Distinguishing as we must between the natural law (or natural rights) and civil law (or civil rights), dress codes such as the one you mentioned have been found to be Constitutional -- that is, no serious violation of natural or civil rights if reasonable and applied consistently to all.
Some would argue it violates the natural law to reqβ¦
Distinguishing as we must between the natural law (or natural rights) and civil law (or civil rights), dress codes such as the one you mentioned have been found to be Constitutional -- that is, no serious violation of natural or civil rights if reasonable and applied consistently to all.
Some would argue it violates the natural law to require minimum clothing such as shoes and a shirt. Technically it does, I guess, but under the Constitution, which has evolved to include civil rights, a reasonable dress code applied uniformly has been found to not violate civil rights or natural ones so severely as to be void. So, a business, operating as a place of public accommodation (all civil rights language) may deny entry based on "No shirt, no shoes, no service" dress codes. That said, having to wear a shirt does not interfere with natural metabolic processes such as breathing...
IMO, this is precisely why all the a-hole govenors (Sorry, Alice, I still get "agitated" when I think about it -- nearly four years in!) had language in their mask "mandates" allowing for exceptions. A mask -- a medical device -- interferes with all manner of natural processes, including breathing and communicating. Shirts don't do that. Neither do shoes.
The natural law, OTOH, says that a business owner may allow or deny entry to his/her business (property) to anyone for any reason. This includes race, religious expression (yarmulke, hijab, turban, etc.), sex (only men allowed) -- for any reason. It's his/her property. Sorry. Can't come in...
Kris Anne Hall is one such person. She is an attorney for whom the natural law applies in all circumstances. This includes the "right" of a business owner to require a medical intervention such as a mask; does she apply this to other medical interventions such as "vaccines?" That I do not know, but I'd bet she holds this view, too. https://www.krisannehall.com/2018/07/02/about-krisanne-hall/
Hall's remedy? Shop elsewhere. Oh, OK. Kris Anne -- and when the State issues its edicts and everywhere one looks one finds businesses and employers requiring such interventions -- including "vaccine" passports, perhaps -- what then? Does Hall dispute the authority of the State to issue an edict that tells businesses they ππππ require certain medical interventions? Perhaps that's how she wiggles out of her stance on masks -- If the business owner decides, that's fine. If the State orders it? Not so much.
IMO, requiring medical interventions -- even if its "just a mask" -- enables the greasing of that slippery slope to point where we are now -- a horror show of a world. Whether Kris Anne Hall agrees or not.
Thanks for your thoughts. To me, the genius of the Constitution lies in many, many aspects and not least in its elasticity. (Just don't EVER, Justice ANYONE, subject us to ANY "penumbra" again, thank you very much.) It's the same old same old of the "necessity!" T-shirt-wearing team against the "evil!" T-shirt-wearing team, with poor old "reasonableness!" wringing its hands. Always a question of which word gets the emphasis in considering remedies proposed as necessary evils. I will certainly never again give the ACLU one shred of respect after their patronising pronouncement that "Mandates increase freedom."
Distinguishing as we must between the natural law (or natural rights) and civil law (or civil rights), dress codes such as the one you mentioned have been found to be Constitutional -- that is, no serious violation of natural or civil rights if reasonable and applied consistently to all.
Some would argue it violates the natural law to require minimum clothing such as shoes and a shirt. Technically it does, I guess, but under the Constitution, which has evolved to include civil rights, a reasonable dress code applied uniformly has been found to not violate civil rights or natural ones so severely as to be void. So, a business, operating as a place of public accommodation (all civil rights language) may deny entry based on "No shirt, no shoes, no service" dress codes. That said, having to wear a shirt does not interfere with natural metabolic processes such as breathing...
IMO, this is precisely why all the a-hole govenors (Sorry, Alice, I still get "agitated" when I think about it -- nearly four years in!) had language in their mask "mandates" allowing for exceptions. A mask -- a medical device -- interferes with all manner of natural processes, including breathing and communicating. Shirts don't do that. Neither do shoes.
The natural law, OTOH, says that a business owner may allow or deny entry to his/her business (property) to anyone for any reason. This includes race, religious expression (yarmulke, hijab, turban, etc.), sex (only men allowed) -- for any reason. It's his/her property. Sorry. Can't come in...
Kris Anne Hall is one such person. She is an attorney for whom the natural law applies in all circumstances. This includes the "right" of a business owner to require a medical intervention such as a mask; does she apply this to other medical interventions such as "vaccines?" That I do not know, but I'd bet she holds this view, too. https://www.krisannehall.com/2018/07/02/about-krisanne-hall/
Hall's remedy? Shop elsewhere. Oh, OK. Kris Anne -- and when the State issues its edicts and everywhere one looks one finds businesses and employers requiring such interventions -- including "vaccine" passports, perhaps -- what then? Does Hall dispute the authority of the State to issue an edict that tells businesses they ππππ require certain medical interventions? Perhaps that's how she wiggles out of her stance on masks -- If the business owner decides, that's fine. If the State orders it? Not so much.
IMO, requiring medical interventions -- even if its "just a mask" -- enables the greasing of that slippery slope to point where we are now -- a horror show of a world. Whether Kris Anne Hall agrees or not.
Thanks for your thoughts. To me, the genius of the Constitution lies in many, many aspects and not least in its elasticity. (Just don't EVER, Justice ANYONE, subject us to ANY "penumbra" again, thank you very much.) It's the same old same old of the "necessity!" T-shirt-wearing team against the "evil!" T-shirt-wearing team, with poor old "reasonableness!" wringing its hands. Always a question of which word gets the emphasis in considering remedies proposed as necessary evils. I will certainly never again give the ACLU one shred of respect after their patronising pronouncement that "Mandates increase freedom."