You have the right not to wear a mask (?)

[left-of-center2012]

[HotTeaBag]

1. I'm going to say that yes, we do have the right to not wear a mask that it's a choice.

For now.

But as the (very well done) sign says in essence, that right is limited by the rights of others.

[RVN VET71]

8. Unless you have medical documentation that

you are, in fact, an asshole. And that documentation should be worn as two large sandwich boards, one in front and one in back stating proudly that you are, indeed, a disabled and incapacitated walking, whining rectum.

I still won't let you enter my place of business, but I will allow myself a belly-laugh at you, your sandwich boards, and the conical hat you also have to wear with the words "Trump 2020" written on it in crayon.

[HotTeaBag]

10. OK, cool.

You do you.

[Cousin Dupree]

13. Until mask-wearing is mandatory and ENFORCED, apparently anyone can do whatever they

want. It will be a long slow painful road to mask enforcement, but I believe it is necessary if we want the pandemic to stop getting larger. MURICA is arrogant and selfish.

[HotTeaBag]

17. I completely agree.

It should be mandatory and enforced across the board and until it is, we will see people doing what they want (unless they are in a place where it is mandatory and enforced, as it is in some places of business in some parts of the country).

[Towlie]

14. Absolutely not! That's like saying you have the right to drive at night with your headlights off.

No, you do not have the right to spread disease.

[HotTeaBag]

16. Until it's a criminal offense and only mandatory when in public places

it is a right to not wear one and a choice to not wear one.

And no, it is nothing like driving at night with your headlights off - that is 'actually' illegal, and unless you can point me to a municipality where it is illegal to not wear a mask at all times, the example doesn't hold.

[Towlie]

19. You're talking about the law, I'm talking about morality.

Just because there's a way to endanger and possibly murder innocent people, that lawmakers didn't anticipate, that doesn't give you the right to do it. Lawmakers can't create or erase rights, they can only acknowledge or deny them.

For example, we argue that women have the right to control their own bodies, and even if abortion were outlawed we'd still argue that way, wouldn't you?

[HotTeaBag]

21. And the two are different things.

One based (mostly) on the other.

I am in no way arguing that it is the right thing to do to refuse to wear a mask, but until it is actually illegal or mandatory it is still a choice that people have.

Please don't bring abortion into this conversation.

[Towlie]

25. Please don't tell me, without justification, what to bring into this conversation.

It was just an illustration of the general principle that rights exist or don't exist outside of what the law says. I could have instead used an example based upon guns.

[HotTeaBag]

27. OK.

Have a great Sunday.

[LanternWaste]

26. Who is making an argument against that premise?

"but until it is actually illegal or mandatory it is still a choice that people have"

Who specifically is making an argument against that premise? I simply see the posits that people not wearing a mask are assholes... but sure, you do you-- whatever relevance that may have.

[HotTeaBag]

28. They are assholes.

And it's their choice and right to be just that.

To answer your question, just follow the breadcrumbs to the post to which I responded - not really all that difficult.

[Iggo]

30. If you guys keep agreeing, I'm going to have to separate you.

[grantcart]

2. Kick

[kairos12]

3. Trumpists see actions benefiting others, at any cost to themselves,

as tyranny.

[iluvtennis]

4. If someone wants to take the risk, so be it....they just need to stay away from me. nt

[forgotmylogin]

5. As Americans, we have the right not to wear shoes.

However any public place has the right to acknowledge an inherent potential safety hazard exists and require shoes at all times. And people should understand that - why would you want to walk around the "Loose Legos and Broken Glass Store" barefoot ever just because you have the right to?

Same principle. It also works with "no running at the pool". You have a right as an American to run all you want, just not in a location where it endangers your safety or someone else's and a lifeguard can stop you and eject you if you don't comply.

[spanone]

6. ⭐️⭐️⭐️K&R ⭐️⭐️⭐️

[PatrickforO]

7. Nice sign. n/t

[albacore]

9. I believe that people DON'T have that choice...

..in times of pandemic. People's "rights" are superseded by public health concerns.

I believe the law is settled on this.

"...States may also take more drastic measures, such as requiring citizens to be tested or vaccinated, even against their will. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a state law requiring everyone to be vaccinated against smallpox. Henning Jacobson refused vaccination and was convicted. The court upheld the law and Jacobson’s conviction.
“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”
States also have the power, beyond criminal law enforcement, to make quarantine and isolation effective. If presented with widespread noncompliance, governors may call National Guard units to put their orders into force, to safeguard state property and infrastructure, and to maintain the peace. In some states, individuals who violate emergency orders can be detained without charge and held in isolation...."

Note... the Heritage Institute is very conservative.
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/constitutional-guide-emergency-powers?fbclid=IwAR3lBfsiVKa8QODeylueITT1u2e-PRmPXvqrkopQInNON3ylpDp675yTrhk

"States have police power functions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders. To control the spread of disease within their borders, states have laws to enforce the use of isolation and quarantine.
These laws can vary from state to state and can be specific or broad. In some states, local health authorities implement state law. In most states, breaking a quarantine order is a criminal misdemeanor.
The Public Health Service Act of 1944 clearly established the federal government’s quarantine authority for the first time. The act gave the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) responsibility for preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States."

"Police powers were reserved in the federal constitution for states’ use when needed for the preservation of the common good. When applied, they allow states to pass and enforce isolation and quarantine, health, and inspections laws to interrupt or prevent the spread of disease. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996) ("Throughout our history the several states have exercised their police powers to protect the health and safety of their citizens. Because these are primarily, and historically, matters of local concern, the states traditionally have had great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons." (internal citations omitted)); Black’s Law Dictionary 1196 (8`H ED. 2004); Ernst Freund, The Police Power: Public Policy and Constitutional Rights iii, 3 (1904). The police power supports the authority of a state to enact and enforce “health laws of every description.” Jacobson, supra, 197 U.S. at 25."
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/public-health-chart.aspx?fbclid=IwAR01W8TbsmrgLiOVOB4QyRYvmhT6UBGacmn1XuHaRfVevc7eQZANZZ2M9j0

[dalton99a]

11. They are free to fuck off and patronize another store.

[seta1950]

12. Actually

We do not have the right to potentially infect others for our ‘discomfort’ this is about health not freedom, let’s remember that. They are silencing whistleblowers but getting outraged that the have to wear a mask? I have to work my family needs it, but I would like to be safe doing it.

[dawn5651]

15. absolutely

[paleotn]

18. In most jurisdictions, you don't have a right to not wear a seat belt...

because of the danger to yourself and the higher risk of injury places an undue burden on healthcare resources and society in general. Oh, you can refuse, but you will be fined and get points on your driving record.

But property rights lays down an even stronger demarcation of where someone's right to be a jackass ends where someone else's rights begin.

[MarcA]

20. There is more to the covid 19 crisis than what is usually mentioned on DU

A lead editorial in the Albuquerque Journal, your state's largest newspaper, lays it out
plainly. It is not behind a paywall and should be read by everyone on DU.

[MarcA]

24. abqjournal.com click on opinion at the top. n/t

[LeftInTX]

31. I have trouble posting links from my phone

[MarcA]

32. Thank you. That and the fact we are not all that computer savvy or have

some old equipment. Unfortunately, DU has it's share of immature and uncivil behavior
like society at large.

[liberalla]

22. What a frickin excellent sign !!!

Yes!

[BobTheSubgenius]

33. Best mask argument ever!

So, so good.