Reactions of people who are requested to wear a mask
 

I'm afraid to say, there are a handful of our fellow Americans who have become wack jobs when it comes to wearing a mask. I feel sorry employees who have to deal with these situations........

Maskless woman at KFC hops on counter, demands service after being asked to comply with COVID rules | Fox News

California McDonald’s employee assaulted by customer in drive-thru window over mask policy | Fox News

Burger King customer throws tape dispenser at worker over face mask policy: report | Fox News

You’re right. Tensions with some are running high. There is not enough $$ to pay me to work in retail/food service these days. Aside from the fact that I’m retired. Various reasons why tensions are high, but same result; over reactive and sometimes violent.

This is what “timeouts” and participation trophies get you.

sick people out there

Wow, I'm sure, or hope, there's crazy drugs in their systems to explain this crap.

exactly

If there were not masks, it would be something else.

Only the first of the three links gave any indication of the attackers' ages. The first was the video, and the woman looked to be in her 20's or 30's. That would mean hm - oh yeah. The age of your grandchildren. So - participating trophies and time-outs provided by people the age of your kids. Which one of you taught your kids that it was acceptable to provide time-outs and participation trophies to their kids? Cause the idea didn't come out of a zebra's butt.

Meanwhile, we don't know the ages of the other two. If one of them was in their 70's, would you accuse fox of reporting age discriminatory fake news? Or would you just accept that some people are screwed up in the head?

Are you so sure that participation trophies and time outs are the reason why some people act out? Are you really and truly sure? How many folks here have a relative over the age of 40, who has either been in jail, been in a fight, gotten a ticket for reckless driving, been accused of a crime, participated in any kind of protest at all, drove drunk (whether or not they got caught)...

How many of you even KNOW if you have a relative who fits the above criteria?

Believe me - it's not the result of participation trophies and time outs. I never got either and I did my share of acting out when I was young. For me it was a matter of "you and what army are going to STOP me from doing whatever I want?" Time out? Pfft. There's no lock on my door. Participation trophy? Screw that, I want to WIN. If I can't win, then I don't deserve a trophy. We used to get those in bowling league, I thought it was a huge waste of league money.

to the 10th power
 

In Ohio Dr. Amy Acton, the state’s director of health, resigned after she and her family were threatened by people showing up at her house, waving flags and carrying assault weapons and signs saying, “No violence — yet.”

Dr. Acton had dared to encourage mask-wearing — but gave up after being terrorized by pseudo-patriots.

Another woman doctor was recently appointed to take Dr. Acton’s place. She withdrew before she even started the job — cited “personal reasons” — a.k.a. threats.

I am in total shock that people I know can support this kind of America.

Do they even know these things are happening? If so, how can they support it — by what they say — or with sinister, tacit approval? (shudder)

Good points, OrangeBlossomBaby! In most of the videos of people being resistant to wearing masks I've seen the individual looked to be at least middle aged. Not to mention participation trophies have been around since World War I so you can't even put that on Millennials and Gen Zers. Entitlement knows no generation.

Plus 1.

Basically - they call it "Fake News" and immediately remind you of "her e-mails." Facts don't matter to these kinds of people. They will be attracted to something shiny, and will hold on to that shiny thing even while its razor-sharp blade cuts them to ribbons.

I say baloney to that. It's how you model behavior to your kids. How you get them to respect adults and authority without using violence. What you expect of them.


Our kids got plenty of participation trophies. They knew those things were useless. They concentrated on the areas they were good at. Even at the teenage acting-out stages, they never disrespected us or authority.



Some of it is the genetic makeup of the kid--thank god for my husband and I. The rest is the balancing act of parenting without violence while still showing consequences. We were only semi good at it, but thankfully it was enough.


There are many ways to discipline a child without resorting to violence,.

Not condoning these actions but I, for one, am sick and tired of the misinformation out there about the real cause of deaths, numbers of infections, false test results, masks don’t work, masks are required, etc. Never before in history have such radical steps been taken especially when such a minute percentage of deaths have occurred in relation to the entire population and tge draconian measures being taken. Then, proven treatments like Hydroxochloroquine are wittheld by the CDC and others. Never before has such a pandemic been politicized so that people don't know what or who to believe so they get very frustrated.

No one has “become” a wack job. They a,ways were and just have another platform to act like psychos about. Nothing new

Steps like this have been taken many times in history but not here in the States. So, nothing new. I would rather play safe than to say “Im doing what I want”. As far as treatment and drugs being withheld? Well, I personally dont believe that at all. And yes, lots of conflicting info out there. Take it with a grain of salt, act on what sounds reasonable and go on living your life. But to act like spoiled entitled brats isnt quite what someone with a brain does.

