[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Very different approach up north in Massachusetts. 14 day quarantine for anyone coming to the state, unless coming from one of 6 designated low risk states. Masks are mandatory, with a fine for violation, everywhere in public, both indoors and outdoors, even if you can social distance. Indoor gatherings limited to 10 people and 25 outdoors. All non-essential businesses must close by 9:30 PM (just about everything except for hospitals) and curfew in place (with fines for violations) between 10 PM and 5 AM.

Here is hoping that today’s news of an effective vaccine are real?

Never really understood the limit 10 people? It only takes one to spread to another and another ect.........

[Kilmacowen]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Very different approach up north in Massachusetts. 14 day quarantine for anyone coming to the state, unless coming from one of 6 designated low risk states. Masks are mandatory, with a fine for violation, everywhere in public, both indoors and outdoors, even if you can social distance. Indoor gatherings limited to 10 people and 25 outdoors. All non-essential businesses must close by 9:30 PM (just about everything except for hospitals) and curfew in place (with fines for violations) between 10 PM and 5 AM.

Here is hoping that today’s news of an effective vaccine are real?

Yes, and we have a great governor,Republican Charlie Baker a REAL LEADER that everyone respects. Everyone I see is cooperative , masks in every store. No whining about wearing a mask. Hope Golfcoast stays there.

[tvbound]

'Flock' immunity is an unattainable goal for a country this large, but there are plenty who seem to want to try anyway.

[Gulfcoast]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Nothing more motivating than lining governments pockets. It’s all about money.

Money, greed, control and power over others. It's sickening.

[Villageswimmer]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Never really understood the limit 10 people? It only takes one to spread to another and another ect.........

I think it’s a measure of risk reduction as opposed to risk elimination. Also, it’s a bit easier to enforce. Maybe.

[Villageswimmer]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow

Have said things in the past to both Winn Dixie manager and Publix manager. Have not gotten a response that indicates they can consistently take care of the problems. One check out lady told me they are not allowed to say anything to anyone about wearing a mask? Publix is definitely not following through on the company policy even with some employees.

Very unfortunate. Publix has always had such a good reputation for concern for their employees.

[Gulfcoast]

Originally Posted by Kilmacowen

Yes, and we have a great governor,Republican Charlie Baker a REAL LEADER that everyone respects. Everyone I see is cooperative , masks in every store. No whining about wearing a mask. Hope Golfcoast stays there.

Your state sounds really awful. And I mean really bad. I wouldn't go there if you paid me and gave me a free house. Rest assured, there is pretty much zero chance that I would be coming to your state.

[Hopeful2]

Originally Posted by Gulfcoast

I'm sorry but those rules are absolutely asinine. How on earth is that not a violation of constitutional rights? I've heard that a certain someone wants to make mask wearing mandatory nationwide - both indoors and outdoors. People not in compliance will face stiff fines. Pretty soon we'll be sunbathing and swimming in the ocean with masks slapped on our faces.

Newsflash - your constitutional rights are not absolute! Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another to be safe. Just as you can not smoke indoors in public places; you can not yell fire in a crowded room when there is none; you can not drive a car without a license; you can not operate a vehicle when intoxicated; etc., etc., etc.

People refusing to wear a mask may as well put a sign on their forehead saying - "I don't give a #h%* about you," because that is clearly what they're saying.

And yes, I am an expert on Constitutional Law.

[Art cov]

They don’t live what they preach! It’s a fact but we don’t matter so they put on a show, and want to demand their regulations on us. Don’t dare violate their rules! Or else

[bluedivergirl]

Originally Posted by Hopeful2

Newsflash - your constitutional rights are not absolute! Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another to be safe. Just as you can not smoke indoors in public places; you can not yell fire in a crowded room when there is none; you can not drive a car without a license; you can not operate a vehicle when intoxicated; etc., etc., etc.

People refusing to wear a mask may as well put a sign on their forehead saying - "I don't give a #h%* about you," because that is clearly what they're saying.

And yes, I am an expert on Constitutional Law.

The driving analogy doesn't work. Driving is not a right. It is a privilege.

Can't smoke indoors doesn't work either. There is not a constitutional right to smoke anything.

The only one that works is yelling Fire! in a theater. First amendment.

I am surprised a constitutional law expert does not understand that.

[Velvet]

OP, I’m still giggling on your first post. Well put.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Gulfcoast

I'm sorry but those rules are absolutely asinine. How on earth is that not a violation of constitutional rights? I've heard that a certain someone wants to make mask wearing mandatory nationwide - both indoors and outdoors. People not in compliance will face stiff fines. Pretty soon we'll be sunbathing and swimming in the ocean with masks slapped on our faces.

Have you actually read or heard that the mask mandates he plans is for outdoors even when social distancing can be maintained? That does not seem necessary. Personally, I will not be wearing a mask when outdoors and no one is anywhere near me. That is just unrealistic to expect people who are exercising outdoors such as jogging, to wear a mask when no one is around them.

I'm a huge proponent of mask wearing indoors in public but never have worn a mask outdoors when I'm not close to anyone.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Never really understood the limit 10 people? It only takes one to spread to another and another ect.........

Much easier to contact trace and let everyone be aware they have been exposed to the virus. That is the only reason I can come up with.

[Kilmacowen]

Originally Posted by Gulfcoast

Your state sounds really awful. And I mean really bad. I wouldn't go there if you paid me and gave me a free house. Rest assured, there is pretty much zero chance that I would be coming to your state.

I was referring to you staying on the gulf coast and not come to TV. Unlike you I live in TV and Ma. You don't live here , have never even been here, so why are you even on this site? Trolling

[Hopeful2]

Originally Posted by bluedivergirl

The driving analogy doesn't work. Driving is not a right. It is a privilege.

Can't smoke indoors doesn't work either. There is not a constitutional right to smoke anything.

The only one that works is yelling Fire! in a theater. First amendment.

I am surprised a constitutional law expert does not understand that.

Your understanding of the Constitution is very rudimentary.
Our government has the power to limit individuals' freedom under certain circumstances. Citizens are not free to do whatever they want if government regulations or laws are put into place prohibiting such actions. (Hence, the few simplistic examples I cited - unlicensed driving; intoxication while driving a motor vehicle; smoking where prohibited; inciting unfounded fear and chaos; etc.) The Supreme Court of the United States has long upheld the principal that virtually no constitutional rights are absolute. Most fundamental constitutional rights are protected by the legal concept of "strict scrutiny" but can also be regulated to achieve a “compelling governmental interest.” In addition, the Supreme Court has also found that constitutional rights can be regulated for an even less pressing reason - demanding only a “sufficiently important interest.” I have no doubt that a government regulation calling for masks would, at a minimum, meet the threshold of a "sufficiently important government interest".

I'd be happy to discuss the Constitution with you in greater detail.