Jump to content

We reserve the right...


RPM

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

You're smashing my hand into my private area! Lmao

Gonna be a lot of fisting where she's headed after arraignment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I don't get about the mask mandate lift and resulting lawsuit(s). I thought businesses could basically enforce whatever they want when you are a customer or on their property - short of "you can't eat here you're black". Like, if there wasn't a pandemic, couldn't a business still enforce a mask policy and ask you to leave if you weren't wearing a mask? How is that any different than a restaurant telling you "I think you'd be more comfortable in this, sir"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding where the lines are drawn?

Edited by ztejas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

Something I don't get about the mask mandate lift and resulting lawsuit(s). I thought businesses could basically enforce whatever they want when you are a customer or on their property - short of "you can't eat here you're black". Like, if there wasn't a pandemic, couldn't a business still enforce a mask policy and ask you to leave if you weren't wearing a mask? How is that any different than a restaurant telling you "I think you'd be more comfortable in this, sir"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding where the lines are drawn?

Yes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Something I don't get about the mask mandate lift and resulting lawsuit(s). I thought businesses could basically enforce whatever they want when you are a customer or on their property - short of "you can't eat here you're black". Like, if there wasn't a pandemic, couldn't a business still enforce a mask policy and ask you to leave if you weren't wearing a mask? How is that any different than a restaurant telling you "I think you'd be more comfortable in this, sir"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding where the lines are drawn?

The basic thing is that the Governor has the power to declare an emergency and to enact public health and safety measures in response to that emergency.

So, too, mayors (cities) and county judges Icounties) have the ability to declare an emergency and enact public health and safety measures.

The act that creates those powers doesn't specify whose authority "trumps" whose.  Generally speaking, one would think that local governments are free to be more restrictive than the state, but not the other way (local can't "undo" state).  That's based on a general understanding of primacy of government "levels."  Such an understanding may not be entirely appropriate because the Governor doesn't occupy a powerful place in state government, it has only the powers specifically granted by the Constitution and the legislature.  There's no notion of Governor supremacy in Texas, the way federal supremacy is built into the US Constitution, in many circumstances.

In this particular case, he is effectively arguing that his "unmandatory" mask order trumps local government's mandatory mask orders.

His "unmasking" order technically rescinds his prior masking and social distancing orders (https://open.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/opentexas/EO-GA-34-opening-Texas-response-to-COVID-disaster-IMAGE-03-02-2021.pdf) and thus should really leave local governments to fill in and continue the restrictions as they see fit.

The legislation providing these powers needs to be clarified.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Chooky said:

The first amendment says I can go to Autozone without pants. Surly lawyers can maybe confirm this. 

Not a lawyer, but I don’t think she would encounter much resistance to do so ...
 

 

E20EDF14-401D-4014-A1B4-335B5A3F4D7E.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The basic thing is that the Governor has the power to declare an emergency and to enact public health and safety measures in response to that emergency.

So, too, mayors (cities) and county judges Icounties) have the ability to declare an emergency and enact public health and safety measures.

The act that creates those powers doesn't specify whose authority "trumps" whose.  Generally speaking, one would think that local governments are free to be more restrictive than the state, but not the other way (local can't "undo" state).  That's based on a general understanding of primacy of government "levels."  Such an understanding may not be entirely appropriate because the Governor doesn't occupy a powerful place in state government, it has only the powers specifically granted by the Constitution and the legislature.  There's no notion of Governor supremacy in Texas, the way federal supremacy is built into the US Constitution, in many circumstances.

In this particular case, he is effectively arguing that his "unmandatory" mask order trumps local government's mandatory mask orders.

His "unmasking" order technically rescinds his prior masking and social distancing orders (https://open.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/opentexas/EO-GA-34-opening-Texas-response-to-COVID-disaster-IMAGE-03-02-2021.pdf) and thus should really leave local governments to fill in and continue the restrictions as they see fit.

The legislation providing these powers needs to be clarified.

I don't think the legislation is really that confusing. Could it be clearer? Sure, but I don't think there's really a good argument that he can override local emergency orders. Abbott is simply abusing his powers because he knows that local and county officials are reluctant to piss him off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think the legislation is really that confusing. Could it be clearer? Sure, but I don't think there's really a good argument that he can override local emergency orders. Abbott is simply abusing his powers because he knows that local and county officials are reluctant to piss him off.

It's not confusing.  But it creates a potential for a state/local conflict that is all too real, and doesn't say boo about whose rules trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Something I don't get about the mask mandate lift and resulting lawsuit(s). I thought businesses could basically enforce whatever they want when you are a customer or on their property - short of "you can't eat here you're black". 

