Qantas Introducing No Jab - No Fly Policy

SlavOz on 24/11/2020 - 19:17
Last edited 24/11/2020 - 19:51 by 1 other user

Is there a legal precedent to this? How is a major airline allowed to take it upon themselves to mandate medical decisions on behalf of the public?

By comparison, would it be acceptable for insurance companies, telcos, or energy providers to deny their products/services to a large part of the country based on similar criteria?

Eg - anyone who's ever had an abortion is not eligible for this power plan. Too bad for you, guessing you'll have to learn to start a fire or freeze to death.

This is truly absurd.

Qantas will ban travellers who don't have the COVID vaccine — can other businesses follow suit?

Travel

Related Stores

Qantas
Qantas

Comments

              • yannyrjl on 26/11/2020 - 22:46

                @gimme: but there won't be disruptions, because the option for people who have taken the vaccine isn't affected and for those who chose not to take it they should bear the consequence of their choice (getting sick, can't work, pay for their medication etc)

        • dizzle on 25/11/2020 - 19:03
          +7

          You'll find there a lot of differences between Australia and the US, and I'm thankful for many of them.

          We don't have a bill of rights, but I think the Aussie way of giving everyone a fair go is an unwritten rule in many things. The right to free speech? Not in Australia, but you don't see journalists getting locked up for contradicting the government (which is what the US fears will happen if anyone isn't covered by the 1st amendment).

          We don't have civics classes, but I know I had school education on how the government works. I've probably forgotten most of it because I've never had to use it. Despite civics lessons, US citizens can't seem to agree on how to read the constitution. I have democratic and republican friends, you give them both the same sentence from the constitution and they will both read it differently.
          (It's like the bible, there are different versions from different churches. It's all "the word of god" but no two churches agree what that word of god means).

          • 1st-Amendment on 25/11/2020 - 19:20
            -8

            @dizzle:

            US citizens can't seem to agree on how to read the constitution

            Every Western system of government has this concept called separation of powers. In short it means that Alan Joyce doesn't get to decide.
            So yes, the Australia Constitution (it seems like a shock to many 'experts' here that this exists) can be interpreted different ways, which is why we have courts, not kings. Alan Joyce is behaving like a king and the law will straighten his ideas out pretty quickly.

            • LOTU on 25/11/2020 - 19:41
              +3

              @1st-Amendment: Alan Joyce gets to ask all people who want to fly on his airline if they have had a covid vaccine if not they cant fly. Just like the classic no shirt no service. Alan gets to put whatever conditions he wants too, he also gets to make exceptions should someone not medically be able to get the vaccine they should get supporting documentation to support that.

              Oh and regarding medical decisions have a look at the no jab no pay policy (or was i wrong and it was no jab no play?).

              • 1st-Amendment on 26/11/2020 - 09:43
                -2

                @LOTU:

                Alan Joyce gets to ask all people who want to fly on his airline

                Yeah but the law says otherwise. Let's see who wins.

            • mskeggs on 25/11/2020 - 20:46
              +12

              @1st-Amendment: I think you will find separation of powers has nothing to do with private businesses.

              • 1st-Amendment on 26/11/2020 - 09:41
                -1

                @mskeggs: It is reference to the fact that Alan has no power in this regard, he can say what he likes but the ultimate decision lies within the three branches of government. An overwhelming amount of comments in here seem to suggest that legal power is decided by whatever feels good on the day. It is shockingly ignorant.

                • mskeggs on 26/11/2020 - 09:57

                  @1st-Amendment: If you inferred comments here were suggesting Alan Joyce or Qantas could make a law, I think you are mistaken.
                  The substance of the discussion seems to be whether Qantas is within heir rights to refuse to carry unvaccinated passengers. I don’t think vaccination status is currently a category for discrimination protection, but I don’t know if it has been challenged.
                  There has been legal challenges to employers demanding employees be vaccinated (e.g. ambulance officers) which were upheld. That suggests Qantas can at least argue the point in court.

                  But again, I think it will be a moot point, as I expect the governments of the world will pass laws much like they do about other mandatory vaccinations.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 26/11/2020 - 10:02
                    -1

                    @mskeggs:

                    But again, I think it will be a moot point, as I expect the governments of the world will pass laws much like they do about other mandatory vaccinations.

