Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

unblock

(52,253 posts)
Fri Dec 11, 2020, 06:32 PM Dec 2020

my compromise with anti-maskers. ok to not wear a mask in public/commercial indoor establishments, [View all]

provided that the establishment:

- is within 5 miles of a hospital
- has a full-time on premises medical doctor with admitting privileges at that hospital
- has hallways and doors wide enough to handle two gurneys side-by-side
- and has an entry/exit setup that requires a long walk through an area where people can line up to yell at them and call them murderers.


if that's what they think is reasonable for women to go through when exercising their legal right to control their own body, then surely this is reasonable to put anti-maskers through if they want to exercise their "freedom" to be mildly and briefly inconvenienced while putting the lives of hundreds of people at risk.

ETA:
oh i forgot!
- they have to visit the establishment 3 days prior, with a mask, to schedule their later visit without a mask.

and if there's only one such establishment in the entire state and it's over 100 miles away, well that's just too bad!

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Recommended. klook Dec 2020 #1
Sounds reasonable to me PatSeg Dec 2020 #2
Bravo! StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #3
k & r LAS14 Dec 2020 #4
Also show them pictures and recite a spiel Arne Dec 2020 #5
Not sure why you think this accomplishes anything good. Ms. Toad Dec 2020 #6
It's a retelling of the anti choice laws pushed by the RW in the 2008-19 era irisblue Dec 2020 #10
OK - but it's not at all parallel. n/t Ms. Toad Dec 2020 #11
it's not a perfect parallel, i agree, but they're the ones who have drawn it, oddly enough. unblock Dec 2020 #13
Except that they claim the restrictions are necessary to protect Ms. Toad Dec 2020 #15
that would make sense in a real policy unblock Dec 2020 #18
the point is to make it massively inconvenient, unpleasant, and difficult for them unblock Dec 2020 #12
There's a pretty big difference between permitting people to not wear masks Ms. Toad Dec 2020 #14
exactly how many establishments would be able to meet these restrictions? unblock Dec 2020 #16
Excellent, but I would add this to your list.... KY_EnviroGuy Dec 2020 #7
Don't forget the probe! WorkDoctor Dec 2020 #8
oh right! unblock Dec 2020 #9
Excellent MLAA Dec 2020 #17
You smacked that one right out of the ballpark! lunatica Dec 2020 #19
Despite the efforts to billh58 Dec 2020 #20
I agree with your point. cab67 Dec 2020 #21
well, the last place a medical doctor with admitting privileges should be is in room of anti-maskers unblock Dec 2020 #22
agreed cab67 Dec 2020 #24
Works for me. niyad Dec 2020 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»my compromise with anti-m...