DISCLAIMER:  I'm not a lawyer

I think it comes down to the definitions of "public accomodations" and "protected classes".  Race is a protected class, and so a public accomodation (a facility used by the public, like retail outlets, schools, etc.) cannot discriminate on the basis of race.

Failure to wear a mask is not a status protected against discrimination.  Public accommodations can turn a person away for failing to wear a mask, just as most restaurants turn customers away who aren't wearing a shirt or shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

Something I don't get about the mask mandate lift and resulting lawsuit(s). I thought businesses could basically enforce whatever they want when you are a customer or on their property - short of "you can't eat here you're black". Like, if there wasn't a pandemic, couldn't a business still enforce a mask policy and ask you to leave if you weren't wearing a mask? How is that any different than a restaurant telling you "I think you'd be more comfortable in this, sir"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding where the lines are drawn?

 

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes.

 

59 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

DISCLAIMER:  I'm not a lawyer

I think it comes down to the definitions of "public accomodations" and "protected classes".  Race is a protected class, and so a public accomodation (a facility used by the public, like retail outlets, schools, etc.) cannot discriminate on the basis of race.

Failure to wear a mask is not a status protected against discrimination.  Public accommodations can turn a person away for failing to wear a mask, just as most restaurants turn customers away who aren't wearing a shirt or shoes.

 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

DISCLAIMER:  I'm not a lawyer

I think it comes down to the definitions of "public accomodations" and "protected classes".  Race is a protected class, and so a public accomodation (a facility used by the public, like retail outlets, schools, etc.) cannot discriminate on the basis of race.

Failure to wear a mask is not a status protected against discrimination.  Public accommodations can turn a person away for failing to wear a mask, just as most restaurants turn customers away who aren't wearing a shirt or shoes.

This is true.  So long as a business doesn't discriminate against a "protected class," it can do whatever it wants.

 

These particular lawsuits between the state and local entities aren't concerned with that aspect.  Abbott's order even specifically states that businesses can do as they wish regarding masks or occupancy.

These lawsuits deal with the conflict of state and local emergency powers created by Texas Govt. Code Chapter 418.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

These particular lawsuits between the state and local entities aren't concerned with that aspect.  Abbott's order even specifically states that businesses can do as they wish regarding masks or occupancy.

These lawsuits deal with the conflict of state and local emergency powers created by Texas Govt. Code Chapter 418.

Understood, I was just trying to clarify his question about what businesses could mandate on their premises.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is true.  So long as a business doesn't discriminate against a "protected class," it can do whatever it wants.

 

These particular lawsuits between the state and local entities aren't concerned with that aspect.  Abbott's order even specifically states that businesses can do as they wish regarding masks or occupancy.

These lawsuits deal with the conflict of state and local emergency powers created by Texas Govt. Code Chapter 418.

While it’s not clear I still believe the local government can tell the state to fuck off since there’s no provision in the law that allows the state to trump what the legislature has given the local government the right to do when it is subject to a disaster. 
 

But I admit it’s not clear and the totally reasonable Texas Supreme Court will likely disagree with my interpretation so it really doesn’t matter what I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

data sample  yesterday in  West

Gerik's: no sign, no policy, all the locals eating lunch and all staff: zero masks; myself and 4 other customers stopping in for bakery, 100% masked

Slovacek's on the west side of 35: sign says "will not require but continue to encourage".....  all staff 100%, customers, 95%.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The maskless woman involved in the incident at a bank in Galveston spoke out on Friday.

During a phone interview with KPRC 2, Wright said although she has yet to see video of the incident, she wouldn’t do anything differently.

“My civil rights were violated. There is no law that says I have to wear a mask, none whatsoever,” Wright said. “And how can a bank that has my money in it refuse me access unless I put a face diaper on?”


She also added that she thinks wearing a face mask is “absolutely ridiculous.”

“I don’t know why people aren’t waking up. I really don’t,” Wright said.

I KNEW IT!!! WE GOT A CIVIL RIGHTS EXPERT HERE, BOYS AND GIRLS!

Edited by Beau Vine
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This woman is aware that she can still access her "money in this bank" via mobile phone apps, computer website, telephone, fax, ATM, USPS, ACH/wire, et. al.  

She got super cunty at the end, but she probably wouldn't have garnered so much hatred and gotten arrested IF at the beginning had she just said, "Look, I have money here, the governor has lifted the mask mandate, I need to make a transaction and I'll be on my way.  I don't know all the rules and exceptions to what Abbott said, but I really need to make this deposit before the end of the month."  She could even have slid in a little, "This is bullshit, I have rights." and probably have gotten away with it, and maybe even allowed to finish her transaction.  But nope, had to make a scene.  