                    Which is a different argument. My argument is that Alan Joyce doesn't have this power, if he tried it on, I believe it would get bounced out of the first court in was heard in.

                    The point lost on this audience is that one of the pillars of Western Civilisation is due process. t seems most people here are happy throw that out the window and just do whatever feels good on the day. That isn't a great way to maintain a civilisation, ie 'The road to hell is paved in good intentions'…

                    • Cheshire Cat on 26/11/2020 - 17:44
                      +1

                      @1st-Amendment: "I believe it would get bounced out of the first court in was heard in."

                      you keep saying this but it has no basis in reality. your 'i believe' is not consistent with current requirements. we already have no jab no pay/play in australia. there is already the right to exclude people from things if they CHOOSE not to get vaccinated. no one is making them but we can make it a requirement if they want to participate in certian actvities especailly as a private business saying 'you cant come in my plane unless i know you wont infect others in my plane'. they already say you cant smoke on the plane, have to wear pants, have to wear a mask etc.

                      why dont you challenge it in court and see if you even last 15 mins of the judges time before its thrown out.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 26/11/2020 - 18:33

                        @Cheshire Cat:

                        your 'i believe' is not consistent with current requirements.

                        Neither is yours. Exhibit 1: Influenza.

                        we already have…

                        As mandated by the government not Alan Joyce. Is this sinking in yet?

                        • callum9999 on 28/11/2020 - 00:19

                          @1st-Amendment: You've been told time after time that private companies are allowed to make their own terms and conditions, as long as it doesn't conflict with the law (yet still continue with your utterly bizarre rants about "Alan Joyce not having the power to make laws" - you're the only person here even entertaining such a possibility…)

                          There is no law that I'm aware of that this would breach. Perhaps you could enlighten us all by stating the specific law(s) that prevents a private business from requiring customers are vaccinated. I suspect you cannot, and your stereotypically American toxic brand of ignorance/arrogance is all you have, but I'm always happy to be corrected.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 12:47
                            -1

                            @callum9999:

                            You've been told time after time that private companies are allowed to make their own terms and conditions, as long as it doesn't conflict with the law

                            Last time I checked, the law isn't decided by how many idiots agree in a internet forum. Or am I mistaken?

                            There is no law that I'm aware of that this would breach

                            Cool. Which court are you a judge in?

                            Perhaps you could enlighten us all by stating the specific law(s) that prevents a private business from requiring customers are vaccinated. I suspect you cannot

                            I suspect you can. But your suspicion carries more weight than mine because…. reasons?

                            I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but I'm pretty sure a private business has no power to discriminate on your private medical situation. Common sense tells you that this would raise all sorts of discrimination flags. I own a business, can I refuse to serve people in wheelchairs? Or fat people? Think about the implication of this legal position for a second.

                            and your stereotypically American toxic brand of ignorance/arrogance is all you have

                            Smells a bit like racism right there…

                            Tell you what, if I'm wrong I'll buy you a case of beer, but I'm quite confident that no politician on either side would allow a private business to unilaterally discriminate like this. I think what is being missed in this discussion is that the government DOES have this power, but a lot of muppets think a private business should have the same power as government.

                            • callum9999 on 03/12/2020 - 04:40

                              @1st-Amendment: I don't know why I'm wasting my time talking to you, but making an outlandish statement then refusing to back it up and replying with "I'm not proving it, you prove me wrong" is ridiculous. How on Earth am I meant to prove a law doesn't exist? List every single one of them? YOU say the law exists, YOU need to show it.

                              You don't know the meaning of the phrase "common sense" - which isn't particularly relevant anyway as law is not "common sense". Not knowing your business, I'd assume you cannot refuse to serve disabled people as disabilities are a protected class. I have no idea whether you can refuse to serve people based on weight - that's not a protected class as far as I can tell. Though regardless, the law doesn't say protected classes can do whatever they want, it says that you need to make reasonable adjustments to ensure equal treatment wherever possible. If that equal treatment causes serious problems for other people then it's not illegal - hence why disabled people aren't allowed to sit in the exit row.

