, is racial discrimination a moral wrong, or isn’t it? And if you’re going to say it is, what’s your justification? That you’re fighting worse discrimination, fire with fire?

                      Well, I don’t think that works in this case, but maybe you need to actually PROVE your worse discrimination, rather than just assuming that any disparate outcome must be a result of discrimination. Which is just mindlessly circular.

                    2. Is breaking and entering a moral wrong or not? If so, the firefighter should be arrested and prosecuted. Sorry, but your reality-ignoring formalism is just laughable. The only response it deserves is pointing and laughing.

                    3. As I’ve mentioned before the United Negro College Fund certainly ‘discriminates’ in it’s bestowing of college funds, it did so when it was formed many decades ago and does so now. It’s a crazy view that thinks that is the same thing as Jim Crow, the KKK, etc.,. Intent and context *usually* matter in moral things.

                    4. Not exactly analogous. Discriminating on college admissions harms the nonfavoured groups whereas breaking a window to save someone doesn’t (on the contrary). I actually don’t have anything against putting the thumb on the scale to help individuals, whatever their race, that had fewer opportunities due to poorer, less educated parents, that grew up in problematic neighborhoods and so on, but making a decision based on their belonging to some arbitrary group is indefensible.

            4. So what’s the theory here–all the poor people trying to take cruises won’t be able to because they aren’t vaccinated? (Hint: that’s not why poor people aren’t taking cruises.)

          2. Companies discriminate all the time. “No shirt, no shoes, no service,” etc.

            Don’t have enough money to buy a Tesla? They won’t let you have one.

            The issue is the basis for the discrimination.

          3. “Requiring documentation dis-proportionally affects the poor and people of color.”
            I mean if they can’t get ID to vote, how are they supposed to get COVID documentation? Makes me wonder how so many got their Medical Marihuana cards though?

            1. “wonder how so many got their Medical Marihuana cards”

              That’s the stuff.

        2. “Whatever happened to Republicans opposing government regulations for businesses?”

          They never believed in that, really. Like ‘free speech,’ ‘state’s rights,’ or ‘subsidiary,’ or whatever the modern Right is simply an impulse to defend certain status/privileges from change and they are fine with taking any political idea out of the tool box to use only as a brief cudgel.

          1. Same with abortion. They didn’t use to oppose it. I wonder if Trump ever pressured a woman to get one. We’ll probably never know.

          2. Major reason for developing an abhorrence for the D party and my vote for Trump was the D abuse of Constitutional rights of students, neighbors, and men to face their accusers. You could frown at a snowflake twice and that was “stalking.” Men no longer had their presumptions of innocence, their rights to counsel and cross-examination, or could expect to be treated fairly at the courthouse or before Lhamon’s star chambers. Thanks to charlatans like Obama and Joe Biden, Catherine Lhamon, and evil political hack judges, 1A and the Bill of Rights got punked and then shredded. Biden and Lhamon are punking them again.

            1. This all Red Guard shit, and treason to destroy our country. It is propelled by the tech billionaire owners of the Dem Party and of the media. They kowtow to gain markets in China, and to enrich themselves at our expense. Seize their assets. They are all traitors.

              1. The ravings of a fascist fool.

                1. Says a denier of the chromosomal genomic expression of every human cell of its body.

            2. Shamie, all of that has so much to do with what we’re talking about here.

              This time it’s the R’s that are shitting on the right of a company to run their business as they see fit.

              Prolly ought to dump them too, huh?

            3. Major reason for developing an abhorrence for the D party and my vote for Trump was the D abuse of Constitutional rights of students, neighbors, and men to face their accusers.

              The Democratic position on Title IX is despicable, yes. But voting for Trump because one was concerned about due process and civil liberties is like moving to Arizona because the weather in Minnesota is too warm for you.

        3. We’ll agree to not force cruise lines to operate in this way when you agree not to make bakeries serve men whose idea of “marital love” is erupting in another man’s anus.

          1. Wow, two obsessions about gay sex in one thread.

            1. Krykry. Fallacy of ignoratio elenchi . Learn more about it.

              1. I understand I used a Latin phrase. However, my comment is not a legal utterance. It is a critical thinking utterance. The two are unrelated and have no overlap whatsoever.

                1. Daivd, I would not use “thinking” to describe anything posted by you.

                  1. Meh, crazy thoughts are thoughts to, I guess.

          2. Who’s going to tell Aktenturd that hetero’s have anal sex (almost half of hetero men)?

            1. I’m guessing he already knows.

              I remember reading somewhere that the difference between gay sex and straight sex is that gay people do one thing less, in that they don’t have penis-vagina intercourse. But other than that, everything gay people do, straight people do too.

              1. Maybe his problem is no woman will give him anal and so he’s crazy jealous of gay men who get it?

          3. Masterpiece Cake Shop did not refuse to serve gay men. The gay couple whose request for a custom cake was refused were longtime customers.

            Masterpiece Cake Shop refused to participate in the gay wedding celebration itself by refusing to make a custom cake for that occasion, although they expressed willingness to sell them other non-custom goods or custom goods not related to the wedding.

            -dk

            1. But they refused to serve gay men on the same terms as a straight couple. They’ll do a cake for a straight couple having a wedding; they just won’t do one for a gay couple having a wedding.

              1. The outcome of that case was wrong from a classical liberal perspective. But so is Florida by the same measure.

                Creating protected classes seems like an almost purposeful recipe for societal strife and conflict. On the other side, conservatives are quick to drop their supposed support of free association, free markets, and free ideas when it affects them personally.

      3. The mRNA COVID vaccines have applied for FDA approval. When they receive it (and they absolutely will), are you going to agree that private businesses can set their own rules of association or will you find another reason why it’s wrong to require vaccinations for things like week-long cruises?

        1. You far understate how stupid the Florida law is. It doesn’t forbid the cruise lines from requiring vaccinations. It only forbids the cruise lines from asking people to prove that they were vaccinated!

          This is the rare statute that flunks the rational basis test.

    2. Since there’s not the slightest scientific reason to require covid vaccination passports on a cruise liners, no, there’s nothing that would cause me to approve of their demand.

      Will people on teh cruise be going into ports for shore excursions? Is the cruise line going to demand a vaccine passport from every single local the passengers encounter?

      No?

    3. This is the ability of the State of Florida to regulate business conducted IN Florida.

      Heck, berth in Mississippi if you don’t like Florida.

  3. The Florida policy is abhorrent, but the argument it violates the First Amendment seems silly. Assuming speech is implicated at all (i.e., the sharing of proof of vaccination is speech), no voluntary communication is blocked (passengers who wish to share their vaccination information may do so). What is blocked is a compulsion to communicate. The substantive due process argument is also ridiculously well beyond anything supported by precedent.

    1. I think the best argument is the preemption argument here. If a ship has a legal right to dock in the United States and take on international travelers, the state of Florida can’t impose restrictions that prevent it from doing so.

      1. But, in fact, the state of Florida isn’t stopping them from taking on any passengers, at all. The federal government is requiring the cruise line to violate state law as a condition of taking on passengers.

        It’s the federal government causing the harm here, not the state.

        1. How so? They’re saying they WANT to do it as it will be more beneficial for their business (ie. people don’t want to be on a petri dish of crap floating around more than they have to, let alone with anyone unvaxxed against a disease that has killed 600k + already.)

          The federal govt has nothing to do with this shambolic law that restricts the business from running it how they see fit.

          1. Property rights and free association were misguided Reagan-isms, haven’t you heard? Conservatives now need daddy government to step in and protect them from people not wanting to associate with them, including in the dating scene!

            https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/07/12/political-discrimination-as-civil-rights-struggle/

            “Apart from the military and police, which have little cultural influence, the only important elite institution that conservatives have a chance of controlling is elected government. As J. D. Vance, Michael Lind, and Richard Hanania suggest, conservatives will have to overcome their squeamishness about government to have any chance of holding back the woke domination of American institutions. To counteract the rising threat that progressive authoritarianism poses to freedom of expression and conscience, conservative policy-makers will need to lose their 1980s libertarian blinders and embrace government-led, civil-liberties-focused intervention in the elite institutions of society. If conservatives persist with utopian fantasies about creating a new ecosystem of universities, schools, corporate cultures, and technological platforms while believing that cuts to university budgets will win the culture war, they will only hasten the rise of progressive authoritarianism.”

          2. Likewise, a few decades ago, they may have WANTED to ban gays from their ships — but if they took on passengers in Massachusetts, they weren’t allowed to.

            State police power…

        2. That’s silly. First of all, in terms of harm, the harm of an unvaccinated passenger killing an old person on the cruise ship is the central harm at issue.

          Second, the state enacted a law that attempts to regulate the business practices of an international cruise line, and is indeed, trying to stop them from taking on passengers if they do not do what the state government says and endanger everyone.

          1. “Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings”, what an odd name for an old person to have. I’d actually thought it was being brought by a cruise line, silly me.

            “and endanger everyone.”

            Exaggerate much? I, for instance, have not been vaccinated. If I boarded that ship, how would I endanger everyone? Remember, everyone includes people who’ve been vaccinated, are you claiming the vaccine doesn’t work? It also includes people (like me!) who’ve had covid; Are you claiming that having had covid already confers no immunity, that having had covid doesn’t make you approximately as unlikely to transmit it as having been vaccinated?

            In reality, only a subset of potential passenger would be endangering anybody at all, those who have neither been vaccinated nor been previously exposed and developed immunity. This is also, not at all coincidentally, the same group who’d be endangered… For a value of ‘endangered’ which is fairly low now, and rapidly declining.

            Also not at all coincidentally, that’s the same group who’ve already had the opportunity to be vaccinated, and have voluntarily assumed the risk of not doing it.

            1. Brett, you haven’t been vaccinated because you are sociopathic.

              Seriously, this is the problem. Every American has an obligation to get this vaccine and people like you don’t want to do it for completely awful reasons having to do with right wing politics, lack of respect for science, and lack of belief that you have any obligations to your fellow human beings.

              And the fact that you are trying to leverage your stupidity and failure to care about your fellow human being in GETTING COVID IN THE FIRST PLACE into a privilege not to get vaccinated makes the whole thing even worse.

              If the federal government wants to protect anti-vaxxers, Congress can surely pass a law to do it. But a state has no business in interfering in the operations of an international cruise line to do something that could endanger the public, just because anti-vaxxers might get their feelings hurt.

