Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[The Mom]

If there is any kind of vaccine mandate, there shouldn't be loophole exemptions for religious beliefs. If you claim a religious exemption then you should have to prove that you have never taken a medication of any kind in your life. This statement is coming from somebody who doesn't agree with there being mandates but if they are going to exist they should apply to everybody. For medical exemptions, it should also require at least two doctors to agree and one should be a doctor who the person has never visited before and is chosen at random by the entity with the mandate.

I still disagree with mandated COVID vaccines and strongly believe that any mandate (from an employer, business or government entity) should have a frequent testing alternative. If the argument is the mandates are necessary to reduce spread, an employee who gets tested daily will be less likely to spread the virus than one who is vaccinated and never tested.

A Christian Scientist might be able to make that claim.

 

[mmascari]

The only way to be guaranteed that your state can't mandate a vaccine against a present dangerous virus is to amend your state constitution to give all citizens of your state freedom from mandated vaccines.

Making Florida your state would probably work too, even without a constitution amendment.

 

[Touchdown]

A Christian Scientist might be able to make that claim.

Actually that religion has already come out and said the vaccine is not against their religious philosophy.

Vaccines, immunity, and the pathway to health

The realization that life is fundamentally in and of God, not material at all, opens the door to true and lasting health.

www.google.com

There is in fact no “mainstream” religious sect in the world that feels the vaccine is against their doctrine.

 

[The Mom]

Actually that religion has already come out and said the vaccine is not against their religious philosophy.

Vaccines, immunity, and the pathway to health

The realization that life is fundamentally in and of God, not material at all, opens the door to true and lasting health.

www.google.com

There is in fact no “mainstream” religious sect in the world that feels the vaccine is against their doctrine.

That is an opinion by one church member, not the whole church. From what I've read, following the vaccine mandate (law) is a matter of individual conscience, but if one chooses to get vaccinated, after prayerful consideration, they are not necessarily breaking church doctrine. But if they choose not to be vaccinated, the church will also support them in that decision.

 

[Touchdown]

That is an opinion by one church member, not the whole church. From what I've read, following the vaccine mandate (law) is a matter of individual conscience, but if one chooses to get vaccinated, after prayerful consideration, they are not necessarily breaking church doctrine. But if they choose not to be vaccinated, the church will also support them in that decision.

That’s my read as well, but, that means that even for Christian Scientists choosing to not get vaccinated is a PERSONAL choice and not dictated by their church. It makes the religious exemption very tenuous, as in order to qualify you need a signed document by your religious leader that getting the vaccine is against the tenants of your religion, and if it’s a personal choice most leaders won’t sign it.

 

[The Mom]

That’s my read as well, but, that means that even for Christian Scientists choosing to not get vaccinated is a PERSONAL choice and not dictated by their church. It makes the religious exemption very tenuous, as in order to qualify you need a signed document by your religious leader that getting the vaccine is against the tenants of your religion, and if it’s a personal choice most leaders won’t sign it.

Except the church has said they will support a decision to get vaccinated, or not get vaccinated, that is arrived at through careful and prayerful deliberation - so a personal decision based on tenants of the faith. Which I interpret to mean that they would sign an exemption as the personal decision is based on general church doctrine. Which, as in most non-Catholic Christian denominations, is subject to interpretation.

In general, most medical intervention is against their faith, but vaccines have been a controversial issue from the very beginning. So it is up to each member to make their own decision, and either decision falls within the tenants of their faith.

So it may also be a personal choice made by the congregation leader whether or not to sign the exemption - after prayerful consideration.

 

[correcaminos]

For more than a century, our denomination has counseled respect for public health authorities and conscientious obedience to the laws of the land, including those requiring vaccination. Christian Scientists report suspected communicable disease, obey quarantines, and strive to cooperate with measures considered necessary by public health officials. We see this as a matter of basic Golden Rule ethics and New Testament love.