                              Seems like you don't know the meaning of the word racism either. I wouldn't have a major disagreement if you labelled it xenophobic, but I wouldn't fully agree given it's an accurate summation and doesn't actually say that "all Americans are/do…".

                              It's clear what's "missing" in this discussion is actually your ability to recognise that your proclamations of what you "feel" the law says carries no weight whatsoever.

          • Gnostikos on 25/11/2020 - 23:22
            +7

            @dizzle:

            but you don't see journalists getting locked up for contradicting the government

            Not at all, you just see the AFP raiding the offices and homes of ABC journalists and seizing all of their work related to their reporting on the Australian Signals Directorate secretly expanding their surveillance powers to include unrestricted spying on Australian citizens and war crimes committed by the SAS in Afghanistan; followed by threatening to charge those journalists with draconian "national security offences" that carry possible jail sentences of 10 years or more (one journalist is still possibly facing charges this year).

            What a robust, free press we have when journalists resign from their profession because of the constant threat of legal prosecution for publishing stories that could cast unwanted light on government abuses of power. This interview with Annika Smethhurst (one of the primary targets of the AFP raids back in 2019) is an eye-opening look into the current state of journalism in Australia; the life she describes after the raids is like that of a political dissident under intense surveillance by the Stasi in East Germany.

            • frewer on 26/11/2020 - 09:02

              @Gnostikos: Sound likes what Viet Nam's Dang or China's CCP did and doing….

          • bs0 on 26/11/2020 - 09:25
            +1

            @dizzle:

            The right to free speech? Not in Australia

            But isn't it just called "freedom of expression" in Australia…

          • yannyrjl on 26/11/2020 - 22:50

            @dizzle: I think you are overly optimist to rely on as you mentioned "unwritten rule" in many things. Because it is unwritten it is fickle, also it relies on whim of those involved or those with power (i.e. government / politicians, who are at best inefficient and have low public trust)

        • sd on 25/11/2020 - 20:01
          +2

          Truly said, I think our right is to travel safely mate without an American trying to pass us some dangerous disease.

          • resisting the urge on 26/11/2020 - 11:38

            @sd: that's the problem, we all think we have rights… but the reality is somewhat different

        • smartazz104 on 26/11/2020 - 07:59
          +2

          What an amusing username; Qantas also has the right to tell you to (profanity) off and go use another carrier.

        • pandamninator on 28/11/2020 - 12:12

          20 bucks says you were one of the morons frothing that bakeries wouldn't be allowed to stop selling cakes to the gays after the plebiscite.

          Qantas is a private company, don't want to get the vaccine, don't fly.

          • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 12:27

            @pandamninator:

            20 bucks says you were one of the morons frothing that bakeries wouldn't be allowed to stop selling cakes to the gays after the plebiscite.

            You owe me $20. Where are you I'll come collect it now.

            Qantas is a private company, don't want to get the vaccine, don't fly.

            Yeah but that's not how the law works…

            • Ughhh on 28/11/2020 - 13:29

              @1st-Amendment:

              Yeah but that's not how the law works…

              You believe that you should not be forced to take vaccines against your right, but you believe you should have the right to force a private business to operate at your terms- at the expense of their own risk tolerance?

              • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 13:33
                +1

                @Ughhh:

                but you believe you should have the right to force a private business to operate at your terms- at the expense of their own risk tolerance?

                There is this legal concept called precedence. It roughly means the current method is the legally accepted method. So it's not my terms, it's legal precedent. For a private business to challenge this, they would need to show that they have the legal power to do it. They may have that power but I'm yet to see anyone make that case other than 'I think it's good therefore we should do it'. The law doesn't work like that.

    • trongy on 24/11/2020 - 22:38
      +2

      Well said. The article that OP linked is notable for not containing a single quote from Alan Joyce, but it implies that QANTAS has already made the decision.

      Here is a quote from an SBS report

      "We are looking at changing our terms and conditions to say for international travellers, we will ask people to have a vaccination before they can get on the aircraft,"

      From that quote it appears that no decision has yet been taken.