Good comment and I agree fully . Thanks

The measures taken in the US are certainly not draconian and in fact for the most part have been weak, undermined, and unenforced. If you think the measures her are draconian check out Australia where there have been relatively few cases and very few deaths. I wonder why?

Curious your use of words. Americans have become wack jobs because they refuse to obey a ridiculous mandate that these retail businesses have no power to demand! Only a governor while implementing a state of emergency can mandate the mandatory wearing of masks. Our governor has not done that. What is frustrating is the paranoid sheep that are doing everything they are told walking around looking ridiculous even when driving in cars by themselves or golf carts by themselves. You cannot hide from a virus. Many epidemiologist have determined that these masks are useless. Looking forward to the day this ridiculous paranoia ends.

I've found that as long as I wear the mask under my chin that everyone is satisfied. I can lift it up if a cough or sneeze comes along. Just common sense.

Consider the source.

:clap2:

Is there something wrong with wearing a mask when entering a store? What am I missing?

[QUOTE=CFrance;1833010] ...How you get them to respect adults and authority without using violence ... Even at the teenage acting-out stages, they never disrespected us or authority ...

Well, here's the issue. No, they should not be resorting to violence against these "authorities". I do NOT agree with what they are doing.

However, the constitution is the law of the land. Any other "law" that disagrees with it, is an illegal law and not enforceable. In other words, no man or government has the authority to force people to wear masks or socially distance or ???

Yes, they can quarantine sick people. But they have no authority whatsoever to force a free citizenry to do any of this stuff.

For reference: a portion of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;


Well, illegal laws are being created and enforced all over the place. Liberty (quarantines of healthy people) and property (closing of businesses) are being deprived without precendent.

Rebellion (non-violent) is the only solution to a government that assumes powers that it does not legally have.

Masks
 

The simple rule is: if you are afraid, stay home. Then you don't have to worry whether people are wearing masks. Groceries and prescriptions can be delivered.

No, even a governor does NOT have that power under the Constitution of the United States. A "state of emergency" does not trump the US Constitution.

A portion of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Once you accept masks and other BS, will you hand over your guns when they declare another "state of emergency".

What are the limits of a state of emergency? Answer: the US Constitution.

Why are the orange worshipers such crybabies?

Gov. Baker’s pandemic orders were tough. Were they lawful?

The state’s highest court must decide whether the governor overstepped his authority.

By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist, Updated September 9, 2020, 3:00 a.m.

On Friday, six months after Governor Charlie Baker declared a state of emergency and began issuing shutdown orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court takes up a threshold question: Were the governor’s commands lawful?

Baker’s March 10 declaration was followed by dozens of emergency orders affecting virtually every aspect of life in the Bay State. His decrees shut down Massachusetts businesses, houses of worship, and schools; banned elective surgery; restricted travel; closed beaches and theaters; prohibited sporting events; and limited weddings and funerals to 10 people. Almost overnight, they plunged Massachusetts into a recession. Unemployment rose to 17.4 percent, the highest rate in America. The state began gradually reopening in late May, but for some businesses the shutdown proved fatal. One-fifth of Massachusetts restaurants, for example, have permanently closed their doors.

The purpose of Baker’s orders was irreproachable: to slow the spread of the coronavirus, which has now killed nearly 190,000 people in the United States and more than 9,000 in Massachusetts. Whether the decrees were the best way to address the pandemic is a question that epidemiologists and other experts will be debating for some time. But the matter before the state’s highest court isn’t whether Baker’s unilateral orders — which can be enforced with fines and imprisonment — were wise or well intended. It is whether he had the legal authority to issue them.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of small-business owners, pastors, and a private school headmaster. They argue that Baker’s orders should be deemed invalid because they were issued under the state’s 1950 Civil Defense Act — a law, they say, that does not apply to the coronavirus pandemic. That statute was enacted by the Legislature to empower governors “to defend Massachusetts from foreign invasions, armed insurrections, and similar catastrophic events,” the plaintiffs contend, and it specifies in detail the types of crises that can trigger its provisions — war or enemy attack; riots or civil disturbance; severe drought; an escape of radiation from a nuclear plant; and “fire, flood, earthquake or other natural causes.” Those, say the plaintiffs, are all “sudden cataclysmic events of limited time, place, and duration.” The law makes no reference to disease because it was never intended to apply to disease.

