(05-14-2020 05:00 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 10:21 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:59 AM)CoastalAlum2011 Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:45 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:10 AM)CoastalAlum2011 Wrote:  The problem with your argument is that it can just as easily be flipped the other way around to argue against face masks.

An old or immunocompromised person’s “right” to go out to crowded public places is now infringing upon young and healthy people’s “right” to dress how they want and not cover their face.

So you could use your exact same logic to say that old people and immunocompromised people should have their rights “suspended” because they’re infringing upon the rights of the vast majority of Americans that really don’t have any need to be wearing masks.

I’m not advocating for or against that position. I’m simply saying that your argument isn’t some end all be all air tight argument for face mask enforcement.

So maybe, just telling everyone to make their own judgements based on their realities is the best decision. Old people can make the decision to not go to crowded spaces or they can choose to patronize businesses that require customers to wear masks. Young healthy people can decide if they want to wear a mask and patronize businesses that don’t require customers to wear masks.

Seems pretty simple.

No, not simple. There is a huge inequity between people being inconvenienced by a mask or social distancing or whatever it is they dislike versus the sequestering of a large population of people either vulnerable to the virus or those that don't want to be responsible for it's spread.
It wasn't too long ago the smoking was considered a right, even though there were more non-smokers than smokers. Businesses always had the ability to deny service but they were afraid of the economic hit they would take by denying that group their access to their "right" so very few had the guts to do it even evidence that secondhand smoke was affecting the health of everyone. I'm enough of a capitalist to believe the marketplace usually drives decisions towards the will of the people, but when the marketplace can't or won't make the right public health decision, elected officials have to step in, as they did with smoking.

But see now you’re making an argument based on your own subjective view over what is a “greater infringement.” That’s a matter of opinion and is not objective whatsoever.

You’re entitled to that opinion for sure. But it’s just that...an opinion. It is not a legal precedent that inarguably guarantees that mandating face masks is not an affront to constitutional rights.

You seemed to be suggesting that there is no argument to be made because of that Supreme Court ruling, but actually, there is still an argument to be had. Because opinions on either side regarding which is the greater infringement upon our rights are completely subjective.

“the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.....a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members......to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” - Justice John Marshall Harlan writing for the 7-2 majority in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case the SCOTUS ruled that Massachusetts had the right to forcefully inject Mr. Jacobson with a small pox vaccine against his will. I think it's safe to say they can require you to wear a mask in public.

The result wasn't that he and his family were forcibly vaccinated. They had to pay the $5 fine that the original law accessed.

which means the state can fine people for not wearing a mask then lock their ass up when they refuse to pay said fine