Originally Posted by
Visconti
I don't think there's a strong aversion per se to the above, but some just don't like being told what to do, as if they're a child. I have no qualms with masks, and engaged in the practice during a time when others suggested I shouldn't. I thought they should mind their own business then, as I think they should now.
A private enterprise has every right to mandate their house rules. Don't like it, then can go elsewhere or without. Though I believe masks are prudent and offer some protection (always have), the issue I have is when they (anyone or entity that is not the private enterprise whose rules I'm subjected to for their service or product) say you *must* comply. I'm an adult and can make my own decisions.
no shoes, no shirt, no service has been well litigated and deemed acceptable based upon safety and social etiquette.
no indoor smoking or within 20 feet of a door for federal buildings has also been accepted as norm based upon primarily health and safety. This occurred easily after tobacco Corp accepted scientific data that smoking and second hand smoke could “potentially “ be associated with cancer risk.
Mask “mandate” if needed to be litigated would be likely on par, but again scientific data must be acknowledged and verified then accepted. Some in the community still believe the earth is flat and that the moon landings were staged. We need not wait for 100% to accept because 100% requirement is a false doomed to fail barrier.
no shoes , no shirt, no mask, no fly, no exceptions.