    • bweiss on 25/11/2020 - 10:25
      +10

      Australia is one of those countries… if you have been to a country/region where Yellow Fever is endemic, you are required to show your Yellow Card vaccination booklet on arrival back into Australia. I had such a situation a few years ago (having returned from a Yellow Fever endemic region.. thankfully I had my booklet).

      • Kangal on 25/11/2020 - 14:20
        +1

        I think everyone is thinking of the other "Yellow Fever" ; )

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/11/2020 - 19:02
          +1

          That's the whole reason to go to Thailand in the first place.

          • Ghost47 on 25/11/2020 - 19:49
            +4

            @Scrooge McDuck: Don't forget the other reason being "none of your own women want you".

            • Dogsrule on 25/11/2020 - 21:57
              -2

              @Ghost47: Now now, don’t be mysogynist, there’s no such thing as ‘your own women’, men don’t own women remember? Please remember your SJW training.

              • Ghost47 on 25/11/2020 - 22:18
                +3

                @Dogsrule: How am I being mysognist? Here I was thinking that it's pretty well known that the people who go to SE Asia for sex/women/a wife are losers who can't land a woman in their own country.

                • Dogsrule on 25/11/2020 - 23:25
                  -2

                  @Ghost47: Yeah I was just teasing ya mate, all good.

    • randomvis on 25/11/2020 - 16:27
      +4

      It took 35 years to develop a vaccine to "Yellow Fever".

      It has taken approximately 9 months to develop this vaccine.

      This is the real precedent.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 25/11/2020 - 19:07
        -2

        It took 35 years to develop a vaccine to "Yellow Fever".

        You mean Natalie Portman? She's 39 years old.

        • greatlamp on 26/11/2020 - 07:32
          +5

          Why should we thank Trump for 'operation warp speed' for placing a pre-order with pfizer for vaccines for the USA?

          Why aren't you thanking our own government for placing a pre-order for vaccines with AstraZeneca?

          Maybe if you don't always read 'woke' media and look at what 'operation warp speed' means, you might not fall for Republican propaganda so easily

        • Ferretface26 on 26/11/2020 - 08:42
          +3

          The development of the Pfizer vaccine wasn’t part of Operation Warpspeed and Pfizer have been very quick to correct your claim. The only ‘funding’ is the purchase agreement.

          • 1st-Amendment on 26/11/2020 - 09:17
            -5

            @Ferretface26:

            The only ‘funding’ is the purchase agreement.

            Lol…

            "the company has a major agreement to sell at least 100 million doses of its vaccine to the federal government, and Pfizer acknowledged in a Monday statement to CNN that it is in fact "participating" in Operation Warp Speed through this deal. Also, at least some independent experts say the Trump administration deserves partial credit for Pfizer's progress. "

            Even CNN have admitted it, maybe time to take your TDS meds…

      • Ghost47 on 25/11/2020 - 19:49

        That is true. Pornhub basically makes any Yellow Fever vaccine useless.

      • jellykingdom on 26/11/2020 - 09:04
        +4

        I don't claim to entirely understand all of this, since i'm not a scientist. But some of the reasons they're able to develop and test these vaccines so fast:

        • supply and demand is dictating they can pour resources into this project, since there's big dollars in it for them. I doubt there's a huge (money) market in Yellow Fever vaccines

        • governments are pouring money into the pharma companies (e.g Aussie government has given billions to multiple companies to increase the likelihood of getting early access to a working vaccine) which helps the process

        • to test a vaccine, you need test subjects. It's not generally considered ethical to inject someone with Ebola for e.g, so you need your vaccinated + control groups to get infected to find out whether the vaccine works or not. "Luckily" we happen to have an out of control disease raging across the world, with plenty of potential test subjects

        • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 12:56
          +1

          The biggest restriction to medical development is regulation. Trump does what Trump is good at and removed a lot of it (see Operation Warp Speed) which contributed to the fastest vaccine development cycle in history.
          People can hate Trump for the way he talks, but the guy gets stuff done.

          • dizzle on 28/11/2020 - 14:45

            @1st-Amendment: So you like him loosening regulations to fast track a vaccine, but you won't take that vaccine because it's been fast tracked and may have loosened regulations?

            • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 15:21

              @dizzle:

              So you like him loosening regulations to fast track a vaccine, but you won't take that vaccine because it's been fast tracked and may have loosened regulations?

              When did I say I wouldn't take it?

      • abb on 26/11/2020 - 10:48
        +3

        It has taken approximately 9 months to develop this vaccine.

        Only if you ignore all the work that happened before 2020.

        The Oxford/AstraZenica vaccine has pretty much been in development since MERS in 2014. The others I don't know as much about, but I'm sure they leverage some previous work too.

        Coronavirus vaccinations were not profitable, but then suddenly got a huge boost in funding in early 2020 for some reason…

        • freddofrog42 on 26/11/2020 - 15:50

          Yep - it's all about the money really and always will be to big Pharmaceuticals companies and I've worked for 2 of the biggest.

          • 1st-Amendment on 29/11/2020 - 08:31

            @freddofrog42: I've also worked for Astra Zenica and Pfizer. Money is one part, regulations are the other biggie. Trump sorted both of those things out for them so they could focus on what they do best. Big Pharma gave him credit, CNN even gave him credit, but that the great TDS unwashed will never concede this.

    • Ghost47 on 25/11/2020 - 19:43
      -2

      Yes, Yellow Fever is very precedented. For example just look at the sex tourism in SE Asia. Oh wait, you're talking about the other Yellow Fever.

    • wisdomtooth on 25/11/2020 - 21:50
      +2

      although Australia has not been actively checking.

      Not true.

      I go to South America every year—or I did before Covid—and they do check. Many airlines refuse to fly passengers from SAmerica to Australia w/o proof of YF vax (as they risk having to fly the passenger back). I have entered Australia w/o the card (can't remember why I didn't have it on me at the time, as I have taken the vaccine more times than I actually should, now that the WHO tells us it no longer expires in 10 years), and the Immigration officer does send you to see their doctor. They ask a few questions and let you in, but they do check up on it.

    • entropysbane on 26/11/2020 - 08:44
      +2

      The difference is that you are talking about government imposing preventative health requirements for inter country travel, while this is a major corporation.

      That is quite a difference.

  • brendanm on 24/11/2020 - 19:29
    +9

    While I don't like it and don't agree with it, as far as I know it is within their rights to do it as a private company. Would be interesting to know if it crosses some sort of anti-discrimination boundary though.

    No idea what you are on about with power and abortions, they have nothing to do with each other.

    • Lord Fart Bucket on 25/11/2020 - 15:42
      +12

      if it crosses some sort of anti-discrimination boundary

      Don't see how it would. You don't have to fly with Qantas. You're purchasing a service under terms and conditions. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product/service.
      There will be exemptions for those that for medical reasons cannot be vaccinated. But the "I subscribe to the Pete Evans religion" should never be accepted as excuse.

      • brendanm on 25/11/2020 - 15:45
        +3

        Don't see how it would

        Qantas is now not allowing Christians onboard. You don't have to fly with Qantas. You're purchasing a service under terms and conditions. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product/service. No one has to be Christian, it's a choice.

        Not sure how that one would go down.

        • StalkingIbis on 25/11/2020 - 16:00
          +11

          A better comparison would be QANTAS not letting smelly people on board.

          …..Oh man I hope they do that one next!

          itsmyrighttonotshower

        • Vote for Pedro on 25/11/2020 - 17:57

          I guess we’d have to decide whether the bible was fiction or non fiction first.

          (prepares popcorn)

          Also, has the right wing eased on their freedom argument of “cake makers shouldn’t have to make cakes for same sex marriages”?

          • brendanm on 25/11/2020 - 18:58

            @Vote for Pedro: My call is fiction, but that doesn't matter in this case.

            I don't think that has anything to do with a "wing". That's simply people who don't like gay marriage. I don't know what is happening in that sphere unfortunately, as I don't really care who makes cakes for who.

            There are far worse things some other peaceful religions do to gay people. So tolerant.

            (I'm not sure if you for some reason thought I was religious?)

            • Vote for Pedro on 25/11/2020 - 21:29

              @brendanm: Well, it was based on your example and was intended as humour.