              Get the damned shots, Brett.

              1. “Every American has an obligation to get this vaccine”

                No they don’t.

                1. Yes, they really do. Or at least those that qualify for it and don’t have a legitimate health reason to avoid it. (Being a registered Republican isn’t a health reason to avoid a vaccine.)

                  The obligation comes with the known and foreseeable result of having a sizeable number of unvaccinated Americans constantly passing the disease back and forth while coming into contact with vaccinated Americans. Keeping a deadly disease alive and mutating pretty much guarantees it finds a way to overcome the current set of vaccinations. Essentially, unvaccinated people are doing the same sort of thing a research lab might do to mutate a virus into a more lethal state.

              2. No, I haven’t been vaccinated because I’ve already had Covid, and I’m not an idiot who denies the existence of natural immunity. Getting the vaccine is redundant once you’ve had Covid, and carries an elevated risk of side effects.

                Even the CDC understands that natural immunity is a real thing, except of course for Covid, which is magically different.

                Seriously, screw you and the horse you rode in on. Refusing to obey your orders isn’t the definition of sociopathy. That’s more likely in the people who issue orders, and irrationally think they’re entitled to have people obey.

              3. “Every American has an obligation to get this vaccine…” Talk about arrogance. Does the vaccine work? If so, then anyone who wants to can be protected from the disease can be. If it doesn’t work who are you to force someone to assess their risks based upon your feelings?

                I got the vaccine because it was right for me. Not because some arrogant asshole said I owed it to them.

                1. The vaccine works great. But like every other vaccine in history, it isn’t 100 percent effective.

                  In any event, it’s not like anti-vaxxers are a bunch of brilliant scientists going around weighing the costs and benefits. The Americans who think that way all got their shots long ago. They’re just being douchebags to their fellow human being for trivial reasons.

                2. Does the vaccine work? If so, then anyone who wants to can be protected from the disease can be.

                  Except for those who for one reason or another can’t get vaccinated. People under 12. Immunocompromised people.

              4. “And the fact that you are trying to leverage your stupidity and failure to care about your fellow human being in GETTING COVID IN THE FIRST PLACE into a privilege not to get vaccinated makes the whole thing even worse.”

                Dilan,
                I have had many arguments about vaccination with Brett. But your comment is one of the most stupid, most mean-spirited ones I have read here. Many people got COVID1-9 before vaccines were available. Moreover, While COVID recovered persons may be slightly more susceptible to infection that doubly vaccinated persons, they are more protected than those receiving the least efficacious vaccines.
                There just precious little hard data on the long term immune response of COVID recovered versus vaccinated individuals. There is also lack of reliable information on long term effects of vaccines. Both my son and I have developed persistent medical conditions of at least medium severity immediately following vaccination, yet our health care provider refuses to report these as vaccination side effects.
                As for telling Brett what to do, mind your own damned business

      2. The federal statute in question seems limited in this regard:

        (e) Preemption
        Nothing in this section or section 266 of this title, or the regulations promulgated under such sections, may be construed as superseding any provision under State law (including regulations and including provisions established by political subdivisions of States), except to the extent that such a provision conflicts with an exercise of Federal authority under this section or section 266 of this title.

    2. Freedom of association is being infringed, no?

      You’re infringing on the right to associate with who you want- ie. the cruise line wants to associate with only vaccinated travelers. A law is being passed, which again- no sane conservative/libertarian is arguing in favor of, that restricts their right to associate with whom they want.

      1. The courts have held that only intimate and expressive associations are protected by the Constitution. If instead you are right, then anti-discrimination laws would similarly unconstitutionally infringe on freedom of association (but, they don’t).

        1. Not just “similar.” This is an anti-discrimination law. It may be a bad one as a policy matter. But it’s an anti-discrimination law all the same.

          1. Nope. This law only forbids the cruise line for asking for proof of vaccination.

            1. I don’t think that is right, DMN.

              The law says a business (my emphasis) “may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.”

              1. Yes, but you boldfaced the wrong part:

                “may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.”

                It does not say, “may not require patrons or customers to be vaccinated to gain access/entry/service.”

              2. IN THIS STATE — don’t like that, dock elsewhere…

      2. Every discrimination law conflicts with freedom of association. Hanah Arendt famously argued against the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s on exactly those grounds. So did Barry Goldwater.

        But it’s been some time since most libertarians stopped making those sorts of arguments.

    3. Really?

      “Protecting individual freedom and liberty” is “abhorrent”?

      You are one sick puppy

      1. Um, this doesn’t protect any individual freedom or liberty. It restricts individual freedom. It tells a cruise line that it can’t ask for proof of vaccination status.

        And it’s abhorrent because the only thing it does is help spread a deadly illness. There’s no rationale for it.

        1. 1: It protects the freedom of people to go on cruises without being forced to give up their personal health information

          2: Forcing people to only eat a vitamin enhanced gruel would save a lot of lives by ending obesity. Obesity kills a lot more people than Covid (esp. since it’s a significant risk factor WRT Covid). By your argument we should therefore do that.

          3: Vaccine passports will do almost nothing to block the “spread [of] a deadly illness”.
          A: People will be able to fake them
          B: Having had Covid is better protection that having been vaccinated
          C: If you’re vaccinated, your chance of catching Covid is vanishingly small. So forcing everyone around you on the ship to also be vaccinated achieves essentially nothing in the way of protections
          D: If you’re not vaccinated and never had it, then any risk you face of getting Covid is your issue / responsibility, not anyone else’s. A morality that made that “everyone else’s issue” would equally make your “overeating” “everyone else’s issue.” Speaking of abhorrent
          E: People going on Caribbean cruises are going to have lots of exposure to people off the ship, none of who are required to have a vaccine passport. So the requirement doesn’t actually get you anything

          Stop being such a fascist

          1. 1. There is no such “freedom,” any more than there’s a “freedom” for me to hold a séance in your living room when you don’t want me to. A cruise ship is a private business.

            And of course no sane person thinks vaccination is “personal health information” anyway. The only people trying to keep their vaccination status a secret are people who haven’t been vaccinated. Everyone else is happy for people to know.

            2. You are very bad at analogies. Covid is a communicable disease. Obesity is not. It’s the difference between drunk driving and seatbelts. One is a matter of public safety; one is a matter of personal safety.

            3.a. “You shouldn’t ask me to prove I’ve been vaccinated because I will forge medical records if you do” is certainly a take. But what kind of person would do that?
            b. You made this up, plus it’s not relevant since the Florida law also forbids asking for proof of having had the disease.
            c. You also made this up, plus (as has been said numerous times already) not everyone can get vaccinated.
            d. Again, not everyone can get vaccinated.
            e. A cruise ship is a confined space. If you go off the ship you can avoid those; if you’re on the ship you can’t.

            You’re confused as always. The state of Florida telling a private business that it may not operate as it sees fit is fascist. A private business telling people that they must satisfy its criteria if they want to use its services is the opposite of fascist. If I were saying “The government should force everyone to be vaccinated,” that could be (very) loosely described as fascist. But I am not saying that. If DeathCult Cruises wants to run a “Come aboard; we don’t care whether you’re carrying a deadly disease” line, let them. Let mentally challenged Trumpkins and anti-vax loons ride that to their hearts’ content. But if Norwegian wants to run a fully vaccinated cruise line, the government has no business telling them otherwise.

            Also, stop being such an asshole. There is no good reason not to get vaccinated if one can, and there is is literally no reason at all to refuse to prove that one is vaccinated if a private business asks you to as a condition of doing business with it.

  4. Anyone that wants the vaccine has already got it. End of story.

    1. Except for people who are too young.

      -dk

      1. As the data clearly shows, kids are for all practical purposes immune and should not be vaxd. Common cold is worse for them. Find a new cause, the nonsensical Covid scare is over.

        1. Kids get everything. They get 6 colds a year from the rhinovirus. All the effects of COVID can come from rhinovirus, all the long hauler effects, the strange brain, heart and other effects. They do not get COVID a weak cold virus, used as an excuse to take down our economy for the enrichment of the tech billionaires, in furtherance of Chinese Commie Party interests to destroy our nation. These traitors own the media and the Democrat Party. Their oligarchic grandfathers also funded the Commie party of the Soviet Union, and the Nazi Party of Germany.

          It is time to attack the real enemies of our nation, the self dealing oligarchic tech billionaires. It is fully justified legally to arrest, try and execute these traitors. However, a better remedy is to seize their assets. Let them start new companies.

        2. Not really KCar.
          The infection rate has again risen sharply. The case fatality rate has climbed fro a low of ~1% last summer to ~2% now. That does not exactly sound like “over.”

          1. “The infection rate has again risen sharply”

            Ooh, it’s gone from 1 in a person catching it to 1.5 people in a thousand catching it?

            “risen sharply” is what you say when the actual numbers are a joke

      2. Or those with compromised immune systems.

        Science-disdaining, anti-social, virus-flouting, backwater, disaffected clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        1. “Or those with compromised immune systems.”

          And how many of those take cruises, where they are packed into a floating city of 5,000 to 10,000 people?

          1. None apparently, since they can’t get on board without proof of vaccination

            Not sure what side Rev. thinks he’s on with this one lol

            1. The only side he’s ever on is “find a reason to whinge about The Wicked Other”.

              1. One of the knuckledraggers asserted ‘everyone who wants the vaccine already has it.’

                Someone demonstrated the falsity of that contention by observing ‘except children.’

                I added ‘and those with compromised immune systems.’

                Some of you clingers seem to be too dumb to understand, or too disaffected to acknowledge, this exchange.

                1. Sorry, I forgot you have the attention span of a goldfish and thought you were commenting on the issue at hand, IE that of whether businesses should be allowed to mandate vaccines

                  1. Businesses should be entitled to decline to transact with people who have not been vaccinated (or have a damned good reason to avoid vaccination, such as chemotherapy).

                  2. “None apparently, since they can’t get on board without proof of vaccination”

                    People with compromised immune systems, like people recovering from cancer, can get vaccine waivers that would grant them entry to the ship. As long as everyone who can be vaccinated is, they are protected. See: “herd immunity.” The same goes for people allergic to common ingredients in vaccines. They can all get into schools, for example, even when public schools require vaccination.

          2. One wonders why the 99% of people with normal immune systems should live artificially poor, severely restricted lives so the 1% with compromised immune systems don’t have to.

