I've never gotten Hepatitis A but fever, abdominal pain near the liver, and that's just for starters if one gets it doesn't sound appealing.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney to mandate full vaccinations to employees
- Thread starter Slpy3270
- Start date
Best post I’ve seen around the legality. Some Genuine questions:
- Roe v Wade - bad law, but the personal right to direct your own body.
- The 5th amendment (the right to refuse medical care)https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_4_5_2_5_1/ & https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1651109/ & https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10107437/
- it’s against the Geneva Convention to which the US is a signatory https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule92
- Jacobson was also for a treatment with a 100+ year of use, and in a situation where the danger of the condition was absolutely known and accepted, and the risk of the treatment was also known.
The whole thing seems like ripe for review, as how many finding had the SCOTUS made around slavery being legal, racial confinement being appropriate, etc… Do you think they can be trusted though after so many of the questionable/evasive calls over the last few years?
Yes, there is.
There's the consensus of the scientific medical community. Opposed are... people not experts in science or medicine or outsiders that can't get a paper published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
So... who are you going to believe?
Siding with those who have no expertise is... just dumb.
You trust science with modern electricity, setting broken bones, calculating the effects of General Relativity so that your GPS on your phone works correctly, and with all sorts of over the counter and prescribed medications.
But getting a vaccine that isn't killing anyone in the face of a pandemic that is killing millions? Let's check out what our favorite raging pundit thinks...
Just how severe were your cases of polio, diphtheria, measles, and/or mumps when you were growing up?
Yes, there is.
There's the consensus of the scientific medical community. Opposed are... people not experts in science or medicine or outsiders that can't get a paper published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
So... who are you going to believe?
Siding with those who have no expertise is... just dumb.
You trust science with modern electricity, setting broken bones, calculating the effects of General Relativity so that your GPS on your phone works correctly, and with all sorts of over the counter and prescribed medications.
But getting a vaccine that isn't killing anyone in the face of a pandemic that is killing millions? Let's check out what our favorite raging pundit thinks...
Yeah, any time you get to someone with those opinions it their reasoning always comes back to they don't trust any group or authority of expertise. They would have to believe the majority of government is corrupt(we can politically disagree, but at the end of the day the majority of people would have good intentions) They would have to believe that the majority of the medical field are corrupt and keeping secrets or altering data, which certainly not seem likely, and then they would have to believe that all three vaccines made differently and work in different ways by three different manufacturers that have experience are all full of corruption. You will notice they don't even know what conspiracy to believe anymore.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
The ship has sailed, the debate is over, the rhetoric is pointless. If you work for Disney and if you wish to continue to work for Disney you need to get the vaccine (as soon as the union contract is negotiated). If you don’t want to get the vaccine then find another job but the winds of change are upon us so don’t be surprised when your new employer starts requiring it too.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
I’m begrudgingly coming around to the mandate side, as a right leaning, libertarian leaning, independent I loathe the idea of government mandates but I’m amazed how many people have fallen for the conspiracy theories, 6 months ago I was sure that 90% of the country was rational and would have happily lined up for a vaccine to end this but the fact we are still struggling to get to 70% just shows how massive social media’s influence has become, and not in a good way.
I‘m (currently) still against a government mandate but welcome the news whenever another company mandates it as a requirement for employment and wholeheartedly think businesses should have the right to refuse service to non vaccinated individuals, people should have the right to deny the vaccine for personal reasons but businesses should also have the right to restrict access to people who put their other guests at risk.
Last edited:
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I agree.
I don’t think the government actually can mandate everyone get vaccinated, I’m sure there’s some legal debate there, but it’s not needed right now. I was all in on vaccination from day 1. I firmly opposed vaccine passports and vaccine requirements because it would have been so much better for the country and society if people did it themselves and I thought we could/would get there. I thought we could get enough people vaccinated the easy way, I called it plan A. I was wrong. We didn’t get there. Back in April when I gave my opinion people asked me what we would do if we didn’t get enough people vaccinated and my answer back then was me move to Plan B. We are on plan B now. Sad but true. Employers and businesses can and should start requiring vaccinations and we can finish what we started.
