D&D and the rising pandemic

[Umbran]

Second, the hypothetical store/service/place could theoretically provide a number of auxiliary aids and services to eliminate the risk.

They could. But they don't have to. They are not bound by the ADA, or anything else, to offer you the accommodation you request. They merely have to give you a reasonable one.

What you just quoted is exactly why the store can't simply tell a person to wear a mask or leave (without offering alternatives; if they claim they have a disability; insert qualifier here).

Um, would you go back and please check where anyone other than you suggested that course of action for the business? Because, I'm pretty sure you won't find it. Which would mean that you are engaged in a strawman argument. Maybe bring yourself around to what we are actually saying, hm? Thanks.

So, if a person refuses to wear mask but is otherwise well behaved, what happens?

"I'm terribly sorry, but there's current orders/regulations about wearing masks in public places. We have to ask you to remain outside the building. How might we otherwise meet your needs?"

The store doesn't actually have to ask you any questions about what your health issue is. It is irrelevant, a boogeyman.

If they ask the wrong questions they can get sued.

Having spoken with a friend of mine who works in disability rights, this is not quite correct.

Technically, they can ask. What they cannot do is require an answer as a condition of service. If they ask, "Sir, could you tell me what your issue is, so that I can help you better?" they are not subject to suit. If they say, "Prove to me that you need that service dog, or you cannot come in!" then they are in trouble.

If that person is lying, the store can be sued anyway, and the store will have to wait until the case goes to court to find out if their suspicions about lying are correct. Or, the minimum wage employee can just shrug and walk away.

You continue to miss how this is not an all-or-nothing, give them full service or none situation. "Sir, if you can give me a list of the goods you need, I'll get one of our staff to gather them up and bring them out to you," is a perfectly reasonable accommodation for retail services. So is, "Please see our website for ordering." And so on.

I really suggest you not continue to miss this.

If lawsuit is your boogeyman, there's a couple points to hit:

1) There's a limit to how much this suit is worth. They cannot bleed you dry for this, and in fact, unless a pattern of behavior of not accommodating people with disabilities is established. A first offense generally gets you a warning and orders to change your policies or establishment to deal with the issue properly. So, one yahoo will generally get you a visit from a bureaucrat, not a hundred thousand dollars in the hole.

2) With a mask order in place, if the proprietor lets someone in without a mask, they technically suffer legal exposure from everyone else on the premises, who is now being put at risk. If any of them come down with covid-19, they have grounds for a civil suit. If anyone dies and that is connected to your establishment where you didn't follow the rules, now you may even have a wrongful death suit on your hands.

Thank you, the threat that a yutz trying to weaponize the ADA is paltry compared to the millions you may be on the hook for in a wrongful death suit.

 

[Garthanos]

If you're outright neglecting kids then yes social services can intervene.

As I said the difference is a decision to rule/declare that not vaccinating is indeed neglecting and not providing fundamental healthcare. I am not saying they have done this... just that the step is not really that huge Tetanus and Rabies can you picture an anti-vaxxers kids there are some horrible ways to die and these are what they withhold protection from.

It almost seems like Munchausens by proxy.

 

[Zardnaar]

As I said the difference is a decision to rule/declare that not vaccinating is indeed neglecting and not providing fundamental healthcare. I am not saying they have done this... just that the step is not really that huge Tetanus and Rabies can you picture an anti-vaxxers kids there are some horrible ways to die and these are what they withhold protection from.

It almost seems like Munchausens by proxy.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act 11 Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment – New Zealand Legislation

"Everyone has the right to refuse any medical treatment"

Unlike the US constitution it's easy enough to change at least in theory.

Same bill specifically let's you worship and associate in public hence why the cops can't do much about protests and breaking rules in lockdown.

Not sure how they're enforcing qurantine rules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would like to believe so, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court keeps disabusing me of that notion. Even now, while we're seeing record levels of positive tests (for WI) and the UW-Madison is quarantining whole dorms with thousands of students, they slapped a temporary injunction on Dane County's declaration that schools have to use distance learning for grades 3-12. While it might make sense to review the county's powers over schools in the county from a legal sense, the temporary injunction is going to allow schools to bring kids of all levels back for face-to-face learning. A smarter move, one that recognized asymptomatic transmission is a major vector, would have left the order in place so as to not let the horse out of the barn, so to speak.
Seriously, I can't underline strenuously enough how much judicial partisanship/politicking can derange their decisions.

One thing to remember about most judges, be they partisan hacks or scrupulously ethical neutrals is that the orders they issue are going to be defined and constrained by the arguments made before them by the appearing parties and the evidence those parties present to support their assertions.* Make a big enough mistake in your presentation- or accumulate enough minor ones- and a case that SHOULD have gone one way will go the other.



* hyperpartisan hacks are a different story.

 

[Mikeythorn]

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act 11 Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment – New Zealand Legislation

"Everyone has the right to refuse any medical treatment"

Unlike the US constitution it's easy enough to change at least in theory.

Same bill specifically let's you worship and associate in public hence why the cops can't do much about protests and breaking rules in lockdown.

Not sure how they're enforcing qurantine rules.

