But not all disabilities are protected nor are all disabilities protected in all cases. Like how a service dog can't bite a customer and get to remain in the restaurant, there are limits.

Red herring.

Nobody needs a service animal to breathe without a mask.

But not all disabilities are protected nor are all disabilities protected in all cases. Like how a service dog can't bite a customer and get to remain in the restaurant, there are limits.

You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to disabilities.  The ADA prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities in all cases, and disability as defined by the EEOC is any condition that “substantially limits a major life activity.”

I don't necessarily take all the numbers at face value. I know there are many intricacies in determining things like case fatality rate, transmition rate,  permanent injuries, testing, antibody testing, etc. In the beginning I think the data from China did make it seem worse than it actually was due to the way China was handling it and limitations of medical capabilities there. So I would agree that we may have been led to believe it was worse than it actually was but I wouldn't say it was malicious. It is complicated to see a threat and react accordingly perfectly. Over react and it can be costly financially. Under react and it can be costly financially and economically.

Personally, I think that even though they may be over reacting a little I think they are trying their best and I agree with most of the steps that Hawaii has been taking. Better safe than sorry is a bit of an over-simplification but it is generally true.

" Better safe than sorry is a bit of an over-simplification but it is generally true."
Typical Democrat tyrant idea.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Franklin

"I will not comply when I can get away with it."
Groveler.

Lol! Stay safe everyone...

Lol! Stay safe everyone...

That is the problem right there. Who's version of safety are we talking about? The one where we use our best judgement and accept the consequences, or the one where we surrender our rights to people who think they know what is best for us yet have a horrible track record of being wrong and completely hypocritical?

That is the problem right there. Who's version of safety are we talking about? The one where we use our best judgement and accept the consequences, or the one where we surrender our rights to people who think they know what is best for us yet have a horrible track record of being wrong and completely hypocritical?

the majority of people don't agree with your logical, common sense reasoning

the majority of people don't agree with your logical, most people are not capable ofcommon sense reasoning

FIFY

Or they are capable, but ainokea. . .

"I will not comply when I can get away with it."
Groveler.

So a business puts up "NO MASK, NO ENTER" You'll go in without a mask anyway to see if you can "get away with it"?

the same govt that covers up for "their people" we humbly obey with masks on...symbologic isn't it?
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/26091/Council-Candidate-Texeira-Gets-DUI-Court-Records-Sealed.aspx

So a business puts up "NO MASK, NO ENTER" You'll go in without a mask anyway to see if you can "get away with it"?

Depends.  If they have an online store that lets me shop, pay, and have them bring my stuff to the door/my vehicle, I have no problem with that. 

I wouldn't insist on going in maskless just to make a point.

Depends.  If they have an online store that lets me shop, pay, and have them bring my stuff to the door/my vehicle, I have no problem with that. 

I wouldn't insist on going in maskless just to make a point.

I guess I'll tell the old lady that works alone to establish an online shopping cart then...  The thing I don't get is some people have reasons to fear this Virus so they try to take precautions but some insist their needs/wants are more important.

I guess I'll tell the old lady that works alone to establish an online shopping cart then...  The thing I don't get is some people have reasons to fear this Virus so they try to take precautions but some insist their needs/wants are more important.

There are always risks when serving the public.  From what I've seen, most people don't know how to properly wear a mask.  Pretending a mask is the ONE thing that sits between health and sickness is naive.

If the little old lady has a respiratory ailment that makes it difficult to breathe, will she wear a mask to protect her customers?  Even if it risks worsening her condition or causing cardiac failure?

When does a business owner's rights  supersede those of the customers? 

There are always risks when serving the public.  From what I've seen, most people don't know how to properly wear a mask.  Pretending a mask is the ONE thing that sits between health and sickness is naive.

If the little old lady has a respiratory ailment that makes it difficult to breathe, will she wear a mask to protect her customers?  Even if it risks worsening her condition or causing cardiac failure?

When does a business owner's rights  supersede those of the customers?

I'm literally speaking about a specific person and your speaking in hypotheticals, she wears a mask but assholes who go into her shop disregard her signs and do whatever the fuck they want.  Why shop at a store that infringes on you, take your money somewhere else seems to solve this problem.

I'm literally speaking about a specific person and your speaking in hypotheticals, she wears a mask but assholes who go into her shop disregard her signs and do whatever the fuck they want.  Why shop at a store that infringes on you, take your money somewhere else seems to solve this problem.

