NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 8085912" data-attributes="member: 7808">First, just as with our discussion of "immanence" earlier, there is not a clear ruling that an asymptomatic person would constitute a "direct threat".  You and I both think they should, but that has never been legally defined or ruled on.  It's not that I'm saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's an opinion we both share, and I don't trust the rest of the world to agree with us.Second, the hypothetical store/service/place could theoretically provide a number of auxiliary aids and services to eliminate the risk.  A greater degree of distancing, providing an alternate barrier, etc.  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).I'm not disagreeing with you about facts on this, I'm disagreeing with the process.  A store can't ask for proof of a disability.  Police can't force you to give proof of a disability.  A police officer won't remove someone from private property without a complaint from the store.So, if a person refuses to wear mask but is otherwise well behaved, what happens?  A store has to follow strict guidelines on what questions they're allowed to ask, offer alternatives, and then ask them to leave.  If they ask the wrong questions they can get sued.  If they believe the person is lying about a disability, they can kick them out anyway.  But if that person is telling the truth, they can be sued.  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.  I think that's why you only hear about cases of people being arrested for disorderly or drunken conduct.  People who refuse to wear masks but otherwise control themselves can skirt the law with near zero risk of being called out for it.This discussion reminds me of a joke:  I was standing at a crosswalk one day with another man.  My light tuned green, but cars kept coming so I couldn't cross.  The man say to me "You know, you can start walking.  The law says they have to stop.".  I say "The law won't protect me if they don't".  Employer/employee relationship, not a business/customer one.  Where the risks were more clearly defined and no possible safety workarounds were identified.  And, since it was religious and not a disability, the ADA didn't apply.</blockquote>

Verification