The Bill of Rights can be trumped by any other piece of legislation if need be. But only after the draft has passed through a special committee appointed by the Ministry of Justice, and that committee agrees (I was once part of a team that drafted a Bill and had to take it before that committee - twice). For example the Mental Health Act allows for compulsory treatment in specific circumstances. The Health Act can also require compulsory incarceration in the case of infectious illnesses. Pre-Covid I recall a case where a guy with TB ended up in prison because he kept leaving hospital while infectious.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Bill of Rights can be trumped by any other piece of legislation if need be. But only after the draft has passed through a special committee appointed by the Ministry of Justice, and that committee agrees (I was once part of a team that drafted a Bill and had to take it before that committee - twice). For example the Mental Health Act allows for compulsory treatment in specific circumstances. The Health Act can also require compulsory incarceration in the case of infectious illnesses. Pre-Covid I recall a case where a guy with TB ended up in prison because he kept leaving hospital while infectious.

True they can get around it if they have to.

Our cops are reasonably laid back though. In Dunedin the 4:20 crowd occupied the cop shop for a smoke up. No arrests.

They don't really break up protests or anything. Don't carry guns or riot gear.

Coronavirus: More than a thousand turn out for anti-lockdown rally in Auckland

There's one in the photo.

Been to some epic street parties down here they should have broken up.

 

[Hussar]

As I said the difference is a decision to rule/declare that not vaccinating is indeed neglecting and not providing fundamental healthcare. I am not saying they have done this... just that the step is not really that huge Tetanus and Rabies can you picture an anti-vaxxers kids there are some horrible ways to die and these are what they withhold protection from.

It almost seems like Munchausens by proxy.

Just to nitpick - you don't get vaccinations for Tetanus or Rabies unless you have a specific reason for getting them. It's not a general vaccination. At least, I know Rabies isn't. Tetanus isn't in Canada. (I know, because I needed tetanus shots after an accident. Thankfully didn't need rabies shots. Yikes those are brutal).

And, on the point about Bills of Rights and things like that, I imagine New Zealand is similar to Canada in that our Bill of Rights (Charter of Rights in Canada) is based on British Common Law (IIRC - that's the right term. Damn, it's been a long time since I studied this) which means that your rights are kind of inverse to how they are elucidated in the States. IOW, in Canada (and I imagine NZ is the same) you have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except what the Charter says you can't do. So, we automatically have the right to bear arms, for example, even though that will never be specified in our Charter. Our Charter has nothing to say about what rights you have, just what limitations there are on them.

It's a different approach and it makes comparisons between countries a bit difficult.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just to nitpick - you don't get vaccinations for Tetanus or Rabies unless you have a specific reason for getting them. It's not a general vaccination. At least, I know Rabies isn't. Tetanus isn't in Canada. (I know, because I needed tetanus shots after an accident. Thankfully didn't need rabies shots. Yikes those are brutal).

And, on the point about Bills of Rights and things like that, I imagine New Zealand is similar to Canada in that our Bill of Rights (Charter of Rights in Canada) is based on British Common Law (IIRC - that's the right term. Damn, it's been a long time since I studied this) which means that your rights are kind of inverse to how they are elucidated in the States. IOW, in Canada (and I imagine NZ is the same) you have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except what the Charter says you can't do. So, we automatically have the right to bear arms, for example, even though that will never be specified in our Charter. Our Charter has nothing to say about what rights you have, just what limitations there are on them.

It's a different approach and it makes comparisons between countries a bit difficult.

I had to you for flu vaccine in lockdown.

Nurse had PPE on and had to sit in a chair in an old garage.

May as well have used me as a dart board.

Looks like our Bill of Rights is more the Bill of Suggestions. Not that I distrust the government can't really complain in that regard.

There's talk of making malicious lies illegal. No idea how they'll make that work.

 

[Garthanos]

"Everyone has the right to refuse any medical treatment"

(I am pretty sure this is fairly common here too even without it being constitutionally defined). However the laws I am talking about are those about child welfare ie those about caretaker Neglect and child endangerment and abuse laws. And refusing "needed" medical treatment is defined as neglect/abuse (sometimes prosecuted the same here)

Just to nitpick - you don't get vaccinations for Tetanus or Rabies unless you have a specific reason for getting them. It's not a general vaccination. At least, I know Rabies isn't. Tetanus isn't in Canada. (I know, because I needed tetanus shots after an accident. Thankfully didn't need rabies shots. Yikes those are brutal).

Yes I picked them as examples where it seems most likely one could say not providing these would OBVIOUSLY be neglect of needed treatment or abuse as they can be done after the fact. Rabies always is but in the states Tetanus is not it's done preemptively and "required" and lasts well over 10 years, I see them as a potential starting point legally. The fear of the "evil" vaccine is not necessarily going to distinguish.

In the US all 50 states have laws that require school children to be vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis ; hepatitis (HBV); measles and rubella (MMR vaccine); polio (IPV vaccine); and varicella (chickenpox). The laws allowing non-medical exemptions are problematic.

The current state of affairs has people doing lawsuits against parents who did not vaccinate their children who subsequent fell ill and infected others. So its basically civil court pressure instead of being treated as neglect.

If a parent does not comply with a school’s policy, the child will not be allowed to attend, and the parent can then be arrested for the child’s truancy. So many anti-vaxxers choose to homeschool their children (difficulties doing this may also be why its well off people who anti-vaxx it is a "first world" problem )

So the law is really isn't protecting these children in the current form I think it should.

 

[Garthanos]

There's talk of making malicious lies illegal. No idea how they'll make that work.

Put the us president in the penitentiary that would LOL

There are already some lies which are illegal here at least Libel/Slander are.