So... line 141 onward:
141 prohibiting a business entity from requiring patrons 142 or customers to provide documentation certifying 143 vaccination against or recovery from COVID-19; 144 prohibiting governmental entities from requiring 145 persons to provide documentation certifying 146 vaccination against or recovery from COVID-19; 147 prohibiting educational institutions from requiring 148 students or residents to provide documentation 149 certifying vaccination against or recovery from COVID- 150 19
line 1122 onward:
1122 A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include 1123 any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or 1124 customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 1125 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry 1126 upon, or service from the business operations in this state.
And 1138 onward:
1138 (3) An educational institution as defined in s. 768.38 may 1139 not require students or residents to provide any documentation 1140 certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery for 1141 attendance or enrollment, or to gain access to, entry upon, or 1142 service from such educational institution in this state. This 1143 subsection does not otherwise restrict educational institutions 1144 from instituting screening protocols consistent with 1145 authoritative or controlling government-issued guidance to 1146 protect public health.
It looks like you are reading it 100% wrong if you think it's "forced vaccination..." since it's literally quite the opposite to the point of not allowing "free markets" to decide to serve non-vaccinated customers. With regards to covid-19 anyway.
However lines like 1097 (and other similar text) do leave some wiggle room for the State Health Officer with regards to actual public health threats
(The State Health Officer is allowed to, in an emergency) - my words 1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested, 1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable 1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and 1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are 1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or 1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be 1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.
Who decides what constitutes significant morbidity/mortality is the question that needs asked there. I'd say Ebola outbreaks fall under this umbrella. Hell, even HIV probably still qualifies. But the bill specifically states covid-19 does not.
Aside from how goddamn creepy it is that you ping me at all, let alone as a Trump (who IIRC I've never even mentioned)/ DeSantis cuck (who, honestly, I don't recall mentioning here either except maybe to criticize thoroughly as I have literally everywhere else I have an online presence), the fact that you call me a "nancyboy" which, seriously what?... suggests you have some deep-seeded hatred toward me when, surprise, "I don't think about you at all."
But thanks for the head's up on the bill; I hadn't even registered it before, but given DeSantis's historical position on covid-19, it doesn't surprise me in the least that he'd prevent requiring vaccination as a pretext to participate in normal society. At the same time he carved out regulation for actual emergencies with "significant" mortality which, again, I concede is YTBD. But covid ain't it. Kindly fuck off you creepy ass stalker.
My fear is that when people start dying from this vaccine it will be named a variant, for instance the "Delta" Variant or whatever other fucking name they want to assign. Then they use that as a pretext to force vaccinate everyone
I think way too many people would notice that only-vaccinated people are dying. I mean think about the rate of vaccination too if it started killing people short-term... that's like > 100 million dead. Even Mao Zedong would blush. Also big pharma doesn't make money off dead people; much more profitable to have lasting side effects that require drugs.
But I mean... that's the rub. In an actual emergency, ala Ebola or, God-forbid a super-contagious Ebola (e.g. airborne or something), I think we would need some authority in position to keep the crazies in line. That's the main difference - a lot of people figured out early on that covid wasn't some airborne space AIDS virus and they'd probably be fine. The mortality was never significant, the average age of mortality never dipped below life expectancy for men or women... I think were it killing/crippling young/healthy people then everyone would take it much more seriously.
So idk, on the one hand it opens the door to concentrating power to the state, which pretty much always ends badly. OTOH if that power is used judiciously and responsibly it can be a boon to getting through an actual emergency. Your general concern is relevant, but I think your specific scenario is farfetched. Also I've read that the delta variant is weaker. I'm glad DeSantis put this particular legislation in place because I will not have my kids vaccinated for this. They're like 100x more likely to die on the trip to the doc's office for the vaccine than to even have complications from covid let alone die.
Then again 2 years ago I would have thought shutting down the world and having large swaths of the population clamor for experimental treatments over a virus that kills old people would have been farfetched.
wiggle room
Wipe your chin, you’ve got some desantis on it.
deep-seeded hatred toward me when, surprise, "I don't think about you at all."
You flatter yourself, IYFNancyGrace.
K, thanks for confirming you're a faggot. Sorry to disappoint, but my big, juicy, heterosexual dick is spoken for.
(post is archived)