            1. artificially poor, severely restricted

              By being vaccinated? WTF are you talking about?

              This RW anti-vax madness is mind-boggling.

              1. It’s not about vaccinations. If people like you had their way we’d all still be in lockdown, vaccinations or no vaccinations, just because some unknown thing might happen to someone.

                1. It’s so much easier to argue against what you imagine your opponent would be doing than what’s actually being talked about, especially when you yourself have little principles and can ‘every accusation is a confession’ all day long.

                2. You don’t know what I think about anything, so STFU.

                  1. You don’t know what I think about anything, so STFU

                    Nonsense. For example, we know you think you’re not a headline-regurgitating, caustic prick.

              2. “This RW anti-vax madness is mind-boggling.”

                Give it a rest, loser.

                Kamela Harris was saying before the election that she would be very hesitant to take “the Trump vaccine”. If it really mattered, I could find dozens of Democrats throwing shade on the vaccine before the election.

                “Don’t politicize the vaccine”? That ship sailed long before the election, with a crew of Democrats.

                There is no, zero, zip reason for a cruise ship to demand that passengers be vaccinated. They’re stopping in a port every day, where the passengers get off and interact with unvaccinated locals.

                This is about bullying people to bow to your stupidity, nothing more

                1. Kamela Harris was saying before the election that she would be very hesitant to take “the Trump vaccine”. If it really mattered, I could find dozens of Democrats throwing shade on the vaccine before the election.

                  No. You can’t. You can find examples of Democrats criticizing a hypothetical vaccine that Trump hypothetically rushed through the approval process. Not an actual vaccine, approved in the normal chain of events.

                  There is no, zero, zip reason for a cruise ship to demand that passengers be vaccinated. They’re stopping in a port every day, where the passengers get off and interact with unvaccinated locals.

                  Can Greg J be so stupid that he says “There’s no reason for doing X” and then in the next sentence explaining a reason for doing X? Yes, yes, he can.

                  1. Bzzt, wrong

                    The actual vaccines were ALL “rushed through the approval process”. That’s why they’re here now, not 4 years from now

                    https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/12/vaccine-manufacturing-q-and-a/

                    “Developing a new vaccine from scratch takes considerable time. It depends a lot on how much information is available about the disease itself, how the disease infects people and spreads, and so on. But it traditionally has taken 5-10 years to get a new vaccine”

                    Instead the Trump Admin gave us 3 in less than a year. Because they ran roughshod over all the normal rules.

                    “Can Greg J be so stupid that he says “There’s no reason for doing X” and then in the next sentence explaining a reason for doing X? Yes, yes, he can.”

                    So, I guess the question is, did I severely overestimate your intelligence, or are you just dishonest?

                    1: The claim for why everyone on the ship needs to be vaccinated is because “otherwise you can catch Covid from them”.

                    2: But on any Caribbean cruise, you’re going to be interacting with far more people than just the ones on your ship. Many of whom will not be vaccinated

                    3: Therefore, to the extent that a vaccinated person has to worry abotu running into unvaccinated people, it’s already going to happen

                    4: Which means that “the ship can’t safely go unless everyone on board is vaccinated” can’t possibly be true, unless no one on the ship is going to interact with anyone off the ship between the time the cruise starts, and the time the cruise ends.

                    Which is not how Caribbean cruises are done

                    Did I explain it well enough that, even with your massive level of dishonesty, you can no longer pretend not to understand?

                    1. No, they were not rushed through the approval process. You are quoting something about developing vaccines, not approving them. Usually it takes a long time to develop a vaccine. Pharma did an amazing job of developing them faster. But they still went through trials. They didn’t have a president say, “I need these approved before the election, so let’s skip testing.”

                      As for the rest of what you say, you seem not to grasp that risk isn’t binary. If everyone is vaccinated, then when they make port calls, there is a low risk of anyone getting sick. Which means an even lower risk of them transmitting the disease to others on the ship. And with everyone vaccinated, even if it is transmitted to someone else, the risk of it spreading beyond that person is low. If, on the other hand, numerous people aren’t vaccinated, then there’s a much greater risk of them picking up the virus on a port call, and a much greater risk of it spreading back on the ship.

          3. The immune compromised are vaccinated but not protected. They have low resulting immunoglobulin levels due to immunosuppression of the response to the vaccine.

        2. The vaccines are failing to increase the immunoglobulin levels of people on immunosuppressants. They are not protected from COVID by 2 vaccines. Perhaps a third shot may help, but that remains an unanswered question.

          1. People taking immunosuppresents know they are taking them. They should probably continue to take precautions which would include not going on cruises even if the cruise ship checks blocks those who do not prove they have been vaccinated.

            Having said that: I hope NCL wins it’s suit. I think private companies should be allowed to require vaccines. In this particular case, I think it’s more than prudent for them to do so. I’d even go so far as to suggest a cruise company should be allowed to require vaccines and rapid antigen tests on boarding if the two are nut mutually contraindicated. If rapid antigen tests won’t work, I would suggest they should do temperature checks on boarding.
            Having people become both contageous and seriously ill on a week-end long or longer cruise is not a good idea. As for law: At least with bars and restaurants or FL work places, people enter from FL, remain in FL and leave still in FL. These cruise ships generally have people embark and disembark in multiple locations some of which will be outside FL.

            1. “temperature checks on boarding”
              While it can work well for people who are currently symptomatic, not everyone who is contagious has elevated temperatures and not everyone who has elevated temperatures has COVID, or indeed any illness. You’d also have to figure out where a good level is. 100.4 F? I’ve been sick for days with an elevated temp but the highest has been 100.2. If you drop it to 99 natural variance in children can go over that. These things matter quite a bit when you’re talking about thousands of people and a very squeezed industry.

              1. Half the infected have no symptoms, especially if young.

              2. Sure. Temperature checks aren’t fool proof. They merely serve to reduce the number of people who are currently ill from boarding. I think requiring vaccination is the more effective plank.
                Likely someone with a fever over 101F should be boarding even when we don’t have a pandemic. I agree picking a level is difficult.

            2. Read the article. Cruise line doesn’t get to decide anything. They have to follow others’ rules. You’re pretending only Florida has rules.

              1. I agree the Cruise line isn’t allowed to decide whether to block people who took vaccines. (That’s different from not being allowed to decide “anything”. I’m pretty sure they are allowed to set prices or decide what food to serve!)

                The Cruise line is complaining they don’t get to decide whether to require vaccinations. I quoted the complaint they list under (4).
                I think they should be allowed to decide to require vaccination.

                1. I quoted on another thread!

                  (4) inexplicably precludes this business from protecting the health and safety of its employees and customers against the extraordinary backdrop of a deadly pandemic, in violation of substantive due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

    2. I know this may sound crazy, but disease outbreaks onboard ships can be a problem even if the susceptible passengers put themselves at risk. They still have to take care of the afflicted.

      1. Yes. And clearly NCL wants to be able to maintain safety and health. This relates to that:

        (4) inexplicably precludes this business from protecting the health and safety of its employees and customers against the extraordinary backdrop of a deadly pandemic, in violation of substantive due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

        Whether or not the CDC rule is legal, the FL rule prevents them– a private company– from taking steps they think are necessary to protect health and safety of employees and customers. (Not to mention their bottom line in providing the care.)

        1. Not to mention legal indemnity. If someone dies due to a shipboard infection, is the state of Florida going to protect the cruise line from the lawsuit? (It’s Florida so my guess is “bwahahahaha… no.”)

          1. Not to mention — if people had read the complaint — the business itself. Norwegian is an international cruise line. That means its ships travel from Florida to various foreign countries. And Norwegian says that it won’t be allowed to enter those countries if the Florida law applies.

    3. Which has zero to do with this matter.

    4. You are free to refuse the vaccine, and the cruise lines should be free to refuse to do business with you. End of story.

      1. I’m fine getting rid of all regulations on whom businesses let on their property, but that’s not the offer.

      2. Indeed. That is the true conservative position. While I generally think DeSantis is doing a good job, here he is simply wrong.

    5. Not so. We have a low-to-zero vax county where several influential adults came down with the virus. Now people in that are lining up for the jab.

      The tide against the vaccine is turning. Slowly some places but still turning.

      1. If it doesn’t turn fast enough, all the gerrymandering and minority voter restrictions on the planet won’t overcome the mass deaths of GOP voters.

      2. From your lips to God’s ears.
        Color me skeptical. As the famous quote goes, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” And now we all have to contend with the idiot wing of the liberal anti-vaxxers, and the idiot wing of the conservative “whatever-batshit-crazy-conspiracy-is-on-Fox-News” demographic.

        I really hope you are right and I’m dead-wrong. But, reading posts like the moronic (and formally principled-conservative) Brett B, I’m sadly confident that I am correct. Well, hopefully, Darwinism will prevail and it will be mostly the above idiots who die off, and will not be the rest of us.

  5. Just thinking outloud here, but why doesn’t federal maritime law or admiralty law preempt Florida law? This is an international port, and the ships sail to foreign countries.

    1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264

      The Federal quarantine power is extremely limited.

      The CDC has claimed very broad authority, which it probably does not have.

      The CDC probably could make you get a covid test to disembark a ship, but thats about it.

      1. Not a question of the federal quarantine power. Federal law, specifically admiralty and maritime law, generally governs sea voyages. When I first started working in law, one partner did a fair amount of admiralty work, and he pointed out that it was admiralty law, not state law, that governed things like contract, negligence and product liability claims.

        Can Florida impose price limits on cruise tickets? I rather doubt it.

        1. Disney cruise ships would not like that, so no, they cannot.

        2. You are quite correct. The preemption argument is super-strong here.

          1. I don’t know much about admiralty law, so I’ll take your word for it.

            Still, strange that this argument was not asserted here. One would think that a law firm representing cruise lines would have at least passing knowledge of admiralty law.

        3. CDC is not claiming authority under admiralty or maritime law, as far as I know.

          They are claiming authority under quarantine power.

          1. My point has nothing to do with the CDC or its implementing legislation. I gave the example of price controls on cruise tickets, which is not a CDC matter.

            1. See what “Life of Brian” said below.

              CDC is not claiming any of this authority, they are only point to one particular section of code related to the ability to quarantine a ship. In any case, Admiralty and Maritime law is not a blank check. Congress needs to specifically give some agency the authority to take action.

              Neither the Trump nor the Biden admin has claimed authority outside of the cited statute. I highly doubt its a rookie oversight.