As for the issue of exemptions for vaccination in the law, Christian Scientists’ perspective on this issue may be unique. In the past, many public officials have been broadly supportive of exemptions when these have not been considered a danger to the wider community. In more recent years, public health concerns relating to vaccinations have risen as exemptions from them have been claimed by larger numbers. Christian Scientists recognize the seriousness of these concerns.

Most of our church members normally rely on prayer for healing. It’s a deeply considered spiritual practice and way of life that has meant a lot to us over the years. So we’ve appreciated vaccination exemptions and sought to use them conscientiously and responsibly, when they have been granted.

On the other hand, our practice isn’t a dogmatic thing. Church members are free to make their own choices on all life-decisions, in obedience to the law, including whether or not to vaccinate. These aren’t decisions imposed by their church.

COVID-19 vaccine religious exemptions: Where do different religions stand on COVID-19 vaccinations?

(WSYR-TV) — On Thursday, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America released a statement on religious exemptions and the COVID-19 vaccine. His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, the …

www.localsyr.com

tl;dl not vaccinating is in line with their teachings, but they don't judge is you prayerfully choose to do so.

 

[MisterPenguin]

That’s my read as well, but, that means that even for Christian Scientists choosing to not get vaccinated is a PERSONAL choice and not dictated by their church. It makes the religious exemption very tenuous, as in order to qualify you need a signed document by your religious leader that getting the vaccine is against the tenants of your religion, and if it’s a personal choice most leaders won’t sign it.

Yeah, even for Roman Catholics, you might get a bishop or pastor saying that an individual has a right to say no to the vaccine, but not for theological or religious beliefs that the church holds, but as a matter of freedom of conscience for that individual. Which then makes it not a religious exemption, but a personal belief/philosophical exemption.

 

[Touchdown]

Yeah, even for Roman Catholics, you might get a bishop or pastor saying that an individual has a right to say no to the vaccine, but not for theological or religious beliefs that the church holds, but as a matter of freedom of conscience for that individual. Which then makes it not a religious exemption, but a personal belief/philosophical exemption.

The Pope has come out and said getting a vaccine is not against Catholic tenants and even more is a good act as it protects the most vulnerable. He has encouraged all to get vaccinated. If you are Catholic then you believe the Pope has infallibility on religious matters and is the ultimate authority on those matters. Therefore believing that the vaccine goes against your Catholic faith is in fact wrong.

As such I know bishops and priests in my area have been told to not grant any exemptions to Catholics.

(PS I’m Catholic, so this is the one denomination I can really speak with authority on.)

 

[Chi84]

Yeah, even for Roman Catholics, you might get a bishop or pastor saying that an individual has a right to say no to the vaccine, but not for theological or religious beliefs that the church holds, but as a matter of freedom of conscience for that individual. Which then makes it not a religious exemption, but a personal belief/philosophical exemption.

The problem isn't with exemptions based on deeply held religious beliefs. The problem is that the definition of a lie has seemingly changed from saying something that one knows is not true to saying something that one knows can't be disproved.

When the consequences become great enough, society will respond in a way to protect itself. This has happened in states like California that have removed the religious/philosophical exemptions for school vaccinations when the exemptions caused too great a problem for society as a whole. People are free to believe what they like, but laws (including the constitution) are made, interpreted and changed by man, not God.

 

[correcaminos]

The Pope has come out and said getting a vaccine is not against Catholic tenants and even more is a good act as it protects the most vulnerable. He has encouraged all to get vaccinated. If you are Catholic then you believe the Pope has infallibility on religious matters and is the ultimate authority on those matters. Therefore believing that the vaccine goes against your Catholic faith is in fact wrong.

As such I know bishops and priests in my area have been told to not grant any exemptions to Catholics.

(PS I’m Catholic, so this is the one denomination I can really speak with authority on.)

Catholic as well and our bishop has also said no to religious exemptions. Any bishop or priest who would is defying the pope. But that hasn't stopped some before.... however they are in the wrong and any workplace can legit challenge and deny based on the pope

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wonder how many of the healthcare workers seeking bogus religious exemptions have made the mistake of claiming the beliefs of their employer?

