County up to 615 COVID-19 cases

For all the people I saw in Kroger and Walmart yesterday, you need to read this article. Both stores post notices that it is mandatory to wear a mask, yet they continue to let people shop without one. They need to post an employee at the door and if the person isn't wearing one, turn them away until they come back with one on. Letting people blatantly not follow the rules is wrong.

Queen53 - perhaps you should volunteer your time for such obnoxious activities...or maybe you could write a sternly worded letter.

Or better yet, mind your own business and let these companies mind theirs.

No one is forcing you to go to these stores.

No one is forcing you to not wear a mask.

No one is stopping you from moving anywhere in the state, country, or world that is more in line with your heavy-handed anti-liberty nanny-state ideas of governance.

Queen,

You are excellent at pointing out all the issues, often correctly from my perspective.

What "real" and "logical" solutions do you offer?

Lets use the example you provide- employee stops non masker. Non masker starts to turn violent. Other customers potentially in harms way. Employee calls law enforcement. What happens until they arrive? After they arrive.

This was an issue in a MI Dollar General and the employee was killed.

I know an outlier example. I get that. My point is a real solution is usually multi layered and must be thought out clearly.

The rule is simple. Disrespecting the authority of the company leadership is selfish. If they see the sign, they should wear a mask or go elsewhere. Unfortunately, my generation, as a whole, has taught selfishness and to disrespect authority. Maybe to the point that disrespecting authority is a badge of honor. Hence, the solution is not simple because lack of obedience doesn't allow for a simple solution.

So, what is a real solution?

Beg, the "solution" is extremely simple. No mask = no service. They can practice their "liberties" by not wearing a mask and the store that is privately owned can practice their liberty and refuse to serve them.

The argument of they might get violent so let them in is horse#$&t. If you are going to take that logic then any guy can walk into the store with no pants on exposing himself for the world to see because we can't tell him no and make him mad.

You missed the point I was hoping to make. That means I did a bad job of communicating.

RSOTS - I agree with you that a store should be able to refuse me should I not wear a mask.

In fact, Teachers Credit Union refused me entry to do business WITH A MASK b/c I was not a TCU member. (Even though I can bank thru TCU as a member of another credit union.)

I simply said ok and did my business thru the drive thru. The alternative was to find another bank. The drive thru was more convenient to me.

So now, the big question is: will you agree with me that there should be NO "public accomodation" and that stores should have to right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY REASON they choose?

Or will you try to split the baby?

The stores put up signs b/c they are told to by the government at the threat of force against their company for noncompliance...but it is quietly their decision whether or not to enforce such things.

And the government doesn't REALLY care one way or the other... about the people wearing masks or the stores enforcing it. Unless such governments are absolutely despotic and feel it necessary to wield their power in a show of force...which usually comes from a position of weakness. The truly strong rarely need to prove their strength.

It doesn't mandate masks out of concerns for health, it does so out of a need to show power.

It doesn't want to actually enforce anything b/c that would use resources and expend effort (anathema to a tyrannical bureaucracy) when it can merely loom the spectre of enforcement over society and gain a fair amount of control with little effort.

(Apologies in advance for the lack of editing and potentially bad structure... I gotta go do some work.)

DPR, There is a huge difference in a store denying service because of discrimination (Gender, Race, Religion, Etc..) and denying service because of a health mandate / health risk (Masks, Shoes, Shirt, Etc..) but nice try with your well disguised baited question.

The rest of your response is just opinions although you represent them as facts. I appreciate your opinions I just don't agree with them.

RSOTS - LOL... Why not just say "Yes, I prefer to split the baby."

There isn't an actual difference between the two, and it isn't a baited question. Its simply a question of how much freedom you are willing to extend to a company.

You wish to limit freedoms. That you feel some moral justification for doing so doesn't change that fact.

I'm not sure why you are trying to prevaricate. Just own it.

I believe that a company should be allowed to choose who they do business with.

To do otherwise is to allow the government too much control over ones own affairs.

Would you prefer I disclaim anytime I am going to offer my opinion? LOL

I intended to present my opinions as "fact" in that they are indeed my own opinions based on years of careful consideration and observation, as well as being informed by my reading of many historical/political writings... which are merely other peoples opinions and observations that usually bear out when tested.

They are perhaps not "fact" compared to 2+2=4, and may not be "fact" in the sense that they are a universal truth for which there is no deviation, but they are nevertheless "fact" in that they have been observed repeatedly.

If my opinions weren't "fact" - then the government would, in "fact" (see what I did there) enforce their rules.

Atlas Shrugged:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”