There is NO USA LAW that exempts you from wearing a mask...

"

LennyLen wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

As for the ozone layer thing, that shit happened right over my head. Apparently it's all healed now so that 'insane' movement had genuine headway and good results, but we're used to a somewhat lacking ozone layer down here anyway. Australian sun is just flat-out meaner than elsewhere. I've been to hotter places, drier places, more humid places, but that laser-focused speck of hatred is somewhat unique to south-east Australia.

You should try it down here in the south of NZ where we're even closer to Antarctica than you guys are. The heat here is never as bad, but the UV index is worse.

It's really hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it too. It's *really* bad on our snowfields, where the glaring white just reflects it all too.

And yes, Rest of the World. Australia has snowfields. It's not just a myth perpetuated by The Man.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

To answer your first question, any business can refuse service based on dress code.

And, if a bank refuses entrance/service because a woman is wearing a hijab? :)

A sporting arena refuses entrance to a Sikh wearing a turban because they are not allowed to remove it to search for contraband?

A business doesn't install a ramp so that wheelchair-bound customers could have access?

A shooting range won't allow people to test weapons if they don't have any hands? ...

:)

Who's in charge of all this... stuffs? Is it Federal, State, Local government? Regulatory agencies? Licensing? The State/Local Health Department?

What happens in response to a person who suffers from something like claustrophobia or some other condition that presents unreasonable difficulty with them equipping a mask? There are people who have unreasonable reactions, often panic inducing, when their airway or breathing is somehow perceived as being restricted. Must we tell them they can't leave their home? Should they be subjected to daily tests in order to be able to wear a badge that announces their medical/psychiatric condition?

Again, I always wear a mask when in public spaces and very much support that being mandated by whatever agency we figure out is the best one to do so. 10/10, would wear a mask again...

I also think "The Greater Good" wins out, here, especially since it's not a prophylactic measure for the wearer, but one that protects "the innocent."

Even so... the wearing of sexual prophylactics is not mandated. There is no law or ruling that makes such a thing universal, despite the fact it can prevent deadly diseases from being transmitted to innocent participants. (Though, several episodes of "Law & Order" have taught me knowingly and intentionally spreading a deadly virus could be a crime...) So, wat do?

In my State, like an unfortunately many others, there is an emergency ruling that states anyone in a public space of a certain size occupancy must wear a mask.

However, right alongside that governor's ruling/whatsits, there is a disclaimer saying that the governor also will not enforce this ruling... thing.

On the day it was enacted, it was instantly rendered impotent. No law-enforcement, AFAIK, is empowered or advised to enforce this ruling on behalf of State Law. That puts it right back in the whole "private business practices/licensing/etc area."

TLDR: In order either have exemptions or to require the wearing of masks, we first have to decide who's in charge of it. And, to then decide if there is a Law that exempts a person from compliance... we have to decide who's in charge of it. :)

Federally enacted Martial Law would just wipe the whole board of possible legal playing-pieces. That won't be something likely to happen.

IMO: It's something that's probably more manageable by States and, for some hasty rules, added in as an emergency clause for licensing for business/public occupancy requirements if there's not already some "emergency" clause there to allow for it. State Health Departments would have to hand down a mandate for inspection/enforcement. YET, we still have to allow for criminal enforcement if we want police to help enforce it...

*Not an attorney, so any legal advice I offer is worth exactly what was paid for it.

^

I mentioned the slippery slope at the end of my post that you didnt include which mentions the concern about allowing private businesses to "select" customers.

If your business is open to the public, you have to follow state and federal law. So yes you have to satisfy ADA (your wheelchair question), and you cannot engage in intentional discrimination on Federal protected classes (age, sex, race, religion, etc)

That being said, anyone in the US can bring a lawsuit, so legal enforcement, percieved discrimination, and so on, can be settled by the court system.

"

solwitch wrote:

From my elective law classes ^.^ (if you’re still in college take tort... as an elective thank me later)

So a guy walks in a business, ignores the sign "must wear mask or you will not be served." As he walks in other customers who are wearing a mask give him a look. He approaches the counter and says, "I can’t wear a mask I have a doctors note." ...

They can, instead "Trespass" the customer. They don't have to necessarily give any cause that rests upon mask wearing. They can just say the customer was "disruptive" and that's that. The officer, having witnessed the non-compliance issue, would probably seal the deal as far as that was concerned.

"

There’s no precedent on masks, and no lawyer would even go near it...

Eh... In absence of a Law that directly applied to private citizens regarding compliance or freedom from, I'd agree. There are, however, Federal Regulations that require mask use/availability and certainly OSHA practices and many other "regulatory" issues that require "mask use" as well as mask performance standards that are described in detail. BUT, these don't necessarily apply to "private citizens."

There are Laws that make it illegal to wear a mask for the purposes of obscuring one's identity. (With exemptions for certain "Rights" like religious expression/reasons, of course.) At least, that's how I believe they are worded. But, if it's more "in general" then things might get weird. (IIRC, several groups have mentioned this, but surely out of the context of the original intent of the Law.)

There's also stuff like this, locally enacted and enforced: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/americas/flu-america-1918-masks-intl-hnk/index.html

A note on the whole "discussion of politics/governments/nations/etc" - This discussion is more of a "mechanics" sort of issue. There's no substantive in-depth discussion or criticism of any nation/government going on in this thread, IMO.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

^

I mentioned the slippery slope at the end of my post that you didnt include which mentions the concern about allowing private businesses to "select" customers.