        4. Not a question of the federal quarantine power. Federal law, specifically admiralty and maritime law, generally governs sea voyages.

          Yet 42 U.S.C. 264 is the only statute cited in the complaint — and that simply as a blank-check enabler for the CDC’s reams of guidance/orders the cruise industry posits as preempting the relevant Florida state law. As best I recall preemption requires a specific conflict between specific laws, and this is the only one on the table.

          (And setting that aside, Florida moved for and received a preliminary injunction against the CDC’s enforcement of the above framework as exceeding its power under Section 264, so even if it’s a proper preemption argument it doesn’t seem like it could be ripe unless/until the injunction is lifted.)

          1. I pointed that out in my comment. They seem to be missing the best argument. But I am no expert here.

            1. Nor I, but I’ve dabbled enough in territoriality issues that I suspect the interplay between state/maritime law is different when a vessel is within a state’s territorial waters, much less docked at a state port as would be the case here. And even if preemption were on the table, I’m fairly comfortable it would have to be based on a specific maritime law in conflict with the Florida law.

              In short, I doubt it was a rookie oversight. But it would be interesting to hear from someone who does maritime law for a living.

    2. See my argument below regarding a 1948 Supreme Court case, Bob-Lo Island Excursion Co. v.. Michigan, where the Supreme Court found that Michigan could apply its discrimination laws regarding passenger on a ferry to an amusement park on a Canadian island and these laws are not pre-empted by Federal law or the Commerce Clause. The case depended on the ferry trip and brief stay in Boblo Island, where the ferry was the only means of transportation.

      It is an at least plausible argument that a cruise to another country where passengers stay only briefly and return the way they came is at least arguably similar to a ferry trip to an amusement park in another country where passengers stay only briefly and return the way they came.

  6. Only #1 has real merit (42 U.S.C. § 264), and even that is debatable. The CDC has likely overstepped its authority.

    I say, let the games begin. The Supreme Court declined to hear the CDC case because the order in question ended July 31.

    Let some judges decide what authority the CDC really has.

    1. Also: https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/559248-cdc-cant-regulate-cruises-judge

      “Judge Steven Merryday for the Middle District of Florida in his ruling sided with the Sunshine State in its argument that the “CDC’s conditional sailing order and the implementing orders exceed the authority delegated to CDC.”

      1. Different issue. That case involved whether the CDC could impose mandates on cruise lines, not whether the state of Florida could.

        1. Yeah, but isn’t the argument in the brief that “you can’t do that because the Feds have this stronger order”?

          And if the Fed order is illegitimate because no-authorized-power, the conflict falls out, yes?

          1. The argument the federal government will make is that the complex rules relating to the cruise industry preempt the field.

            1. I have no doubt the Federal government will make a lot of arguments. So far, they are not winning any of them.

            2. The argument the federal government will make is that the complex rules relating to the cruise industry preempt the field.

              Which complex rules are presently enjoined, as others have pointed out several times now. There’s nothing in force to preempt the state law even if it could.

              1. That’s not how field preemption works. The federal government doesn’t have to have a law on this. They just have to have a bunch of laws generally on the regulation of who gets on and off cruise ships and where, which they do.

                1. Oh, so you’re talking about different federal laws than the one mentioned in the complaint, which somehow haven’t preempted state laws re cruise ships in the past and (I’m going to go out on a limb and say therefore) weren’t mentioned in the complaint. That’s an interesting theory.

                  1. They don’t have to mention any laws in their complaint. It’s a complaint.

                    Trust me, when you get into legal motions in this case, they will make a very strong field preemption argument.

                    1. They don’t have to mention any laws in their complaint. It’s a complaint.

                      I suppose you’re technically correct since the complaint doesn’t raise field preemption at all, but I can’t say I can recall ever seeing a complaint where the plaintiff was foolish enough to omit the legal authority that could provide a basis for granting the requested relief (and certainly not from the shop that filed this particular complaint).

                      Seriously, your theory is that they argued rarefied stuff like 1A and Dormant Commerce Clause, but inexplicably decided to table a supposedly much stronger theory until later in the case (assuming they survive 12(b)(6) and the judge doesn’t stay the case pending resolution of the underlying Florida/CDC suit, since that’s driving the only particularly meritorious basis they provided for relief)? Again, check the sig block and let me know if you truly believe that’s what happened here.

        2. my point is that Norweigan is claiming that they need to comply with CDC order in conflict with state law. That CDC order has been ruled unlawful, so there is no conflict..

          1. That doesn’t make the Florida rule legal, though.

        3. Its really the same issue: CDC says they need proof that (95% of) passengers are vaccinated to sail, FL says they can’t ask for proof of vaccination. Carnival and Royal Caribbean are just attacking the conflicting mandates from a different front

    2. Carnival and Royal Caribbean are testing more market based alternatives:

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2021/07/09/carnival-cruise-line-requiring-unvaccinated-cruisers-buy-travel-insurance/7914723002/

      “Royal Caribbean International said last month it is requiring passengers ages 12 and up who choose not to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccination to purchase travel insurance – if they’re departing from Florida.

      “The insurance must cover medical, travel and other related costs for COVID-19 should they test positive while on board,” Royal Caribbean said in a statement provided by spokesperson Lyan Sierra-Caro.”

      Carnival is following the same path.

      1. So it’s obviously not about safety then.

        1. Of course not. It’s about risk management.

          1. It’s both. The particular risk they are managing is some know-nothing anti-vax conspiratorialist lunatic Typhoid Mary getting on a cruise line and sending other passengers to the hospital or the morgue.

            Yes, they don’t want to get sued for that, but they also don’t want it to happen.

            1. It’s also about marketing.

              Lots of potential customers won’t want to take a cruise if there may be, to quote Dilan, a “know-nothing anti-vax conspiratorialist lunatic Typhoid Mary” on board.

              1. Those people won’t leave their houses without 3 masks on anyway.

                Do you think people go on cruises in order to make rules for the other passengers to follow? I don’t. People who can’t enjoy themselves unless everyone else is acting the right way should probably stay home and keep to themselves, just to be safe.

                1. Given that one of the first lasting images of the pandemic was a cruise ship floating around full of COVID that couldn’t find a port, I’d say yes, a lot of passengers would care about this.

                  1. They should stay home where it’s safe and let more courageous people show them the way then.

                    1. Or we should let the cruise lines decide what is the best way to serve their own market. So long as they are clear about what their rules are and don’t try to mislead the customers, they should be free to decide whether to require vaccinations or not.

                      Until Trump took over, that was the default presumption of conservatives.

                    2. Cruise lines wouldn’t get to decide. The most restrictive regulator or the most risk-averse court or lawyer would decide and the cruise line would have to go along with it.

                      Almost every rule at almost every business is imposed that way. Businesses almost never get to decide any rules.

                    3. Before Florida acted, the cruise lines were free to decide, and if the cruise lines win this suit, they will be free to decide.

                      If some cruise line wants to advertise, “We don’t require vaccination, come aboard you anti-vaxxers” then they will be free to do so.

                      If other cruise lines want to advertise, “We requrie vaccination and proof of vaccination to board” then they will be free to do so.

                      The only “regulation” they will face is they cannot lie or mislead about their policy.

                    4. Read the article. The cruise line thinks they need to follow every government’s rules except Florida’s vaccine passport non-discrimination rule.

                    5. Actually cruise lines were not free to decide before the FL law. The CDC decided they can only sail is 95% of passengers are vaccinated. The only way to reliable reach that goal and be sure they are able to leave port is to ask passengers for proof of vaccination* FL law says they can’t do that so the cruise lines are in a catch 22: comply with CDC order and violate FL law, or comply with FL law and violate CDC order

                      *The other option would be to rely on voluntary disclosures, but then they’d run the risk of not hitting the 95% threshold and be forced to do a “simulated cruise” by not leaving the port

                    6. Hypothetically, instead of asking for documentation of vaccination status, they could simply run antibody tests on everybody, and refuse to admit passengers who lack the antibodies.

                      “381.00316 COVID-19 vaccine documentation.—
                      (1) A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 Vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.
                      This subsection does not otherwise restrict businesses from
                      instituting screening protocols consistent with authoritative or
                      controlling government-issued guidance to protect public health.

                      You can’t demand documents, “vaccine passports”, but you CAN test.

                    7. Hypothetically, instead of asking for documentation of vaccination status, they could simply run antibody tests on everybody, and refuse to admit passengers who lack the antibodies.

                      The problem is that privileges idiots who got the virus and who are saying “I got the virus, now I don’t have to get the vaccine”.

                      A cruise line should have every right to say, “no, get the damned shot”. The type of people who are trying to avoid the shots are dangerous to their fellow human beings.

                    8. Antibody tests aren’t proof of vaccination, and the CDC requires vaccination, not antibodies

                    9. I don’t think I’m privileged, you idiot. Getting Covid meant a couple of days of a head cold, and a couple weeks locked in my bedroom in quarantine. I’d have vastly preferred the jab to that, you can only binge watch so much anime before you get bored. Getting Covid sucked.

                      But now that I’m been through that, I get really pissed off at idiots like you who want to pretend it didn’t actually make me immune to the bug, and I still need that jab.

                      “Antibody tests aren’t proof of vaccination, and the CDC requires vaccination, not antibodies”

                      Right, which is to say that the CDC, to the extent they purport to be operating on a medical, scientific basis, rather than just engaging in a political power trip, is being fundamentally dishonest or irrational.

                      The point of the vaccination is to cause the antibodies. Once you have the antibodies, mission accomplished, you have no medical reason to care whether they originated from a real infection, or a simulated infection, aka “vaccination”.

                      If anything, from a genuinely medical perspective, the antibody test result is actually SUPERIOR to the vaccination record, because it demonstrates the actual intended outcome, not merely the procedure meant to produce that outcome. (But which occasionally fails.)

                      Preferring the vaccination record to the antibody test is a political decision, not medical.

                    10. I agree the CDC is making political decisions, my point is that cruise lines don’t have the option of using antibody tests as you seem to have suggested

                      And cruise lines are pretty much the only business affected by this law, since no other businesses (that can make the choice for themselves) are seeking to require vaccinations

                    11. “They should stay home where it’s safe and let more courageous people show them the way then.”

                      I sense you are an anti-social, disaffected right-wing fringer whose opinions and positions have been rejected by modern America for decades.