              The comment about rw was based around the mY RiGhTz to not bake CaKeZ 4 GaYz crowd who seem to care about business and individual freedoms except when it goes against them.

              But I think you knew all that.

          • Dogsrule on 25/11/2020 - 22:03
            -2

            @Vote for Pedro: Roughly as fictional as the quran at least. Have the left wing eased up on their ‘Christians bad muslims good’ argument yet?

            • Vote for Pedro on 25/11/2020 - 22:46
              +2

              @Dogsrule: Well you took that to a weird place.

              • Dogsrule on 25/11/2020 - 22:59

                @Vote for Pedro: Well you went from Christians to right-wing cake makers, I was just following your lead.

                • Vote for Pedro on 25/11/2020 - 23:11
                  +2

                  @Dogsrule: You’ve been living under a rock to miss that link.

                  P.s. all religions are fictional

                  • Dogsrule on 25/11/2020 - 23:13

                    @Vote for Pedro: Well aware of it, still had nothing to do with the posters comment you replied to. Like I said, I’m just following your lead by posting my own personal biases.

                    At least we agree about the religion thing.

          • 1st-Amendment on 26/11/2020 - 09:30
            -1

            @Vote for Pedro:

            Also, has the right wing eased on their freedom argument of “cake makers shouldn’t have to make cakes for same sex marriages”?

            Do you understand the details of actual case or are you giving us you misinterpreted version from something you read on social media? Trial by media is quite common from the left, why even have courts when we have Facebook?

            You can read the Supreme Court decision on Wikipedia if you need clarification.

      • whooah1979 on 25/11/2020 - 15:48

        There will be exemptions for those that for medical reasons cannot be vaccinated.

        The online medical certificates market will boom.

        • TheBird on 25/11/2020 - 23:17

          Covid has been great for business.

          ConstitutionsForKarens.com
          FakeCovidCertifications.com
          SellYourStockpiledToiletPaper.com
          101ExcusesToNotGetTheVaccine.com
          TheEarthIsFlatHandbook.com
          99ConspiracyTheoriesTheAuthoritiesDeny.com
          IWasAHermitUntilCovidMadeMeGoShopping.com

          … business has been booming since March /wink

    • 1st-Amendment on 26/11/2020 - 09:35

      as far as I know it is within their rights to do it as a private company.

      Could you post a link to support this?

      I'd be interested to know what legal grounding that a private business has to require a medical procedure before using their service? Can I demand Lap Band surgery for any fatties before they stay in my AirBNB?

      • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 10:11

        as far as I know

        Then

        Would be interesting to know if it crosses some sort of anti-discrimination boundary though.

        Not sure why you are trying to argue with me to be honest.

        • Cheshire Cat on 26/11/2020 - 17:50
          -2

          because they are a trumptard troll. look at their other (thankfully downvoted to hell) comments

      • pandamninator on 28/11/2020 - 12:15

        https://business.gov.au/People/Customers/Refusing-service

        Disabilities are covered, but sadly, but being an absolute weapon who believes everything he reads on 8Chan doesn't count.

        Soz champ ='(

        • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 13:04

          Doesn't say anything on that page about fatties, so by your logic that's ok then?

          You're so clever!

          • pandamninator on 29/11/2020 - 19:37

            @1st-Amendment: Qantas already deny fatties, along with every other airline - it is standard in the airline industry if you're too much of a tubby prick to squeeze into the seat you either buy a second one or don't fly.

            Maybe quit while you're behind champ, because this is really not working out for you here.

    • SirFlibbled on 01/12/2020 - 14:00

      There will likely be exemptions for people with genuine medical reasons with actual medical certificates (such as egg allergy). Most anti-maskers who run around claiming a 'medical condition' wont be included in this though.

  • Hellfire on 24/11/2020 - 19:31
    +43

    Very good decision by Qantas. Flights spread disease far and wide so mitigating that is a great idea.

    No jab no play exists for young children attending childcare. Aged care homes often restrict access to those who haven't had a flu jab.

    Yellow fever vaccines are required when travelling from hot spots. This is a government requirement though.