But here's the thing.  There's posters on here salivating and plotting to go into an HEB or Academy or Home Depot or gun range or whatever and not wear a mask so they can make their little stand about their Freedoms!  That's fine, as long as you're not violent or coughing on people, go live your best life---you don't have much to look forward to anyways.  But pro tip........a few places you do not, under circumstances, fuck around and virtue signal your magatry.  Chief among them...a fucking bank.  That's just ultra-level stupidity. 

Do you understand, if a policeman is called to a bank during pandemic or no pandemic, because somebody refuses to leave...they can basically just walk in and start blasting whoever matches the description and there isn't a #BLM member that wouldn't be like, "Yeah, dumb bitch wouldn't budge...she gonna need to take a couple rounds for the trouble."  This isn't like a Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby situation where somebody is gonna wrassle' with the shift manager.  You make any kind of weird physical standoff in a bank, and the police come, either comply immediately or there isn't a hard-left progressive liberal judge in the country that's not gonna rule, "Uh, you didn't listen to an armed cop in the lobby of a fucking bank where you were already asked to leave by staff?  You're fucking lucky cuffed and 30 days in jail is all you're looking at instead of 2 gravediggers tossing dirt onto your casket."  

We're all surly assholes here.  We've all mouthed off at authority now and again.  But you keep your fucking mouth shut, head down, and comply when it comes to banks, airports, border crossings, and government buildings.  That ain't the place to play armchair Libertarian.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ztejas said:

Something I don't get about the mask mandate lift and resulting lawsuit(s). I thought businesses could basically enforce whatever they want when you are a customer or on their property - short of "you can't eat here you're black". Like, if there wasn't a pandemic, couldn't a business still enforce a mask policy and ask you to leave if you weren't wearing a mask? How is that any different than a restaurant telling you "I think you'd be more comfortable in this, sir"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding where the lines are drawn?

Some of these anti-maskers consider it a violation of their civil rights to require them to wear a mask...yes, they want anti-mask to be a protected class right up there with gender and skin color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lobo said:

This woman is aware that she can still access her "money in this bank" via mobile phone apps, computer website, telephone, fax, ATM, USPS, ACH/wire, et. al.  

She got super cunty at the end, but she probably wouldn't have garnered so much hatred and gotten arrested IF at the beginning had she just said, "Look, I have money here, the governor has lifted the mask mandate, I need to make a transaction and I'll be on my way.  I don't know all the rules and exceptions to what Abbott said, but I really need to make this deposit before the end of the month."  She could even have slid in a little, "This is bullshit, I have rights." and probably have gotten away with it, and maybe even allowed to finish her transaction.  But nope, had to make a scene.  

But here's the thing.  There's posters on here salivating and plotting to go into an HEB or Academy or Home Depot or gun range or whatever and not wear a mask so they can make their little stand about their Freedoms!  That's fine, as long as you're not violent or coughing on people, go live your best life---you don't have much to look forward to anyways.  But pro tip........a few places you do not, under circumstances, fuck around and virtue signal your magatry.  Chief among them...a fucking bank.  That's just ultra-level stupidity. 

Do you understand, if a policeman is called to a bank during pandemic or no pandemic, because somebody refuses to leave...they can basically just walk in and start blasting whoever matches the description and there isn't a #BLM member that wouldn't be like, "Yeah, dumb bitch wouldn't budge...she gonna need to take a couple rounds for the trouble."  This isn't like a Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby situation where somebody is gonna wrassle' with the shift manager.  You make any kind of weird physical standoff in a bank, and the police come, either comply immediately or there isn't a hard-left progressive liberal judge in the country that's not gonna rule, "Uh, you didn't listen to an armed cop in the lobby of a fucking bank where you were already asked to leave by staff?  You're fucking lucky cuffed and 30 days in jail is all you're looking at instead of 2 gravediggers tossing dirt onto your casket."  

We're all surly assholes here.  We've all mouthed off at authority now and again.  But you keep your fucking mouth shut, head down, and comply when it comes to banks, airports, border crossings, and government buildings.  That ain't the place to play armchair Libertarian.  

Who are you arguing with?

This lady didn't understand the law.  She believed the Q hive.  She's an idiot.  She broke the law.  Arrest made.  Justice served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not arguing with anybody.  Just openly pontificating with the Qhive posters who lurk here.  There's more than you'd think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...