                      No wonder you are so cranky. I imagine it would be dispiriting to know you will be on the losing side of the culture war for the entirety of your life, complying with the preferences of better people.

                    12. If anything, from a genuinely medical perspective, the antibody test result is actually SUPERIOR to the vaccination record, because it demonstrates the actual intended outcome, not merely the procedure meant to produce that outcome. (But which occasionally fails.)

                      So turns out, no, you’re not correct here. Though I would have assumed the same thing, apparently the new mRNA vaccines may or may not provide a measurable response on an antibody test.

                      Antibody Testing Is Not Currently Recommended to Assess Immunity After COVID-19 Vaccination: FDA Safety Communication May, 2021

                      https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currently-recommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety

                    13. Good point, Shawn: It’s the CDC AND the FDA behaving politically, not just one of them.

          2. …and about politics

      2. So long as the rates are set in an actuarially sound manner, (Not to be counted on in today’s political environment.) that would be fairly cheap insurance. Are they also requiring passengers to purchase insurance against the rather more likely threats of listeria and salmonella?

        1. For COVID, the medical care of the passenger may extend beyond the available equipment on the ship (ICU, etc) and require airlift to the nearest hospital which may be international and may refuse entry. If there is a known case on board, ports of call may close to the ship. We’ve seen this already at the start of the pandemic.

          Are you making the case that salmonella and listeria are equivalent?!

          Salmonella and listeria aren’t contagious from human to human (in normal contact.) Norovirus is far, far more common on cruise ships. It does pass from human to human. According to the CDC, there are 900 deaths per year, mostly among the elderly, out of 19-21 million cases. For COVID, according to Johns Hopkins, the US numbers are 607,771 deaths per 33,914,880 cases (as of today). While the COVID cases are a bit more than a year’s worth, we passed 500K deaths in February 2021, roughly 1 year from the start of the pandemic. So if you’re comparing the norovirus and COVID, you’re looking at roughly 500 COVID deaths per norovirus death.

          And, given that the insurance is meant to discourage unvaccinated passengers, and that the costs associated with getting the illness can be catastrophic to passengers and the cruise line, I’m not sure why the insurance has to cheap. If 80% of customers want a vaccinated-only experience in order to feel safe, a loss of 80% of your customers because one “Typhoid Mary” made the news is a huge deal that could bankrupt a cruise line.

          1. “If 80% of customers want a vaccinated-only experience in order to feel safe, ” then 80% of the customers are morons who don’t quite grasp the whole point of vaccines.

    3. Letting the federal government decide what power the federal government has is a losing game.

      1. Would you convene a sovereign patriotic citizen militia council — maybe Hannity, Trump, Giuliani, Alex Jones, David Duke, Michele Bachmann, and Marjorie Taylor Greene — to decide instead?

  7. My school requires me to have my driver ed students fasten their seat belts — and any sane instructor would insist on that — but my (Republican) state has made such a requirement illegal.

    1. Obviously that’s not even close to analogous.

      But it’s also an example of the dumb argument: we live within one set of rules on one thing, therefore every rule anyone wants to make about anything is justified — unless you’re for no rules on anything.

      How is it any of your business what cruise lines do?

      1. How is it any of your business what cruise lines do?

        How is it FL’s business if the cruise lines want to require vaccination?

        1. You know governments regulate passenger transportation industries, right?

          1. When did states start regulating international passenger transportation industries?

            1. Always. States have always regulated their usage of ports in their state.

              Shouldn’t the locals have more to say about usage of ports in their area than voters in Kansas?

              1. “Always. States have always regulated (this strawman).”

                Cool cool. Let me know when you’re going to argue in good faith.

                1. Let me know when you’re going to argue in good faith.

                  Because then you’re going to be respectful and tolerant of different opinions than yours?

                  1. Pointing out the fallacies in your logic is not being intolerant of different opinions.

                    1. Still not clear what the reward is for “argue in good faith” (according to you). Seems like people who try to meet leftists half-way get treated badly. Some of us have learned from that.

                    2. I don’t really understand the reward of arguing in bad faith. Do you get some kind of sad pleasure from feeling superior online? I argue online to test my understanding of issues and see if there’s views or arguments I hadn’t considered or flaws in my own thinking.

                      Seems like if you’re just here to jerk off, there are better sites for that.

                    3. It’s not “arguing in bad faith”.

                    4. I think Ben would have to have a modicum of self-awareness to be arguing in bad faith, wouldn’t he?

                    5. ” Seems like people who try to meet leftists half-way get treated badly. Some of us have learned from that. ”

                      This is why trampling clingers — the half-educated racists, superstitious gay-bashers, backwater xenophobes, obsolete misogynists, obsolete QAnon followers, and disaffected Trump fans who constitute the modern Republican Party — in the culture war has been and will continue to be such important, enjoyable work.

                      Argue however you want — good faith, bad faith, speaking in tongues. It won’t do you any good or the mainstream any damage.

          2. Right. So what does this particular regulation do for, say, passenger safety?

            Look. This is nothing but more Trump cultism.

            1. Passenger privacy would be safe.

              1. More bad faith. “Privacy” is not an issue. Even if there was any reason to think that Norwegian was going to release the information, nobody who has been vaccinated wants to keep that secret — well, except Trump, who did so because he was trying to appeal to the moron crowd.

    2. “my (Republican) state has made such a requirement illegal.”

      Has made what illegal?

      The school having a rule? You having a rule?

      1. Forcing student drivers to wear seatbelts was made illegal. He explained it pretty clearly.

        1. He should definitely explain further. Only one state in the US doesn’t require seat belts and that’s only for adults: NH. Every other state requires seat belts for everyone and all require them for minors, which presumably are the bulk of student drivers. The driver is usually responsible for ensuring the minors are buckled. The idea that some state doesn’t allow schools to require their students to be buckled is frankly ridiculous. Either it’s completely made up or it has some caveats. Maybe you can’t force them to buckle up on the open driving course; maybe you can’t physically try to buckle the children yourself. “captcrisis, you have to stop reaching for children’s genitals” would make sense.

          1. Oh, I thought it was pretty clearly an imaginary analogy.

            A pretty stupid one. The state of Florida hasn’t prohibited being vaccinated, it has prohibited requiring documentary proof of vaccination as a condition of providing service. “Vaccine passports”.

            I’ve never heard of “documentary proof of wearing a seat belt”, isn’t that the sort of thing the instructor can just see?

    3. What state is this?

  8. Republicans imposing rules on private companies.

    There’s nothing else that needs to be said.

    1. … because it’s inconsistent with a cartoonish view of the people involved.

      1. Oh no, prohibiting businesses from imposing their own health and safety rules for their own properties just to “own the libs” or whatever is definitely consistent with the cartoonish view of republicans. It’s not consistent with the view of them as principled actors, though.

        1. It’s not consistent with the view of them as principled actors, though.

          You know no one believes this sort of trolling, right? Oh no! The widely coveted respect of [random internet person] may be in jeopardy!

          1. That would make sense as a response if I said anyone should care about my respect. Unfortunately for you, that wasn’t my argument.

    2. That you generally are dependably mired in in-group biases? True, this does not need to be said, but you do bring it up. The Florida law is ham-fisted, perhaps unconstitutional, and certainly doesn’t seem to be one of the FlaGOP’s finer moments. That said, it can be discussed with more nuance than ‘I don’t like the GOP, so it’s bad, here is a snarky assertion.’

      1. How do you make a nuanced argument against a ham-fisted approach?

        This isn’t a legal matter; this is the doofus FLA governor playing to his – I mean Trump’s – base.

  9. How many melodramatic comments from branch covidians will this thread have? Most people are tired of fear-based policy-making about Covid — destroying Americans’ lives one month at a time, indefinitely — but some people can never get enough.

    1. The picture emerging is that 20% or more of the country expresses views that are functionally tantamount to communism. Mostly, this is grounded in abject ignorance of history, together with apathy and/or stupidity, as well as psychology.

      After some testy exchanges between two friends in a large group of friends at the bar recently, the female friend admitted something along the lines, “All my life I’ve been a rule follower. I can’t handle uncertainty in that. I just need positions of authority to tell me what to do and rules that everybody follows.”

      1. How do these disaffected, anti-social, ‘you can’t tell me what to do’ clingers handle stop signs, school vaccination requirements, traffic lights, ‘no shoes no service’ signs, center lines, unauthorized practice of law rules, ‘no parking in intersection’ signs, taxes, liquor licensure requirements, and similar offenses against their sovereign patriotic citizenship?

        1. Maybe you could just get over this irrational conviction that every command your side gets it into its collective head to issue is obviously right and just, and no sane person could think it stupid?

          No, that’s beyond you.

          1. ‘You’re not the boss of me’ is — much like superstition-based argument — not something competent adults accept or advance in reasoned debate.

            The antigovernment, ‘nobody tells me what to do’ belligerence some embrace with respect to pandemic management is impossible to square with the point that those folks already comply with stop signs, school vaccination requirements, short-if-you-want served rules, traffic lights, parking restrictions, professional licensure rules, alcohol regulations, and the hundreds or thousands of other rules that competent adults understand and comply with in the modern, reality-based world.

          2. Maybe you could just get over this irrational conviction that every command your side gets it into its collective head to issue is obviously right and just, and no sane person could think it stupid?

            Maybe you could just get over this irrational conviction that every opinion your side gets into its collective head is obviously right and just, and no sane person could think it stupid?

            Pot. Kettle.

            1. Then, can we agree such commands should be assessed on a case by case basis?

              Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with “You aren’t the boss of me!” when, in a free society, it’s actually supposed to be true. The Rev and you can mock people not liking being ordered around, but your mockery doesn’t make your orders any more palatable.

              1. I don’t fret about being ‘ordered around’ when I stop for a red light; or refrain from parking in an intersection or during rush hour; or receive a request to provide a student’s vaccination record to the school nurse.

                Center lines don’t bother me. Stop signs seem reasonable. Annual vehicle inspections make sense to me.

                A cruise line that wishes to transact with vaccinated customers seems to be operating responsibly, too.

                1. “Center lines don’t bother me.”

                  Me neither. Are you having trouble with the concept of government having legitimate reasons for some things, and bullshit pretexts for other things? With government actually having authority over some matters, and having usurped it over others?

                  You can’t just mindlessly submit or rebel, you have to think things through on a case by case basis.