ArmoredRodent
Well-Known Member
Thanks. The questions you raise are good ones, with clear implications for many pandemic-related governmental choices, but the answers are uniformly in favor of mandates:
Roe v. Wade is widely recognized by lawyers as not being the same as "the personal right to direct your own body." The biggest proponent of that interpretation is the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (my new granddaughter, born on July 27, is named for her, even though I pointed out that Justice Ginsburg once criticized me in an opinion footnote -- but I couldn't complain because she also wrote that unanimous decision in my favor). As a recent New York Times article pointed out: "The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality." Actually, what she hoped for was what you said: the right to control your own body, and she didn't get that declaration in Roe or later. Ironically, that is also the argument that anti-abortion activists are making right now against Roe in their Supreme Court briefs in the pending abortion cases, as the Washington Post reported yesterday: "Ginsburg, who died last September, is invoked repeatedly in many of the 70 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Supreme Court to use a Mississippi case this fall to overturn the nearly 50-year-old precedent that established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion." Prof. Caitlin Borgmann wrote a 2014 law review article on the constitutionality of government-imposed bodily intrusions, which found there was no constitutional prohibition against bodily-intrusion, only a "common-law" (judge-made, no constitutional basis) right, which, of course, cannot trump the Supreme Court's clear direction in Jacobson. Thus, in the context of this thread, the right of privacy (which is what Roe and other reproduction-related cases, like Griswold v. Connecticut, are based on) has some effect on vaccination mandates, but only indirectly, and can't serve as the basis for a claim that the Constitution bars employers from requiring vaccination. Again, it would take a Supreme Court decision to overrule Jacobson and we have no such decision, as the lower courts are uniformly recognizing these days.
The part of the Fifth Amendment (Federal laws) or Fourteenth Amendment (State) cited for the right to refuse medical care is actually the Due Process guarantee that says that the government can't take away substantive rights without due process of law (which might mean a trial or administrative proceeding, or simply following the rules set by Congress or the Constitution). A Supreme Court case is the most "process" anyone can get in our system of government, and is one reason earlier decisions ("precedent") are generally not going to be overruled without another case offering sufficient process itself. Again, in light of Jacobson, a "process" right is not enough to displace a Supreme Court decision without another Supreme Court decision.
One of my grandmothers was one of the first female European international lawyers, so I respect international law for what it can do. Nevertheless, international conventions do not overrule the Constitution (which here means the Supreme Court), though they can guide the Supreme Court in its interpretations of what American law means. A treaty or convention is basically a contract by the U.S. government, either Executive or Legislative branches. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. Government signed a treaty saying that Americans must abide by foreign or religious law in the U.S.; American courts considering challenges on a wide variety of statutory, religious and free expression grounds would likely ignore that treaty as beyond the President's or Congress's power ("ultra vires"). IOW, those branches can't contract away the Supreme Court's constitutional power to define American law about pandemics, except in a very few cases where the laws are ambiguous. Vaccine mandates aren't one of those few cases, especially where (to my knowledge) no other country recognizes the Geneva or other conventions or treaties as grounds for barring the use of vaccines. Indeed, the arguments go the other way, as when WHO demands that Americans not get vaccine boosters until more vaccine doses are shipped to poor countries. That's an ethical or moral demand, not a requirement of international law.
165 million Americans (as well as others around the globe) have had one or more vaccines, the dangers of Covid-19 are well-established enough to justify governmental action (or employer action) even if some people don't agree, and the risks of treatment (or here, non-treatment) are similarly evident enough to justify mandates. More importantly, it isn't the smallpox vaccine that's at issue in this thread, it's the long-standing constitutional principle reiterated by Jacobson in 1905 about who gets to make the vaccine mandate and how it is to be done. For those following legal originalism (the doctrine that, even if the Founders didn't foresee later developments like cell phones, they did establish lasting guides for how we should apply fundamental constitutional principles like free speech and unreasonable search and seizures), long before Jacobson, Ben Franklin mourned not vaccinating his son in 1736, when vaccination was new and untested. IOW, the Founders knew about and approved of vaccinations; they could have prohibited vaccinations in the Constitution or even in the Federalist Papers, but they did not. The poster to whom I was responding asserted that there is some Constitutional prohibition on employer vaccine mandates, and there really isn't. Absent a Florida or California law, if Disney wants to, it can require its employees to be vaccinated; no employees have won a case otherwise and, by now, likely won't.
As to "questionable" decisions, the Supreme Court generally does not follow the passions of the moment; instead it works with time-tested legal principles (on July 1, the Court decided a case I had been working on for SEVEN YEARS). Not everyone will agree with it, but the current Court follows the same lengthy process almost all the time. And don't trust media coverage of the Supreme Court to give you a true picture of what's going on. The real story is always both more and less than is reported. Supreme Court practitioners (and Justices) literally think differently about these cases than reporters do. That's not a complaint about reporters; most lawyers have no clue how to handle a Supreme Court case and almost never do. The most important thing to every Supreme Court Justice is uniformity of the principles of law and jurisprudence across the Nation; that's why the overwhelming majority of cases the Court chooses to review feature differences between the regional Circuit Courts of Appeal ("conflicts among Circuits"). And most cases are decided unanimously; only a tiny few are the contentious fights reported in the media. As I pointed out in another thread, American courts have successfully navigated the vast majority of pandemic-related cases recently, most importantly by giving governmental authorities more leeway early on in the pandemic when the urgency was great, remedies few and far-between and the information limited, and by shifting gradually over time to requiring much more specific evidence of governmental need and narrowly-tailored remedies. The Courts, like all of us, were scrambling early on, but now they are relying more and more on tried-and-true constitutional principles. That was also true in cases dealing with last summer's riots and protests, and that trend also continues today.
jeannie22
New Member
that is a logical fallacy argument. as no childhood vaccine is respiratory related and were tested rigorously for years before release. I am really saddened so many people belittle others here over this issue.
