I've been reading about this basketball player's refusal to get vaccinated. There is a key problem w/ this article and most of the discourse around mandates.
It is this: NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO GET VACCINATED.
The Kyrie Conundrum theringer.com/nba/2021/10/15… via @ringer
It is this: NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO GET VACCINATED.
The Kyrie Conundrum theringer.com/nba/2021/10/15… via @ringer
IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET VACCINATED, YOU CAN SIMPLY REFUSE.
BUT: there's no constitutional guarantee that exercising your rights is consequence-free.
BUT: there's no constitutional guarantee that exercising your rights is consequence-free.
Irving has a right to refuse to get vaccinated, but he does not have a right to experience no negative consequences of that. If he exercises his right, he won't play basketball.
Colin Kaepernick exercised his 1st amendment right to protest — and he lost his job.
Colin Kaepernick exercised his 1st amendment right to protest — and he lost his job.
If your employer has a vaccination mandate and you won't get vaccinated, then losing your job is a consequence of exercising your right to not get vaccinated.
You have no right to refuse vaccination and then suffer no consequences for your choice. That's not how the Constitution works.
Ted Cruz is making this same mistake here. ESPN is not controlling anyone medical decisions. If she doesn't want the shot, she can quit (which she did). The mistake he's making is in asserting that she shouldn't have to face any consequences.
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1449864857247956992?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