      2. Communism is when you enjoy following rules set by the United States government.

        1. And here I thought it was state ownership of the means of production and no private property.

          How silly of me not to recognize a representative democracy in a capitalist system so cranked up to 11 that its private citizens can afford to launch themselves into space as “communist.”

          1. I didn’t say our system is communist. I said there are a lot of people in this country who are communists or who acquiesce to those views. We have extreme crony capitalism mixed with increasing degrees of socialism/communism.

        2. No. The authoritarian impulse and the sheep-like mentality is explanatory of the psychology behind widespread acceptance of communist views.

    2. Fear-based policy making about Covid? Destroying Americans’ lives? What the hell are you even talking about?

      It’s well established at this point that you’re substantially less likely to get infected if you’ve been vaccinated. And among people that get infected those that are vaccinated are likely to get through it with little trouble while those that don’t could suffer substantially. Or die.

      How is pointing out facts without forcing vaccinations on people fear based? Facts are what they are.

      And all of this isn’t even about that. It’s about a private company wanting to institute a policy that protects their customers and employees. The governor of Florida, who has been unfairly maligned through the pandemic, now wants to virtue signal to the knuckle draggers on his side, thereby forcing risk on cruise passengers.

      Like it or not, Florida is stupid and wrong here. It’s one thing to let free entities make their own decisions. It’s another to force risk on people.

      I hate progressivism, but the Republicans have gone bat shit crazy on the vaccines.

      1. People who aren’t infected with Covid aren’t at risk for spreading Covid. But we just spent a year being told and forced to act as if the opposite was true.

        Florida has been proven right about Covid more than other states.

        And no, it’s not the cruise line deciding. Read the article. It’s governments forcing the cruise line into policies. You’re just pretending to only notice the ones you disagree with.

        1. “People who aren’t infected with Covid aren’t at risk for spreading Covid. But we just spent a year being told and forced to act as if the opposite was true.”

          We spent a year not knowing who was infected with Covid, unfortunately.

          1. But even when we did know, the rules for all were exactly the same, regardless. So the knowledge didn’t matter.

            1. That’s not true. There’s tons of contexts where there were different rules for people who had recent negative tests.

              Unfortunately, we did a pretty bad job with testing capacity, which made it hard to have a strong test-based regime. On the other hand, we did a good job with vaccine development. All of this was mostly the result of decisions by the Trump administration, so the current Republican anti-vax movement is…perplexing.

              1. And remember, people like Ben oppose(d) vaccination passports which would have allowed less restrictions for those whom we knew were safer.

        2. People who aren’t infected with Covid aren’t at risk for spreading Covid. But we just spent a year being told and forced to act as if the opposite was true.

          Because we don’t know who is infected with Covid.

          And the cruise line is suing…that’s a lot beyond just complying.

          No way your are this dumb. I don’t think it’s bad faith, I just think you turn off the critical thinking part of your brain when you need to support the indefensible.

          1. Making everyone’s life worse indefinitely because you’re afraid — and because you get paid to work at home while poor people are either unemployed or employed to deliver stuff to you — is indefensible.

            Pretending vaccines don’t work and rules have to be enacted or left in place as if outbreaks will be the same with 60+% vaccinated is indefensible.

            1. Of course Ben is arguing in bad faith, he was saying the same things when vaccines were a gleam in some scientists eye.

            2. First of all, nice of you to speak for poor people.

              Second, you declare my level of risk tolerance to be fearful, but that’s your take. The fact that you’re willing to allow your take to be mandated by law on private businesses is the difference between you and me.

              Third, we don’t know how well vaccines work when among unvaccinated people – that’s the whole issue.

              I’m not very libertarian, but I’ve found myself taking the libertarian side more and more on this blog as righties reveal themselves to be as statist as the wild dreams of the left.

        3. People who aren’t infected with Covid aren’t at risk for spreading Covid.

          I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well.

          People who aren’t infected with COVID (and aren’t vaccinated) are at risk of getting COVID, especially the new Delta variant. Getting COVID makes you a risk for spreading COVID.

          There’s always that dude in a zombie movie that gets bitten and covers it up only to change mid-film and infect a bunch of people. Don’t be that dude. Get vaccinated.

    3. Most people are tired of fear-based policy-making about Covid — destroying Americans’ lives one month at a time, indefinitely — but some people can never get enough.

      How does asking you to prove that you’re vaccinated destroy your life, rather than liberate you?

      Also, you don’t speak for “most people” here. You speak for only the bitter-ender Trumpkins, the modern equivalent of the Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2 in the 1960s on isolated Pacific islands.

  10. I am skeptical about much of this lawsuit. This ban may be misguided. You and I may think it bad policy. But it’s a discrimination ban. And federal statutes have long been construed not to conflict with local discrimination bans.

    Several claims seem out and out rediculous. Discrimination bans don’t interfere with communications between business and their customers or otherwise implicate First Anendment Rights.

    In a very old case from the 1940s, Bob-Lo Excursion Co. vs. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28 (1948), the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause does not pre-empt the application of state discrimination laws to passengers on international voyages, and basically suggests Congress has to specifically pre-empt them for them to be pre-empted, the default is in favor of these laws.

    Of course this is today not thought the same as racial discrimination that was the subject of the Michigan law. But it doesn’t seem to me the lawsuit suggests the Florida law is specifically pre-empted, only by implication. Most of the claims seem mere policy arguments that the law is wrong or “inexplicable.”

    Florida may be wrong. But the law has a rational basis.

    1. Clarification: Bob-lo island focused on a unique feature of the island, all transportation to it came from Detroit, with no access from Canada, making the main ruling narrow.

      It was Justice Douglas’ concurrence that took the more general position that the Commerce Clause does not preempt state discrimination laws appled to international teansportation and that preemption by implication does not exist for these laws.

      1. A separate opinion authored by Justice Douglas, one of the biggest hacks to ever sit on the Court, which was clearly just trying to get the maximum impact possible for anti-discrimination law, is not exactly going to be persuasive to anyone in the judiciary in 2021.

        1. While the case was narrow, it nonetheless defeats the thesis you argued above. The Constitution doesn’t ALWAYS forbid states from regulating who can go on international trips. One exception disproves a general rule. This permits Florida to cite the case and argue that it too is entitled to regulate in this case. It makes its argument more plausible than if the case hadn’t existed.

          A key similarity with Bob-Lo is that passengers don’t use cruise ships for one-way transportation. They return to the place they came after going abroad for a short period.

          I think it’s open to Florida to argue that this makes cruise ship excursions more like the Bob-Lo Island ferry than not like it.

          There are enough arguable similarities between going to an amusement park in another country for amusement purposes (and returning) and taking a cruise to another country for amusemxnet purposes (and returning) that it seems to me not so obvious that Bob-Lo Island isn’t relevent.

          Florida might lose the argument that the two cases are sufficiently similar. But they’d probably be foolish not to make it.

          1. The Constitution doesn’t forbit anything here, except indirectly through the Supremacy Clause. The issue is that Congress has regulated this field, and preempted state law by doing it.

      2. “Clarification: Bob-lo island focused on a unique feature of the island, all transportation to it came from Detroit, with no access from Canada,”

        Speaking as somebody who visited Boblo (No hyphen!) Island from the Canadian side of Lake St. Claire at least once as a child, by boat, that ‘unique feature’ was utterly fictional. In fact, Boblo was on a Canadian Island, and had ferry service from Amherstburg, Ontario, in addition to the American ferries, and private boats from both sides of the border.

        Boblo Island Amusement Park

        Where’d you get the idea that it was only visited from the US?

        1. Supreme Court.

          When did you visit? 1948 was a long time ago. It’s always possible the facts in the opinion were true at the time, and ferry service from the Canadian side was added later, sometime between the Bob-Lo case (it was soelled that way in the Supreme Court opinion) and the time you visited.

          1. That would have been in the late 1960’s, possibly the very early 1970’s. Via a private boat.

            It would have been very strange indeed if a ferry from the US had genuinely been the only access to an island in Canada which was barely off-shore. It’s my understanding that, while the Bob-lo ferry company may, for a time, have run the only commercial ferry to the island, (They did at that time own most of the island.) it was always accessible from both countries by private boat.

            Heck, you could swim there without much difficulty, it was that close to the shore.

        2. Also, Bob-Lo is the name of the ferry company, not the island. The Wikipedia article you link to, which mentions the case, uses the hyphen in the “Bob-Lo Island Excursion Company” name.

          I don’t have personal knowledge, just pointing to what’s in the court case.

    2. I am skeptical about much of this lawsuit. This ban may be misguided. You and I may think it bad policy. But it’s a discrimination ban.

      Nope. You misunderstand the law. It doesn’t ban ‘discrimination’ against the unvaccinated.

      Several claims seem out and out rediculous. Discrimination bans don’t interfere with communications between business and their customers or otherwise implicate First Anendment Rights.

      True. But this law isn’t a discrimination ban. It’s a ban on communications between businesses and their customers.

      But the law has a rational basis.

      What is the rational basis for saying that a business can require vaccination but can’t require proof of vaccination?

      1. The only scenario I can see that permits a business to require vaccinations while at the same time banning proof of vaccinations is to have the business witness the vaccinations. Since that is not practical, I would interpret the law to forbid requiring vaccinations as a condition for receiving service.

        1. Except that the law, while forbidding requiring documentary evidence of vaccination, does explicitly permit screening tests. And you can test for Covid immunity.

        2. Well, first, the business can conduct rapid antibody tests. (That’s not practical for, say, a convenience store, but it would be doable for a cruise ship.)

          Second, the business can simply require it. “You may not board this ship unless you have been vaccinated.” Just because it can’t verify doesn’t mean that it can’t have the requirement. (It won’t be able to enforce it before the fact, but it could do so after the fact if it learns that the person lied.)

          1. I agree the law permits screening tests, but, that’s besides the point on our debate over vaccines.

            I also agree that cruise ships can require passengers to sign an affidavit that they are vaccinated. But, as you said no action could be taken before the fact, and it isn’t clear what action could be taken after the fact since the very documentation the law prohibits is likely the source for discovering the passenger lied.

            1. Well, the obvious way to find out the passenger lied is when he gets sick during the cruise. (Or if he infects others, but I imagine contact tracing would be difficult given the way cruises operate.) Nothing in the Florida statute says that they can’t sue him at that point — and then said documentation would be discoverable. (The law forbids asking for documentation only as a condition of providing service.)