 

[GoofGoof]

Religion is a protected class, so employers can't discriminate against someone because of their religious background. Employers have to make accomodations. I posted earlier that accomodation could be unpaid leave, and an employee doesn't have to like the accomodations, but it's a protected class, and any employer that tries to challenge here opens themselves up to a lawsuit.

Religious exemptions have to be made, but the burden of proof lies with the person asking for the exemption. You cannot just claim it’s “against your religion” without providing documentation. For example, I am Catholic and people I work with no that and there is nothing official from the Catholic Church that opposes the vaccines so I have no grounds for a religious exemption. As far as I know the vast majority of the most popular organized religions don’t directly oppose vaccinations. Most employees will not renounce their religion to get out of a vaccine.

 

[GoofGoof]

The parents are the morons here, not the restaurant. They have a high risk child that they are trying to protect and they decided to dine indoors and protect their child by wearing a mask while waiting for their food. Even if wearing a surgical mask over a beard was very protective for the wearer, they were going to be unmasked while eating. I guess the COVID stays away while there is food on the table?

Some of you are so easily manipulated by statements like "wearing a mask to protect their child." These poor people were just trying to protect their child by going on a date night to an environment that is what many consider to be high risk. A pox on the evil restaurant owners that wouldn't let them protect their child.

Maybe the restaurant policy is to point out the nonsensical absurdity of the earlier mandates that required masks until seated or until food or drinks were delivered as if the table or the food repelled the COVID.

The restaurant owner stated that the policy was purely political. No need to attempt to figure it out.

That being said, I don’t disagree that dining out in a bar in an area with high spread is not a low risk activity even if you wear a mask while entering or walking around in the restaurant. I personally would not have done that and my unvaccinated kid is not immune compromised. I would especially avoid a place like that which is likely to be a magnet for people not taking any precautions.

 

[007mickey]

Nope. I never thought that. Amazing how a report of a couple, just out for a bite to eat and a drink, trying to be safe conscious because of a child that’s immune compromised, turns into some people commenting on whether their masks fit correctly or they are doing it for publicity. I’ll remind you they were asked to leave because they had masks on. And it continues… just amazing.

So it's all the restaurant's fault, got it.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

The parents are the morons here, not the restaurant. They have a high risk child that they are trying to protect and they decided to dine indoors and protect their child by wearing a mask while waiting for their food. Even if wearing a surgical mask over a beard was very protective for the wearer, they were going to be unmasked while eating. I guess the COVID stays away while there is food on the table?

Some of you are so easily manipulated by statements like "wearing a mask to protect their child." These poor people were just trying to protect their child by going on a date night to an environment that is what many consider to be high risk. A pox on the evil restaurant owners that wouldn't let them protect their child.

Maybe the restaurant policy is to point out the nonsensical absurdity of the earlier mandates that required masks until seated or until food or drinks were delivered as if the table or the food repelled the COVID.

Again,as usual you miss the point.
Whether it was a good idea fir that couple to go out with a child at home who needs to be protected isn’t that point of the whole story. I agree it probably wasn’t a good idea. I wouldn’t have done it . The point that you overlook because of your beliefs that have been beaten into the ground here over the year, is that the owner tossed them because of his political beliefs, like yours, that masks should be done away with. We are not talking the exact opposite of this situation.. where masks are required in a restaurant and someone throws a tantrum outside the door because they don’t want to wear one. That’s the law in many places. That masked couple was not going to possibly hurt someone, it was there choice but were thrown out because the owner doesn’t like any mitigation. That’s his words. Go see his interview.
Sort of reminds me of the bakeries refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple. Their store and I guess they can do what they want, but it’s still wrong and childish.
We live in a blame the victim culture it seems now.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Again,as usual you miss the point.
Whether it was a good idea fir that couple to go out with a child at home who needs to be protected isn’t that point of the whole story. I agree it probably wasn’t a good idea. I wouldn’t have done it . The point that you overlook because of your beliefs that have been beaten into the ground here over the year, is that the owner tossed them because of his political beliefs, like yours, that masks should be done away with. We are not talking the exact opposite of this situation.. where masks are required in a restaurant and someone throws a tantrum outside the door because they don’t want to wear one. That’s the law in many places. That masked couple was not going to possibly hurt someone, it was there choice but were thrown out because the owner doesn’t like any mitigation. That’s his words. Go see his interview.
Sort of reminds me of the bakeries refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple. Their store and I guess they can do what they want, but it’s still wrong and childish.

