Get a spine and ask which law.
If a drug gang threatened to destroy a shop if the owner didn't follow an arbitrary rule "no customers wearing blue" it wouldn't matter if there is no official legally installed law, the thugs' rule become the law of the land. The shop owner cares about reducing his personal financial risk and liabilities. Turning away the occasional customer to keep the gang happy seems to be the path of least resistance and the best choice for risk mitigation.
But big pharma isn't a drug gang, no way.
No. That's extortion and that's illegal. Per the criminal code. Enacted by the legislative branch. Not per a jewish overreach through nonbinding executive overreach.
Learn the law before you speak faggot.
extortion, illegal, overreach
You're not wrong, but laws without enforcement are useless. If you were a store owner that had a gang laying down rules through coercion, illegally, etc. If the police do nothing to protect you (apply law and order), you're probably going to consider the gang's demands. It's no different for mask mandates and everything else. If no one is willing to enforce law and order, everyone is at the mercy of the gangs. Everyone can cry about things not being legal, but until law and order is enforced nothing changes.
Technically the legal element in the video is trespassing after being instructed to leave. Even if there isn't a law for "no shoes, no shirt, no service" a business still has some power to expel shoppers (and then call law enforcement services to ensure they leave if they refuse). Is it right? Is it just? Denial of service has been a hot topic since at least that gay cake request at a Christian bakery.
Small businesses that don't comply (or likely wouldn't comply) with the gang demanding "no customer wear blue" are choked out and destroyed. While compliant, complicit business eject customers at the whim of their gang masters, with the legal authority to eject customers. And with the understanding that if they don't toe the line they will end up the same as the rest of the closed businesses. No legal requirement for the arbitrary rule, but the business makes it a condition of service, with the legal requirement for the shopper to leave when instructed.
This is what seems to be the situation. I can't say I see a bright future ahead on this.
Nice synopsis of many relevant social science and herd/tribe mentality considerations. I always think back to the lesson (nearly) everyone's father mentions about looking both ways before crossing the street:
"Always look both ways before crossing the street - even if the crosswalk says its OK to cross." "But dad, if a car hits me, they'd be in the wrong!" "They'd be in the wrong, and you'll be dead. They win."
Laws don't matter if nobody follows them (or in the case of masks, everyone follows the optional MANDATES which sound a lot like laws and have clear/immediate social consequences for not complying with so people treat them like laws even though they aren't technically laws but midwits don't bother to think critically about the situation so change is all but impossible)
(post is archived)