In a pandemic where a significant disease vector is asymptomatic transmission- such as it is with C19- asymptomatic transmission will rise to the legal requirement of “immanence” in almost any court of initial jurisdiction. Any court that doesn’t follow the science on that will likely get their findings overruled by a higher court.
I want to believe this.
Besides the caveat Umbran pointed out, In most cases, federal law trumps state law. Someone relying on a state law to override federal disclosure requirements is playing Russian roulette with only one bullet removed from the revolver.
1. The multibillion dollar marijuana industry in the US disagrees with you.
2. Do you actually think the current federal government would even consider stepping in to
uphold a law requiring masks? From what I can see, the feds are one of the biggest sources of the fight against requiring them.
Not only that, but even the ADA has provisions regarding legal involuntary disclosure of a patient’s conditions (though most of the defining thereof is in case law).
http://www.adagreatlakes.org/Public...entiality_Requirements_Under_the_ADA_2018.pdf
Everything I read in my skim through that doc was about employer/employee relationships. Stores/customers/etc are a different case. Check out these two examples:
Paratransit EligibilityHow is paratransit eligibility determined?If an individual is eligible for ADA paratransit in their place of residence, does that individual have the right to u
www.transit.dot.gov
Places like stores and service providers are actually forbidden from asking for proof of a medical condition that requires accommodations like service dogs or wheelchairs. Just claiming it is completely sufficient. AFAIK, this has never been challenged in the court for masks, but I suspect it will go the same way.
It is unfortunate that years of work to make the world more fair to people disabilities has created a number of backdoors for those that want to abuse the system. And while there may be theoretical penalties for individuals who falsely claim special treatment, the risk is larger for companies that don't want to risk accidentally denying special treatment when asked.
The base charge is almost always going to be trespassing or disturbing the peace because the person making the claim is doing so in a place of business- a.k.a. someone else’s private property- and those are the most common grounds for ejection. They break down like this:
...
And private businesses can likewise insist on masks as a condition of entry. Those “No shirt, no shoes, no service” signs are perfectly legal and enforceable...and originally based in state & federal public health regs, Heck, even non-health related dress codes are enfoceav as long as they’re not discriminatory in nature or enforcement.
This is the part that I find terrifying on a personal level. If I'm in a store and someone else refuses to wear a mask, there's little I can do personally to make them wear it. I could call the police and report it. But if the base charge needs to be trespassing or disturbing the peace, I'm relying on the store to ask the person to don a mask. If the store decides they don't want to get involved, there's nothing I can do. That's why I firmly believe we need much stricter mask laws; the current ones just don't cut it.
If the state can order you to get an injection, forcing you to wear a mask is kid stuff.
The anti-vax movement is working very hard to prevent this exact thing, and they're having a depressing amount of success with it.
I do admire your positive thinking in all this, I just don't share it.