              1. I’ll buy that, but that loophole is small enough I don’t think it renders the legislation irrational.

      2. I think you are misreading the law. Discrimination laws prohibit denying service to people on the basis of a status or a behavior. This law does just that.

        Also, the law permits denying service based on vaccination status but not Covid disease status. Assuming “screening tests” could cover immunity and not just disease status, immunity could come from having had the disease, not just from vaccination. The law’s prohibition on requiring proof of vaccination adequately makes this distinction.

        1. I think you are misreading the law. Discrimination laws prohibit denying service to people on the basis of a status or a behavior. This law does just that.

          Incorrect. This law does not forbid denying service on the basis of a status or behavior. It forbids requiring documentation of that status/behavior.

          A Norwegian rule “You may not board this ship unless you have been vaccinated” would not run afoul of this state law.

          Also, the law permits denying service based on vaccination status but not Covid disease status.

          No, it doesn’t. It makes no distinction.

  11. Private companies *should* generally be permitted to require vaccinations, especially vaccinations that have a long track record of safety and have met the typical standards for long term clinical trials. At least, to the extent those companies don’t have any monopolistic market power, and aren’t in bed with the federal government and other oligopolistic enterprises.

    States have the power to do things that they should not do (in my opinion or anyone else’s), such as prohibiting companies from requiring vaccinations. No absurd, asinine act of Congress or D.C. bureaucrats claiming that a czar in D.C. has the power to do whatever they hell they want because muh bad flu season changes this.

    1. The old libertarian/conservative argument against private-sector nondiscrimination laws is over and done. They lost. So now, they do indeed get to play by the same rules as everyone else – i.e., advocating nondiscrimination for other categories as well.

      Likewise for the recent arguments from the Right about common carrier status for social media, employment nondiscrimination for Republicans, etc.

      The Left now likes to tweak the right with charges of hipocrisy now, but it’s not fair to expect conservatives to live by rules they *unsuccessfully* advocated for a long time ago and nobody agreed to accept. They get to play by the rules that exist now – i.e., everyone gets to advocate nondiscrimination for their favored groups.

      1. “The old libertarian/conservative argument against private-sector nondiscrimination laws is over and done. They lost. ”

        True. Also, the argument that we should live in, or do live in, a Constitutional republic, or that we have self-government, is also long over and done with. What we have is a rogue authoritarian imperialist state with immense power, and barely more than strong illusions of any kind of restraints from a legal, constitutional, democratic, or republican mechanism.

        1. You seem cranky and disaffected.

          Getting stomped by better Americans in the culture war for the entirety of your anti-social, bigoted, stale-thinking life has consequences.

        2. No, ML. We have a constitutional republic. You just keep losing, so you’ve decided to define your preferred governmental system as the same as having a constitutional republic.

          As time continues and you don’t get your crazy idea for dismantling the administrative state, why, that isn’t proof you’re views are in the massive minority and cannot carry the day, no – it’s proof it’s not really a republic at all and all your losses are illegitimate!

          In reality, you are not oppressed or unfree, you’re just really out there in what you want.

          1. He has been losing for decades. He will continue to lose for decades. This has become the American way.

          2. “We have a constitutional republic.”

            That’s your opinion. Are you a federal bureaucrat?

        3. What we have is a rogue authoritarian imperialist state with immense power, and barely more than strong illusions of any kind of restraints from a legal, constitutional, democratic, or republican mechanism.

          Harsh but accurate description of DeSantis.

      2. The Right admitting it’s basically a big tu quoque now.

        1. That seems like projection…

          I was refuting charges of hipocrisy from the left, *not* waging a charge of hipocrisy against anyone.

          I was making the substantive point that you can’t expect the Right to live by principles that nobody else would accept (see also: unilateral disarmament, etc.).

          1. You answered a criticism of conservatives abandoning long espoused principles with ‘well the liberals changed the rules.’

            1. I think I agree that my argument boils down to that…

              What I’m not seeing is how that amounts to an accusation of *hipocrisy* (“tu quoque”) by conservatives against liberals.

              You could assert that conservatives should simply stick to their (former) principles regardless of whether others accept those principles…but that seems different than asserting that conservatives are accusing progressives of hipocrisy.

              I suppose what I said does also carry the implicit criticism that progressives are being inconsistent (i.e., hipocritical) by not supporting nondiscrimination for groups that conservatives favor, but I think that is at best just an indirect corollary of “well the liberals changed the rules” (which I am conceding is a fair characterization of conservative sentiment).

          2. I think you can legitimately expect the Right to live by the principles it espouses, even if the majority do not accept them. If the Right ditches those principles for a new set, then yes, it’s unfair to hold them to principles they no longer espouse.

            Principles, at least in my understanding, are supposed to supercede everyone else’s tendency to jump off bridges.

  12. Make your own cruise ship.
    Start your own cruise line.

    They should just dock in international waters and ferry their Florida customers out, then require them to show proof of vaccination before boarding the cruise ship. Or skip Florida ports, don’t do business in Florida.

    1. Not sailing out of FL was actually their first option. My wife and I were told our December cruise would be sailing out ff Galveston, TX. Of course then TX passed a similar law lol

      1. Now we are told its back to Miami, but not to book any hotels or flights until October at the earliest, just in case

        1. The Southern states have all joined the same cause so it’s unlikely the cruise lines will find a better place to dock for Caribbean cruises.

          It does look like Georgia hasn’t followed suit yet so maybe some lines can leave out of Savannah. However, the added distance subtracts ports from the agenda or adds a couple days to the cruise, both of which impact customer choices.

          I’ve taken a cruise out of Puerto Rico before. California cruises drop down the West coast of Mexico and don’t seem to be as popular as the Caribbean variety.

  13. As long as private companies requiring use of an unapproved medical treatment accept full and unlimited liability for any and all negative results from said treatment, fine.

    1. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone’s head and telling them they have to take a cruise. If you don’t want to get vaccinated, fine, but the cruise companies aren’t required to do business with you.

      1. Wow, finally, an actual libertarian take on it.

      2. The actual libertarian position would be that neither level of government should be ordering the cruise line company around.

        The cruise line is currently subject to conflicting orders. Removing the state law would not leave them free, it would merely remove the conflict.

        1. A difference without much distinction given that, in this particular case, the Federal CDC requirement aligns with the cruise line’s prefered process and with the preferences of 80% of their customers.

          1. It strikes me as more likely the cruise line just thinks the state order is the one more likely to fall in court.

            But it is irrelevant: Being compelled to do what you are purported to want anyway is still being compelled.

          2. and with the preferences of 80% of their customers.

            Help me out here. What potential cruise line customers will not get on the ship absent the evidence all are vaccinated?
            The vaccinated? They are safe. 99.999% probability of leaving the ship alive. (Maybe add a couple decimal points)
            The non-vaccinated? They have gone through the gauntlet for 16+months and have determined they have natural immunity. If not, exactly who is at risk. At risk of what exactly? A rapid test at the gang plank would assure all are free of virus.

      3. If you don’t want to get vaccinated, fine, but the cruise companies aren’t required to do business with you.
        Dont feel safe cruising with non vaccinated? Fine, but nobody is forcing you on the boat.

  14. “…require documentation confirming that its passengers have been vaccinated (per the consensus of experts…)”

    SOOO sick of people conflating matters of science with matters of policy…scientific expertise is relevant *only* to the scientific aspects of these issues, whereas the decision to “require documentation” is a policy matter (albeit one with scientific elements involved).

    1. “SOOO sick of people conflating matters of science with matters of policy…
      “the decision to “require documentation” is a policy matter albeit one with scientific elements involved”

      The lack of self-awareness is now a defining feature of the modern Right.

      1. Was I incorrect that such a policy involves a blend of both scientific and non-scientific issues, and is not solely a scientific matter?

      2. I wasn’t suggesting that science and policy never intersect.

        I was objecting to the assertion that “scientific expertise” alone can address an issue that involves *policy* as well, by pretending that it’s solely scientific (when it isn’t).

        1. “SOOO tired of people who conflate chocolate with peanut butter in discussions of Reeses Cups!”

          1. Looking past the snark…I’ll stipulate that you’re smarter than I.

            But help me out here…you seem to be equating “conflation” with the notion of mere overlap/intersection, whereas I was using it in the sense of confusing A with B (or perhaps more precisely, mistaking a combination of A and B as just being A alone).

            In this case, I was objecting to treating matters of “Science + Policy/Judgement” as if it’s just a matter of “Science Alone” (as suggested by the plaintiff in this case).

            Per Wikipedia, conflation is “the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one,” which is quite different than simply recognizing that two concepts may happen to run together…

  15. You think this would be a slam dunk on here- why would anyone argue that a business can’t run it the way it sees fit?

    The whole law is bunch of bs and is finally being rightfully challenged in court.

    1. You say finally as if the law has been on the books for years as opposed to a few months.

    2. Whatever the merits of the lawsuit and the grounding of the law, there are plenty of ways in which a business can’t run. Many acts of discrimination are illegal, overwatering during a drought is (usually?) illegal, serving water without being requested in California has been illegal before, operating without permits is illegal…

    3. During Trump, many have revealed themselves…owning the libs turns out to be the true libertarianism.

      1. It’s amazing, isn’t it? Of is it? What if the Right, in both libertarian and conservative form, were really all along about protecting the status/privilege of traditionally favored groups, with the libertarians confident that market pressures in a laissez-faire state would do that? And now faith in the market has been shaken with powerful market players that seem left of them? And so now all that stuff has to be dropped and distinguished.

        Well, then this all makes sense.

      2. By the way, I think this is why so many of the ‘libertarians’ here hate Somin so much. For better or for worse Somin seems to actually believe in trying to adhere to long espoused libertarian principles as much as possible. It’s clear that Trump’s personality cult has no appeal to him, nor does he care about ultimately preserving traditional status/privilege. He naively tries to apply the same principles he had ten years ago to the issues of today, and boy do most of the ‘libertarians’ around here *loathe* him for it.

        1. No libertarians here hate Somin. There are very very few libertarians in the commentariat. Most are just garden variety Republicans.

        2. I don’t hate Somin as such. I just think he’s making a big mistake about immigration, although well intentioned.

          He’s treating US culture, the things that make living in the US, as a given, and as he finds it good, he wants to share it with as many people as possible.

          His mistake is in not realizing that lifeboat ethics apply here: Enough immigration, especially if it isn’t selective, can destroy the very good he wants to share: Let everybody onto the lifeboat, and it will sink.