By contrast, the governor points to the phrase “other natural causes” and insists that the 1950 act gives him all the authority he needs. “Like fires, floods, and earthquakes, COVID-19 is a natural phenomenon,” he observes in a brief prepared by the attorney general’s office. He also points to the law’s preamble, which described the act as “an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and convenience.” Far from overstepping his lawful authority, Baker maintains, he is “discharging his constitutional prerogative, as well as his constitutional duty,” by issuing orders under the Civil Defense Act.

If so, why has no governor ever done what Baker has done?

Massachusetts has experienced multiple epidemics in the decades since the Legislature enacted the Civil Defense Act, yet Baker is the first governor to invoke the act to fight the spread of disease. There’s a reason that hasn’t been done before, the challengers argue: A rapidly spreading disease is not a civil defense emergency. It is a public health emergency — and for that, the Legislature enacted the Public Health Act, which has been on the books for more than a century. That is the law intended to govern the state’s response to COVID-19, the plaintiffs assert. “Governor Baker simply cannot substitute the inapposite Civil Defense Act to ignore or suspend the very statute the [Legislature] wrote to protect Massachusetts from pandemics.”

This isn’t merely a wonky dispute over legislative interpretation. Nothing in the Public Health Act authorizes the kind of comprehensive economic shutdown that the governor imposed on Massachusetts. That law delegates considerable power to local health officials, not the governor. If Baker issued orders by relying on a statute that doesn’t actually grant him that power, those orders were, in legalese, “ultra vires” — beyond the scope of his authority. Until and unless lawmakers empower Baker to issue emergency orders to address a pandemic, the plaintiffs argue, he may not do so. So far, lawmakers haven’t acted.

Courts are typically reluctant to overturn emergency measures designed for public protection. But such deference has its limits. Defeating the coronavirus is a crucial public good. Upholding the rule of law is too.

Agree. Don't believe everything you see or hear. Even salt looks like sugar.

By the same token those with breathing issues should not be judged

See the bolded underlined thing in the quote you quoted? Life, liberty. The government cannot deprive anyone of either of those things without due process.

And so - if the general population is at risk of losing their life (to the virus) or liberty (to having to be isolated as a result of the virus) then - it is their duty to do what they can to prevent that risk of loss.

Mandating masks can reduce that risk of loss.

My life and liberty is more important than your freedom to uncover your face.

There’s nothing wrong with wearing a mask in a store if you choose. There’s also nothing wrong with not wearing one if you choose and don’t believe in them. So many people are missing the point. This is the United States of America. We don’t just fall in line every time somebody says to do this or do that regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.

Well, this is what I had heard regarding a state of emergency in a state.. That said, I totally agree with you. We are Americans in the Constitution provides us our civil liberties. Nothing can override that.

There is also nothing wrong with business that is NOT government-owned, such as a supermarket, requiring visitors to wear masks.

The constitutional right to privacy is about the government's responsibility, and citizens' rights on government property. It is not about businesses that are not government-owned. Those businesses are on private property, not government property. You have no constitutional right to be on someone else's private property, with or without a mask. The owner of that property has the right to kick you out if they don't want you there (as long as the reason doesn't violate anti-discrimination laws).

You have it right.

The stores are free to mandate the wearing of masks, just like customers having to wear a shirt or shoes. Non-mask wearers are free to go to another store if they don't like that. But wearing a mask seems like the most community-spirited and neighborly thing one can do.

I suspect the woman in that first video at KFC was on some sort of drug, or has mental problems. If she's carrying a blanket around with her, she's probably homeless and most likely is crazy. You have to feel sorry in that we don't have enough places for her to go to get the treatment she needs.

It doesn't help when our leaders say one thing in private to reporters writing a book, and another thing to the public who are trying to understand whats the best way to protect themselves. And I want to know the true odds even though some may think they are small, and not be lied to. Because ultimately it is MY life they are playing with.

It was known from the very beginning that the threat is air-borne. Hence the wearing of masks makes perfect sense.

I’m totally sick of masks and believe it is necessary currently but we’ll see after keep????

The point is that the store owner has the perfect right to refuse service to those who do not wear a mask. (just like there have been an isolated one or two store owners who refuse to serve people who do wear masks)

That is the point. You don't have to wear a mask, but you don't have the right to demand service from someone who doesn't want to serve you.

Your last sentence is what is the issue. Your liberty cannot deny another theirs.

Maskhole - a selfish inconsiderate idiot who refuses to wear a mask