No, it's not like no shirt, no shoes, no service

"No shirt no shoes no service" is turning out to be the glib motto that low-thought leaders are using to make it possible to refuse service to people for any reason.

Well, any reason except if you don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or gender reveal party. Those you gotta do, or you end up in the Supreme Court 50 times. When it comes to alphabet ideology, business owners have no right to refuse anything I guess. [Please note that the Colorado baker who is always being targeted never refused service to anyone, but simply said he could not make a cake for a gay wedding because of religious conviction. The same people had been served baked items and custom items without problem in the past. No one really tells you that.]

First it was masks. Now, when people tried to get our North Dakota legislature to make vaccine passports unlawful, some responded with the same idea: if you can refuse service to a guy without a shirt, you can insist your customers be vaccinated.

How many times did we say, last year, that we are on a path of crossing fine lines? No one would've believed that our state legislators would ever say, 2019 and prior, that you could refuse to sell someone groceries or not let them fly if they didn't have their vaccination papers. A weak resolution, which is what the legislature passed, to say they don't like the passports is not the same as making them unlawful. The door to showing your papers in North Dakota is still open.

What, are we now like dogs that have to prove they have their rabies shots?

I'm going to tell you why it's not the same. I alluded to it last year when I wrote a post about people comparing mask mandates to seatbelt laws

Masks and vaccines are medical devices. I know people have a hard time with this, particularly since masks have now become "fashion" items, as if sequins on a hypodermic needle would transform it from being a medical device. No, masks and vaccines are medical in nature, i.e. they have an effect on the physical body when used. If it were not so, they would not be regulated in usage by OSHA and the FDA, among other entities.

Let's use a car as an example. The engine of the car is what makes it go. It's the most vital part. Without all the rest, it can't do everything well, but without the engine, there is no point to the car because the car is what you use to go places. If you want to sit inside something that doesn't move, you could use a treehouse.

No shirt = No roof

Hey, no problem. That's a convertible. Granted, there are times you want a roof because of weather or being somewhere that having roof is probably wise (e.g. drive-through wildlife refuge where animals come up to the car), but the car works fine with or without the roof. Enjoy the breeze!

No shoes = Flat/No tires

Your car won't move well at all without functioning tires, but the engine is fine. You simply have to replace the less expensive tires and you're good to go. You can still rev the engine in place no problem. The thing that gives your car life is unharmed while the tires are being fixed. 

Mask = Covering Intake and/or Exhaust

Why not shove a potato in the exhaust? Try that for a while on your engine. See how that works out for you. In fact, try to drive all day down the road with the roof up and perfect tires with the intake and/or exhaust covered, and see how your engine fares over time, how things end up functioning.

One thing I learned in high school shop class was the basics of a four cycle engine. Guess what is a crucial part of the four cycles?

Intake and exhaust.

You muck about with the intake and exhaust for too long, you have an effect. All of the scolding "people mechanics" who line up in front of Sanford Hospital and clog the local editorial pages and bum rush the public meetings can insist it isn't so until the world ends, but it doesn't change reality.

No shirt, no shoes, no service doesn't affect the health of the person being asked to comply. It's meant more to keep a business establishment from turning into a locker room. Forcing people to wear masks is different than asking them to cover their torso or the feet, because it has to do with a crucial engine requirement: oxygen and exhaust. You're forcing them to do something that has an effect on their car engine, not just put their roof up or get new tires. That means you're forcing them to do something that will affect them even after they leave your business. 

The fact that vaccine passports are now being lumped into the "no shirt no shoes no service" category is unreal. We're talking "vaccines" that are NOT FDA approved yet. We're saying that a business has the right to force you to inject something into your body that you don't want if you want to travel or buy essential services and goods.

If I don't wear shoes, it doesn't have the potential to cause bacterial pneumonia, reduced oxygen intake, skin inflammation, and the rebreathing of viruses and bacteria my body is trying hard to exhale and get away from me. If I don't wear shoes, my body isn't going to be programmed via synthetic mRNA to make a spike protein through an injection that, up until a few months ago, had always been considered gene therapy. No shirt no shoes no service is not at all the same

And if a business or school district isn't allowed to say that they don't want anyone in their store or using their service who is wearing a mask and who is vaccinated (which I'm guessing they weren't when the state put out their mask mandates, and the localities did their own versions, and I'm guessing would be targeted now if they did), then your stance is full-on hypocritical. Seriously, businesses should be allowed to put up signs that says masks not allowed, and people who have been vaccinated are not allowed in. No shirt no shoes no service, amirite?

Can private business now break ADA and demand to know health status? Some leaders seem to be saying so. With the advent of safe spaces over the years in which safety has been ridiculously defined and elevated, and the reasoning that "safety" can now be used to override health privacy and equal access laws and the ability to fully participate in society, why not run with it? Anyone or anything that I determine makes for an unsafe space, I can refuse service. 

"The water fountain over there is for vaccinated people. I don't want you shedding your spike proteins in the water fountain meant for those who aren't vaccinated." Get ready for the early 20th Century to return in new and exciting ways!

Liberal left-wing folks, what ever did you do with "my body my choice"?!?!?! When did that leave your building? Have you become so successfully brainwashed that you think anything with the label of "safety" overrides all else?

The people who made the propaganda in 2020 were not stupid. Attach a label of "safety" and "caring" to masks and vaccines, and suddenly a huge part of the population would willingly do away with bodily autonomy and be willing to create a second-tier of citizenry who are excluded from society in small and big ways.