You have to see the argument from both sides:  store management and customer.  It's not hypothetical.  I know business owners with medical issues that might keep them from wearing a mask 8-12 hours a day while they work.  That's much more problematic than a customer who just comes in for an hour or less.

Laws protecting certain classes from discrimination are exactly why you don't want to just go somewhere else.  What about the 3, 13 or 300 others who wanted to shop there for the past few months and could not because of mask rules? 

This is not about a simple disagreement over store policy.  It's about following federal law.  Can a store make a policy that wheelchair ramps won;t be installed?  How about elevators for moving between floors in the store -- only escalators and stairs?

Sorry if you feel differently, but as I said, there are reasons businesses have to comply with accessibility accommodations.  Not everyone is healthy enough to access all businesses without reasonable accommodations.  At this point, I think we're just arguing over what's reasonable.

I'd be okay with a "Non-mask-wearer screening" at the entrance to take their temperature and observe if there are any COVID-19 type symptoms.  Of course, that should also be done on everyone coming in -- just to be "safe".

There is an organization trying to push for a COVID-19 "passport".  You take a test, and if it's negative, you get a code on your phone to show to anyone -- like at a store with a mask policy.  That way they can let you in without fear that you have the virus.

The obvious flaw here is there's no way to maintain that status of being virus-free after the test!  Nor is there any way to guard against false negatives.  It's another example of the shortsightedness  we have to live with as people refuse to accept what can, and can't, be done to stop the spread.

Let's say masks cut the rate of infection in half.  Given that success, why stop there?  Isolation can drop that new total another 50%.  Shutting down businesses and schools forever will stop it up to 95%.  The issue becomes whether or not the "cure" is worse than the disease.  If I live alone and need to shop for food, home repair items or take advantage of a local sale on coffee, I should not be excluded from those businesses if I have a valid health condition in which masks worsen that condition.

I remember stories of when the general population placed the sick in isolation for the rest of their lives, cast out of society, out of fear of contracting the disease.  Maybe it's time to bring back the Leper Colonies?

https://www.history.com/news/leprosy-colonies-us-quarantine

A shop owner or business can do what ever they want.  If you don't like their policies, shop else where.

A shop owner or business can do what ever they want.  If you don't like their policies, shop else where.

Tell that to the (I think gay) couple that sued to force a company to make a cake for them. 

I dunno about anyone else, but if you're gonna need to sue me to make something that you're going to consume, I wouldn't recommend actually consuming said product. . .

Tell that to the (I think gay) couple that sued to force a company to make a cake for them. 

I dunno about anyone else, but if you're gonna need to sue me to make something that you're going to consume, I wouldn't recommend actually consuming said product. . .

That cake baker won the lawsuit, but only because of the nature of his work.  He makes individualized cakes, which are considered more artwork than just food.  As such, the baker was in essence being asked to invest his time and talents to produce a cake with a design and message he did not support:  Gay Marriage.  He would have sold them a basic wedding cake, but not a cake that's specifically for a Gay wedding.

The fact that the couple drove a long way, opting to not even try to use another baker closer to their home or venue, and then quickly filing a lawsuit indicates that they targeted this baker specifically because they are Christian-owned and operated.

Anyway, he wasn't refusing to bake for them because they were Gay.  It was because of the type of cake they wanted.  He'd have happily sold them something else.

That cake baker won the lawsuit, but only because of the nature of his work.  He makes individualized cakes, which are considered more artwork than just food.  As such, the baker was in essence being asked to invest his time and talents to produce a cake with a design and message he did not support:  Gay Marriage.  He would have sold them a basic wedding cake, but not a cake that's specifically for a Gay wedding.

The fact that the couple drove a long way, opting to not even try to use another baker closer to their home or venue, and then quickly filing a lawsuit indicates that they targeted this baker specifically because they are Christian-owned and operated.

Anyway, he wasn't refusing to bake for them because they were Gay.  It was because of the type of cake they wanted.  He'd have happily sold them something else.

I remember a time when all they wanted was acceptance and tolerance.

I remember a time when all they wanted was acceptance and tolerance.

No, they wanted special protections, just like all the other protected classes in the nation.  Being part of that class gives you the right to make big money suing people whether or not they actually discriminated against you.

Now that playing the "Race" card is so popular, everyone else wants their cards added to the deck.

Tell that to the (I think gay) couple that sued to force a company to make a cake for them. 

I dunno about anyone else, but if you're gonna need to sue me to make something that you're going to consume, I wouldn't recommend actually consuming said product. . .

They drove by about 20 other bakery's also and 45 minutes.  Wish 2a cases would get hearings that quickly.