I respect people who choose to vaccinate. I don't understand why they don't respect those who do not.
I respect people who choose to vaccinate. I don't understand why they don't respect those who do not.
Last edited:
GoofGoof
Premium Member
There’s no reason anyone should belittle anyone else over this. Disney as a company has the legal right to determine what’s required if you want to work for the company. If people do not want to comply they cannot work for the company. It’s not a debate or an argument or a reason for people to be attacking each other. Every employee needs to consider the decision for themselves and then get the shot or find another job. It’s as simple as that. People want to make this into a debate but there is really not much to argue about.
You are just missing it: they were absolutely well intended FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW.… step back and consider if in 5 years from now we learn the vaccine causes sterilization in people with blue eyes who take it. Or causes people with diabetes to go deaf. You can’t know…. Couple that with the possibility that the same absolutism you embrace that the bug is superbad and the vaccine is good is in fact flawed or propaganda…. Can you be certain the campaign isn’t about getting 100% compliance so only 5% of the population dies, as opposed to the possibility if left unchecked only 1% will die?
See, that is where it gets neat…. It’s clear you’re willing to risk your life on that belief. It’s clear I’m will to risk my life on my belief. You purport my choosing puts you at risk. I purport you saying yes on my behalf put me at risk. Who wins? In an authoritarian regime the monarch, despot, etc… in a free society not the ruling class. And in the US and the other countries around the world where violence, demonstrations, etc… are emerging, are you really willing to risk the future of the free world a democracy over a bug with a mortality <1%? There are lot more dangerous ones out there, now and there definitely will be more as populations grow and/or more bugs escape more nefarious labs.
And yes, this is applicable to a lot more things than a bug…
unmitigated disaster
Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You wouldn’t blame sterility on a bit of bad fish you ate five years prior because it is illogical nonsense. Vaccines don’t stay in your system. Not a single one has ever caused problems to pop up years later and there is no means for that to happen. The vaccine would have to somehow stay dormant inside your body without issue and then somehow activate.
There is nothing respectful about spreading lies and endangering others.
Agreed! And I won’t reiterate it all, but if a big employer such as Disney is allowed to contravene basic human rights and get away with it, they may as well allow them to ignore all human rights and our freedoms.
You may argue we as individuals don’t have a right to self determination around our medical care (never mind exposure to experimental care…), but that is not a decision any private entity can or should be allowed to make. And if folks do really believe that, let’s amend the Constitution to state that. (If you make our bodies effectively society’s, it solves the abortion debate, seatbelt and helmet laws, right to die, right to try, pot and narcotic laws, alcohol prohibition, whether you can eat red meat, or even ride Thunder Mountain anymore).
There is a fear there that so far is unfounded to be based on anything An anxiety of what could be. The present science supports none of your fear, and supports what we are seeing. Even if you do not feel the virus is as extreme as some media is making it, you are creating a fear about the vaccine that has not been credibly delivered.
How sterile is someone going to be if their reproductive organs or lifelong health issues are affected by Covid19? How sterile is someone when dead?
You can't just claim the vaccine is as bad or worse than the disease without any evidence and expect people to respect a point of view when all of the experts in the fields say otherwise.
It is one thing to be concerned about the vaccine side effects, especially if there is a medical reason to not get it and consulate with your doctor about.
Otherwise, there is no reason other than anxiety or selfishness.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Employment law is pretty clear cut. They have a legal right to set requirements for employment including requiring vaccinations. You don’t have to like it and you can disagree with their decision or wish it didn’t happen, but it has. Nobody is being forced to work for Disney. They are at will employees with a right to end their employment at any time for any reason. That’s their basic human right.
It only gets neat as far as your b#ll#cks-laden delusions are concerned. And trying to tie this scenario to ones from decades or centuries past shows you're less interested in maintaining this account for discussions related to TWDC, and more for spreading your personal propaganda. I'm sure there's other sites where your claptrap is more welcomed than here....
Exactly! So stop saying it’s safe.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Says the guy making stuff up that can’t happen that ignores the millions of doses administered without incident. What other lies will you start parroting?