Skarpen

So it affects only the person vaccinated. So if you want it then vaccinate yourself. It's someone's personal choice. And there is no proof that vaccine prevents hospitalizations and death of people that would be hospitalized or would die without it when infected. No they don't. It was proven to be false just like the herd immunity and other "miraculous cure" BS we were fed for months. All claims about vaccines have been steadily retracted and it seems that the current ones will not hold up as well. Just look at Israel and recently Ireland https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-54-of-hospital-patients-with-virus-are-fully-vaccinated-1.4670229

How exactly is it selfish? Vaccines don't prevent from getting corona and they don't prevent the spreading of the virus which was proven. Also there is no proof of vaccines preventing the deaths for people who would die if not vaccinated. So your statement is complete bollocks.

Interesting. Is there the same one for provaxers who died regardless of the vaccination?

Well if my physician would recommend me to take vaccine based on my health conditions I would do this. Right now he doesn't recommend me to take any of the currently available vaccines as they will not improve my well being in any significant way.

Or better yet the law prohibits businesses to require unreasonable things like private medical record which they are not entitled to for any reason ever. I don't get the "you don't have to buy there so the business can basically require you to do anything" mentality at all. Will you be ok with a business requiring customers to literally eat sh*t just because you don't have to shop there? Or would it be unacceptable regardless of you willingness to shop there? Of course it is. And big time violation. All of those examples would fall into reasonable category because of the type of business. Members only, dress code, ID requirement etc. are all reasonable if the business model rely on those things. Which is ok as I previously stated. But personal medical records are completely something else, sorry. Well, I had got very severe flu's like every flu season and my physician said it's best if I take the vaccines to avoid those. Haven't got a flu since then and it's great. If you don't have flu problems then I envy you.

Not true in any civilized country. In fact it's mostly illegal for business owners to refuse service to a customer unless there is a reasonable reason like disorderly conduct etc. In civilized society you don't need a special right to be a customer. I'm sorry but I find nothing reasonable in sharing my medical records to some schmuck to buy sneakers or headphones. The only business I should disclose any medical information is medical businesses that actually need those to properly provide their services to me. I've had my flu shot last week as I had for years before flu season.

Typical rich doublespeak

I don't think either inappropriate behavior nor inappropriate clothing is protected right, like anywhere. Quite the contrary even. The right to privacy including medical privacy and so on is a right in most civilized countries. So I don't see your point beyond usual American business owners are our owners routine.

Best law ever. Fine for violating someone's rights should be standard.

I'm pretty sure the congress pay puts her in the top 10% in US and even higher worldwide. If being in the top 10% isn't "rich" then who she wants to tax? Then again even the leftist multimilioners claim themselves not rich.

So basically you absolve the pro-choice side of taking care of those things? As pro-choice scream hypocrisy on the other side they don't seem see their own when they use this argument only against pro-life and not actually care about those either.

Yeah, I get the notion, but what would be the substance of the lawsuit though? If I understand correctly it would be a civil suit and civil suit needs to have something that the suing side wants from the side they are suing. Mostly it's a monetary compensation for something (like damages), but those need to be accounted in real stuff. For example if a neighbour throws a bottle in my backyard and hits my car and the repair will cost 10k$ I can sue for those 10k$ because that's the cost I would have to pay for repairs. But for me to sue my neighbour if he damages the other neighbour car then this is illogical because he didn't made any damages to me. So this law is a little baffling in that regard.

This sounds kinda dumb. What would the lawsuit be about if the person suing have no damages to be covered?

I think this already happened with most things supposedly protected by US constitution.

As it is for most strategy games be it TB or RTS etc. At some point in the game there is a time where the other side is basically defeated and the rest of the game is just boring jog to the finish line. I think those games should take the chess route and offer surrender when the game is clearly won. In top chess games it is rather rare to see checkmates as the players know when the rest of the game is pointless.

I love when the studies confuse such basic concepts as cause and effect. Sure, you will find people like that playing VG but that's rather because they already suffering from those conditions and are looking for escapism and not because VG causes them. It's like saying paraolympics cause disability because all participants have one.

Treating of women in Islamic countries is something that goes back a long time. Blaming the current narration on Moscow and Beijing is a little dishonest. There already are repression towards women in workplaces. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/world/story/they-said-you-are-a-woman-go-home-afghan-journalist-talks-about-life-after-taliban-takeover-1842868-2021-08-19