It's also hypocritical of the restaurant owner to kick people out for wearing masks when all of the anti-mask, anti-vax crowd has been banging the drum of "Let me choose whether or not to mask/get vaccinated and you just worry about yourself." It's one (still irresponsible) thing to not require masks. Banning them altogether is even worse.

 

[GoofGoof]

So it's all the restaurant's fault, got it.

How is it not? The restaurant has chosen to have a policy to remove people who choose to wear a mask during a worldwide pandemic where people all over the world are wearing masks to attempt to reduce spread. The policy is obviously extreme since it has gotten national attention and it’s pretty obvious the owner is doing it to make a political statement. There’s no actual or potential benefit to anyone to have that policy. So much for letting people decide what risk they want to take. Total hypocrisy.

 

[GoofGoof]

It's also hypocritical of the restaurant owner to kick people out for wearing masks when all of the anti-mask, anti-vax crowd has been banging the drum of "Let me choose whether or not to mask/get vaccinated and you just worry about yourself." It's one (still irresponsible) thing to not require masks. Banning them altogether is even worse.

I also wonder how that guy feels about vaccine passports in restaurants. Most of the people applauding this policy are opposed to refusing service to someone who is unvaccinated. Huge double standard there. At the end of the day the owner has every right to make that the rule for his restaurant but that doesn’t mean people can’t call him out for being an idiot.

 

[DisneyCane]

Again,as usual you miss the point.
Whether it was a good idea fir that couple to go out with a child at home who needs to be protected isn’t that point of the whole story. I agree it probably wasn’t a good idea. I wouldn’t have done it . The point that you overlook because of your beliefs that have been beaten into the ground here over the year, is that the owner tossed them because of his political beliefs, like yours, that masks should be done away with. We are not talking the exact opposite of this situation.. where masks are required in a restaurant and someone throws a tantrum outside the door because they don’t want to wear one. That’s the law in many places. That masked couple was not going to possibly hurt someone, it was there choice but were thrown out because the owner doesn’t like any mitigation. That’s his words. Go see his interview.
Sort of reminds me of the bakeries refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple. Their store and I guess they can do what they want, but it’s still wrong and childish.

This is NOTHING like the bakery issue that deals with civil rights.

If this restaurant owner doesn't want customers who wish to wear a mask that is his prerogative. It doesn't matter if it is due to political beliefs or because he slept on the wrong side of the bed the night before making that decision. It's no secret that I'm anti-mitigation but I didn't overlook anything about the story, there's no need to.

Nobody can make a serious argument that there is any benefit to people in a restaurant wearing a mask except when eating. I agree they weren't hurting anyone but it isn't hurting anyone to have the policy that the restaurant has either because the vast majority of the time somebody is in a restaurant they will be eating or drinking and therefore not possibly wearing a mask. I'm not sure which was the less sensical mitigation, 2 square foot plexiglass in front of cashiers or allowing indoor dining but making patrons wear a mask to walk in and go to their table.

If I was choosing a restaurant and lived in the area, I'd certainly choose this one. Not because of a political statement but because I feel more comfortable in places where nobody is masked. It isn't a political thing either, it's anxiety related. When I see people masked it makes me anxious because it feels like they all have a disease, like I'm in the infectious disease ward at a hospital. It doesn't matter to me mentally that I'm some percentage less likely to get COVID if everybody is wearing one where I am. I FEEL more likely to catch something when I see it.

Now, if a doctor's office made a no masks allowed policy to make a political point it would be somewhat different. There you could argue that there would be an increased risk created by the policy.