    • brendanm on 24/11/2020 - 19:41
      -6

      Does Qantas check to see if people are immunised against measles?

      • Hellfire on 24/11/2020 - 19:42
        +51

        Not currently but perhaps they would if there was a measles pandemic.

    • SydStrand on 24/11/2020 - 20:00
      +24

      No jab no play exists for young children attending childcare.

      And dog kennels/catteries. Apparently SlavOz believes AU's public health should be held to a lower standard than Dog Dayz Daycare.

        • sakurashu on 25/11/2020 - 13:06
          +1

          Countries should and probably will be taking these measures anyway - if you want to wait to take the vaccine then you won't be going to many places anyway?

            • sakurashu on 25/11/2020 - 13:17
              +33

              @SlavOz: But a vaccine does frighten you? Checks out

                • Yawhae on 25/11/2020 - 13:57
                  +26

                  @1st-Amendment: Lol what. You're not been forced to do anything. Qantas is a private company and can refuse anyone they want unless it is discrimination. Last time I checked anti-vaxers weren't a protected class.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 25/11/2020 - 14:38
                    -8

                    @Yawhae:

                    Qantas is a private company and can refuse anyone they want

                    Yeah well the law says otherwise. You might want to read up on that sometime…

                    • gramoras on 25/11/2020 - 23:35
                      +8

                      @1st-Amendment: Actually the law allows Qantas to decide what measures need to be taken to protect the health and safety of their staff and passengers from the crazies.

                      The law also allows you to choose other airlines and other destinations. Or you can take it to court where you are entitled to make your case. Also allowed by the system of law you are railing against which enshrines your rights to do so (shocker!)

                      Neither of those options were available to people forced to wear the actual yellow stars.

                      Having seen actual abuse of power in other countries, I am constantly astonished by how many people living in free societies use the Holocaust as a false moral equivalence to further their ridiculously petty complaints.

                • slewis69au on 25/11/2020 - 13:59
                  +6

                  @1st-Amendment: Way to conflate two things that have nothing to do with each other, are you by any chance American and think that your constitution applies here? If so, name checks out.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 25/11/2020 - 14:40
                    -2

                    @slewis69au:

                    are you by any chance American and think that your constitution applies here?

                    I'm Australian and last time I checked we had laws too. Do you understand how that works?
                    You might want to read this sometime: https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/senate/powers_practi…

                    • Alderson on 25/11/2020 - 21:02

                      @1st-Amendment: Genuinely curious…just spent a LOT of time reading the whole thing and can't find anything to support your argument. Can you please point me in the right direction?

                    • slewis69au on 01/12/2020 - 13:34

                      @1st-Amendment: Yep ignore the substantive argument and attack the throw away comment. Checks out with how you and @slavoz have been acting in this thread.

                      Do the massive number of downvotes mean anything to you?

                      Logical arguments are clearly a waste of time so i will leave you with a quote from the film Time Bandits "…you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence.".

                      • 1st-Amendment on 01/12/2020 - 16:41
                        -2

                        @slewis69au:

                        Yep ignore the substantive argument and attack the throw away comment.

                        Which substantive argument was that?

                        You offered two sentence to this thread, the first wasn't referencing anything specific, the second was quite obviously a poor assumption which I corrected.

                        Do the massive number of downvotes mean anything to you?

                        That at least half the population is of average intelligence or lower?

                        Logical arguments are clearly a waste of time

                        You haven't presented any logic. Maybe learn what that is then come back.

                        • slewis69au on 03/12/2020 - 07:16

                          @1st-Amendment: Please read this article with @slavoz you don't possess special knowledge, everyone apart from the people who support your views are not mindless government controlled sheep. It's not too late to learn to be rational.

                          https://ryanholiday.net/virus/

                          • 1st-Amendment on 03/12/2020 - 09:59
                            -1

                            @slewis69au:

                            everyone apart from the people who support your views are not mindless government controlled sheep.

                            I didn't say they were. So once again you are demonstrating poor logic, in this case a non-sequitur

                            If you wish to actually discuss the topic, I'm here. If you just want to assume things and make judgments based on those bad assumptions then I can't help you.

                            I'll ask you again, what was you 'substantive comment'?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join