          But this doesn’t make him a bad person. Just obsessed.

      3. ” During Trump, many have revealed themselves…owning the libs turns out to be the true libertarianism. ”

        These clingers aren’t libertarian. They’re movement conservatives. They don garish, unconvincing libertarian drag because (1) they’re sheepish about being known as conservatives these days or (2) they figure it will provide some advantage in debate. When called on it, they will retreat to ‘often libertarian’ or ‘libertarianish.’ But they are right-wingers to the core — cranky, disaffected, obsolete culture war losers.

        1. Libertarianism is just garden variety US conservatism minus all the religiosity.

  16. ‘Cancel or hobble upcoming cruises, thereby imperiling and impairing passengers’ experiences and inflicting irreparable harm of vast dimensions.’ Imperil. Inflict irreparable harm of vast dimensions. Somebody needs a good solid kick or several to the groin to try to re-center reality. I support their suit, but the language is purest whining stupidity.

  17. Why do people constantly conflate “making an argument” with “winning an argument in front of a panel of appellate judges?”

    Don’t they teach you in 1L those are not the same thing?

    1. They are the same thing if all of social media says they are – – – – – – – –

  18. “I’m slammed now and don’t have much to say about this, but . . . ”

    Never too busy
    to lather this site’s right-wing,
    virus-flouting rubes

  19. The biggest single issue I have is that the Florida law is, well, a law. It was passed via the legal means by the legislature and the executive.

    The CDC mandate is a policy passed by an appointed set of bureaucrats.

    One of these needs to bend, and I lean towards the one that actually has constitutional authority.

    1. Turns out executive agencies do have constitutional authority, according to the Supreme Court and long practice.

      And also there is the Supremacy Clause, which you also seem to have forgotten about – when one bends, it’s the state not the fed.

      1. The supremacy clause, explicitly, makes federal law, adopted pursuant to the Constitution, supreme.

        We’re not rejecting the supremacy clause, we’re asserting that the CDC’s order is not a federal law, adopted pursuant to the Constitution. It’s a regulatory usurpation of power.

        Now, it’s quite possible that the Supreme court will bless this usurpation of power. Indeed, that’s the way I’d bet. They’ve done precious little in my lifetime to limit such power grabs.

        But that doesn’t change the argument here.

  20. The cruise lines can dock in some other state…..Georgia or Louisiana, for example.

    1. Assuming those states don’t pass similar laws. My wife and I are booked on an NCL cruise out of Miami in December. When FL passed their law they told us we would be sailing out of Galveston instead, but then TX passed the same law. Now they say its back to Miami, but things are still a little up in the air, as this lawsuit indicates

    2. While I generally agree with the sentiment, most Southern states aren’t geared up for the same size ships or the massive volumes of passengers flying in and grabbing hotels. So while the “vote with your oars” idea is valid, it would be years before many of those cruise lines could shift their base of operations.

      Having said that, I’d be happy to see Florida eat a bit of crow here so I hope they give it a try. Savannah, like Miami, is a very pleasant place and an attractive destination in its own right. Though it’s added distance from the Caribbean could disadvantage the cruising customers with limited vacation time.

  21. What would Robert E. Lee do if he could either be on the wrong side of “the operative federal legal framework, or else on the wrong side of Florida law”? Conversely, what would Hitler do?

    Forgetting either the history of federal/state conflict or the history of vaccines themselves leads to deeply flawed analysis. Consider first the history of vaccines.

    David M. Oshinsky, winner of the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for History, authored a great book regarding polio, in which he truthfully reports that “polio was never the raging epidemic portrayed by the media, but in truth a relatively uncommon disease.”

    Pediatrician and prominent advocate of vaccination Paul Offit in his book regarding polio observes that “ironically, the Cutter incident” [in which Salk vaccine was improperly prepared] “led in part to the development of a polio vaccine [Sabin’s] that was more dangerous.” “Though Sabin’s vaccine had the advantages of being administered orally and of fostering wider ‘contact immunity’, it could also be re-activated by passage through the gut, resulting in occasional cases of polio (still causing paralysis in six to eight children every year in the 1980s and 1990s).”

    In retrospect, we now know that use of the Sabin vaccine has forever eliminated the potential to eradicate polio [refer, for example, to the CDC’s documentation regarding asymptomatic polio in the 21st century]. What science leads us to believe that CoViD flu shots are, in the long term, any less counter-productive than the Sabin vaccine?

    We know absolutely only that we constituted the federal government with police powers significantly more limited than those of each constituent state: we absolutely prohibit the concentration of police power which Hitler enjoyed.

    1. If you put these sentences in a blender you get a Behar comment.

      1. Why don’t you try contributing or refuting instead of lobbing insults like a drunk Kirkland.

        1. Well, please buckleup, since you are into substantive comments so much (do you ever break into two entire sentences?), give us your defense of Behar or this fellow’s ‘substantive’ arguments, and I promise I’ll reply in the same vein.

          Or are you just bullshitting as usual?

        2. Accurate descriptions of clingers are — or at least strongly resemble — insults.

  22. The cruise line is free to board passengers in another State that doesn’t have the same law as Florida.

    1. And this any state restriction on businesses cool and good, because there’s always another state!

      Way to rationalize infinite regulation in service of defending this dumb partisan signifying policy, how conservative of you.

      1. Although now would be a great opportunity for another city to increase its share of the cruise line business at Florida’s expense. And shame on the industry for having so many of its eggs in one Red-state basket.

  23. The cruise line’s filings seem to put to be the idea of “private” vaccine passports requirements. Nearly every paragraph they are hinting and winking and blinking in the direction of some government agent that clearly has indicated that there will be consequences for not following the guidelines.

    1. Well yes, the consequences for the cruise lines is not being able to leave port unless they meet the CDC mandate of 95% vaccination for passengers

    2. Or maybe the cruise lines are worried that potential customers will stay away in droves unless they take steps to demonstrate their ships are safe.

      Maybe they’re worried about an outbreak ripping through one of there ships because anti-vaxers were on board creating legal liability. Or their insurance company is rating their policy depending on who is allowed on board.

      One thing in all of this arguing is that non of the advocates for the state’s policy have given a reason why it’s a good idea. Just political red meat for the anti vax side.

      1. Or the CDC is telling them they aren’t allowed to leave port unless 95% of the passengers are vaccinated.

        Ever wonder why its only the cruise lines suing over this? Because they are the only industry that is mandated to require vaccines. The market has already told every other business they won’t tolerate vaccine passports

        1. The market has already told every other business they won’t tolerate vaccine passports

          Um, no. That’s why these handful of red state loon governors are passing laws forbidding vaccine passports — because they know businesses will demand them otherwise.

          1. Not everywhere, of course — many states actually have large numbers of people vaccinated. But the states where Trumpism holds sway have abysmal vaccination rates.

          2. Then these red state politicians (both governors and legislators are required to pass these laws) will be voted out of office. However, these laws are apparently popular with a majority of constituents.

            The issue of “vaccine passports” is also far broader than the Florida law, and unpopular with a lot of people well outside the MAGA crowd.

            In any event, I personally find the law foolish, but stupid or even dangerous policies do not necessarily render them illegal or unconstitutional.

          3. They know the CDC will pressure businesses to demand them. Its just mask mandates at grocery stores 2.0. In places without local mask mandates chains large enough to have to worry about federal regulators all had mask mandates, while locally owned businesses did not, and had significantly more traffic as a result. Many local mask mandates were passed following pressure from chains like Starbucks and Target so the playing field would be “evened”.

          4. Then why aren’t blue state businesses requiring vaccine passports? Why aren’t more businesses in red states suing for the right to demand vaccine passports?

      2. How could the virus “rip through”? If you are not vaccinated why would you get on a ship?
        People are making this way to complicated

  24. I dont see the problem.
    If you are in a vulnerable category, don’t cruise.
    Why all the drama?

    1. “If you are in a vulnerable category, don’t cruise.”

      The problem there being that “vulnerable category” includes “are currently a human being who needs to be able to breathe”

    2. The obvious alternate is “if you don’t like the cruise line’s vaccination requirements, don’t get on the boat.”

  25. A bunch of Commies are running Florida these days. They want to expropriate the social-media companies’ investment in computers and network equipment, and they want to expropriate the ships of cruise lines that want to keep their vessels from becoming floating super-spreader events.

  26. I agree that the cruise lines’ best argument is 42 USC 264, and also that requiring vaccinations specifically for passengers in an international cruise is arguably closer to the enumerated measures than requiring them generally.

  27. Somewhere in all of this is a new Carl Hiaasen book, I think (after the one on collapsing condos, that is).

  28. I was just looking at the MN Covid death totals by age
    https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html#ageg1

    More people over the age of 100 in MN died from Covid, than did people 44 or under.

    The death total of Minnesotans age 95 – 99, that’s total number of deaths, not death rate or anything like that, the total number of deaths for those aged 95 – 99 is greater than the number of deaths for all those under the age of 60 (585 vs 568).

    Covid is a really old person’s disease, at least when it comes to deadly consequences. Running over the freedoms and bodily integrity of everyone, to protect a very small group of people, is insane

    1. “Covid is a really old person’s disease, at least when it comes to deadly consequences.”

      Now, it’s mostly a stupid-people’s disease, since nearly100% of cases now come from people who chose not to be vaccinated.

  29. ” Running over the freedoms and bodily integrity of everyone, to protect a very small group of people, is insane”

    Depends on which exact small group of people you’re talking about.

  30. Oh, and by the way, Florida doesn’t even have the fig leaf of a bad district court decision to hide behind anymore:

    Appeals court sides with CDC on COVID-19 rules for cruise ships:

    A U.S. appeals court has issued an order temporarily blocking a ruling from a federal judge in Florida last month that barred the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from enforcing coronavirus-era sailing orders.

    A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to grant the temporary stay shortly before the previous order by Judge Steven Merryday of the Middle District of Florida was scheduled to take hold on Sunday, Reuters reports.

    1. Bzzt, wrong

      BEFORE: WILSON, JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The panel sua sponte VACATES its order of July 17, 2021, and substitutes the following order in its place:

      The appellants’ “Time-Sensitive Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Administrative Stay” is DENIED because appellants failed to demonstrate an entitlement to a stay pending appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). USCA11

      FL wins, CDC loses https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21015571-cruisescdcca11order072321

Please to post comments