If your business is open to the public, you have to follow state and federal law. So yes you have to satisfy ADA (your wheelchair question), and you cannot engage in intentional discrimination on Federal protected classes (age, sex, race, religion, etc)

(Pardon the double-posts. Multiquote here isn't very friendly. :))

Exactly why I included the mention of those things, especially the ADA bit, in example-'ish statements. :)

It is a slippery slope kind of thing. Or, rather, it doesn't have to be, but someone could certainly make it into one.

It's really a question of how far up the chain origination and enforcement goes and under what conditions, if any.

I'm of the opinion in justifying it as a prophylactic measure, like putting child-safety caps on containers of medication. It's an inconvenience for the user, but it protects the innocent.

We now have widespread and generally accepted delivery services for basic needs. A person who was some sort of "conscientious objector" to the whole mask-wearing bit could then file additional delivery costs due to their "choice" as tax-deductions. :)

"

That being said, anyone in the US can bring a lawsuit, so legal enforcement, percieved discrimination, and so on, can be settled by the court system.

Injunctions.

There could be an injunction against the enforcement of a Law if it is under review/legal challenge.

Day 1 - "Wear the #%^%^'ing mask" law goes into effect.

Day 1+30 minutes - An injunction issued by Federal Court Judge Larry Jane Lawrence against ""Wear the #%^%^'ing mask" Law" is now in effect. :)

A new law has to passed by state legislation and/or voted on by citizens. You cannot simply say a new law exists single handedly.

A state mandate or ordinance isnt technically a crime if violated, it would result in a citation or fine which a person or business could refuse to pay, appeal, or sue.

The same goes for forced closure. A Govenor could say no indoor dining or limit capacity, and a business could refuse. Again a fine or citation could be issued, but the business can file a lawsuit. Or they could close, and then sue for damages/losses. The key point here is there is absolutely no authority for state governor to shut down business for this length of time outside a declaration of martial law.

I have seen some states & cities try and get around this by expanding existing curfew laws, but again, their enforcement or viability of citations & fines are in question (every municipality is different)

'Reasonable accommodations' comes up here and there in this discussion.

Public safety is served by limiting 'reasonable accommodations' to match with the role or service in question.

If a person has a disability, or is perceived as having a disability, they can ask for accommodations without retaliation or discrimination.

That said, if the accommodations would not be reasonable or sustainable for the target, they can be denied or revoked.

Who decides "reasonable or sustainable" is 99% of the caseload in courts.

In the situation Solwitch described, the business is offering reasonable alternatives that uphold the spirit of social distancing even if they don't follow to the letter. That aside, it is not unusual for a disabled person to feel uncomfortable when the accommodations draw attention to that person or single them out as different.

It's not commonly expressed, but some folks with disabilities, especially non-visible disabilities such as mental or cognitive problems, harbour resentment about having to do things differently, or getting specialized treatment, even if they have fought for it and need it to function in society.

We don't get to decide on the spot if a person is really disabled or not, or has medical "reasons" or not. But as a society we do get to decide what constitutes reasonable accommodation given all other things being equal, and when that has been used up or repudiated, to put the greater good first and accept an ongoing responsibility for our collective actions.

As for Morkonan's shooting range scenario most handguns are just that, designed for use in the hand. I've no doubt there are persons who have lost the use of their hands or were affected by birth defects and have limb abnormalities, who have deft and dexterous feet or reconstructed limbs or prostheses, who could handle a firearm with arguably more safety and skill than most average able-bodied folks.

They are uncommon and they would need to demonstrate safety and facility before most range operators would let them practice there. The risk is too great given the current low need for any private citizen to own and use a firearm in daily living. Were this a besieged outpost in a war-torn country or in the midst of civil rebellion, perhaps the rules would favour arming everyone who was willing.

People are generally really poor at judging acceptable risk, however, and civilization's love affair with firearms despite their immediate consequences for abuse/negligence, doesn't lead me to believe we will correctly assess risks from a pandemic whose toll on society lags our personal choices and behaviours by at least a week to 21 days.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

It's really hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it too. It's *really* bad on our snowfields, where the glaring white just reflects it all too.

And yes, Rest of the World. Australia has snowfields. It's not just a myth perpetuated by The Man.

I did live in Australia for about 8 years so I've experienced both, and we did go to a skifield so I could get a taste of home (I grew up in Canada as well as NZ).

I never once got sunburn while living in Australia, even though for a while I was working outside 8 hours a day, during the summer. Most of the time I would wear sunscreen if I was going to be outside for hours, but more than once I would forget it. Granted, by the time I moved to Australia, the hole had diminished in size from when it was at is peak.

There are numerous times in NZ where I've burned in less than an hour if I forgot to put sunscreen on, and back when the ozone hole was at it's worst, you could at times burn in less than 10 minutes.

The sun certainly feels a lot harsher in Australia, and there were quite a few days in Melbourne where you don't even want to be outside for more than a few minutes. I did get heatstroke several times due to how hot it got, but the UV just isn't as bad. That gets worse the further south you get.

Should have said that to the WHO last winter, would have saved lives...


"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
"There also is the issue that we have a massive global shortage," Ryan said about masks and other medical supplies. "Right now the people most at risk from this virus are frontline health workers who are exposed to the virus every second of every day. The thought of them not having masks is horrific."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

I seen they updated it, I wonder what was going on with their doctors in 2019.