Because safety.

In a North Dakota Health Freedom group, someone posted a flippant response from a ND legislator who wouldn't support the attempt to outlaw vaccine passports in the state. He used the "no shirt no shoes no service" approach. One commenter wondered why it was, then, that when a small school district decided to not mandate masks last year, the state threatened to pull their funding until they did. 

Which is it? State control or local control? Is it based on a whim?

"The school district is publicly funded so the state can do that," you might say. "Private businesses should be allowed to decide on masks and vaccine requirements because they're not the state."

If state involvement is all it takes to legitimize the desire to have a state-level law that doesn't allow mask or vaccine mandates, consider that the state got involved last year in determining which businesses were essential and which ones weren't. (Not to mention the amount of taxpayer money that was poured into PPP loans for these businesses, making nearly every business a beneficiary of the state last year.)

As I said a few times last year: when the government can shut down businesses as non-essential, and define others as essential, they have no business allowing essential businesses (grocery, airlines, etc.) to refuse service to people. The government, through policy and action, set them up to a higher importance and gave them special privileges by determining that they were essential and would not be forced to close. When government leaders try to cop out and say that they want to let business owners determine mask/vaccine restrictions so they don't have to put their neck on the line when the next election rolls around, there is an inherent break in their thought process. Businesses defined as essential MUST be required to allow ALL people to use their services. Otherwise, they would be non-essential. If people can't do without the business, the business can't restrict people.

When a politician or leader of some sort insists forcing vaccines and masks to be able to buy and sell is no different than "no shirt no shoes no service" rest assured they are wrong, and that they bought into propaganda points and thought it all made sense without thinking much on it themselves.

Israel enabled a two-tier police state forcing vaccine passports through the government. In our nation and state, with our leaders, we're allowing it to happen through corporations, entities which are spineless and at the knee-bending whims of woke cancel culture.

Too many legislators wanted to avoid doing anything at a top state level, preferring the noble sound of letting localities decide, yet what the DPI did to the small school district illustrates why citizens saw things differently. The school board ("local level") was overruled by the state, showing the state has the wherewithal to do that. Yet state leaders are also pretty happy to let corporations, which are unelected and not local but national/international, force mandates and vaccine passports. Our leaders are pretending that they are allowing private and local control when really, they're letting massive corporations do the dirty work of controlling people at a high level.

If we had done our work with monopolies, we wouldn't have this problem. But we did not. We let tech companies and a handful of other corporations pretty much control all food, information, and transportation. Pretending a lack of action at the state level is about "local" control is bull. Leaders espousing that are either living in a fantasy land, or like the pass-the-buck mechanism that's at work.

These corporations are bigger than the state, in some cases. We're not talking true local mom and pop shops that don't want you in there without a mask, though it's usually phrased in that way. No, we're talking large corporations and their franchises that are exerting national and international policy through their "no shirt no shoes no mask no vaccine no service" policies that are, in their own way, reducing liberty. 

How long before it becomes "no shirt no shoes no mask no vaccine no conservative no Christian no service" policy? Because if you're still waddling along in your diaper due to your mental infancy, thinking "no shirt no shoes no service" is a solid ground to make policy from, you have no ground to stand on to stop any of the others. 

"Oh, Julie, the masks and vaccines were all about safety. We'd never do that to actual groups of people."

Are you sure? It's no accident that since January, conservatives and Trump supporters were labeled domestic terrorists, with the media and FBI going all in with that. And in recent weeks, the media has been conveniently focusing on the danger posed by white evangelicals who refuse the vaccine. You think safety and commerce restriction can't be twisted around a new domestic terrorist definition, or a religious people group? Did you learn nothing from 2020?

Our legislature should have passed laws that reinforced the fence around liberty in this state, preventing any entity, whether corporation or government, from restricting access and reducing the liberty of the citizens of this state. That's what the 2021 legislative session should have been all about. There were a few successes, but some noticeable fails.

This pediatrician popped up a lot during this past year. Please see previous mask posts on this blog regarding his claims. As to hyperbole-filled things these folks say about people like me...whatever. I don't even care what this dude, and those like him, have to say anymore. 

North Dakota legislators did us a solid yesterday in voting to override Governor Burgum's stupid veto of HB1323, the bill that said the governor and state health officer can't put a mask mandate in. I applaud them and have thanked them. Seriously, I was surprised, but very happy. I know it wasn't easy. One Senator flipped a no vote to yes, and on that it passed. They did the right thing, though the newspaper is already filled with editorials from various medical professional harpies decrying the fact that the top level of the state can't force mask mandates and anyone against masks are evil, bad, selfish, etc. (because demonizing your opponent is totally worthy of a highly educated doctor).

But a weak "resolution" saying they didn't like the idea of vaccine passports was a fail. And perpetuating the "no shirt no shoes no service" idea as an explanation in a woke ever-more Marxist culture of 2021, pretending it's 1950 where shirts and shoes were the main concern, is incredibly naïve.

We're not in 1950.

We're in 1984. The book.

People who say the wrong things are losing their jobs. Leaders who think "no shirt no shoes no services" justifies the removal of access of commerce are unwittingly saying that any corporation can strip access to products, services, and information to anyone who doesn't fit their list of requirements, including ideological and demographic group.

Except Christian bakers.

They have to bake that damn cake.


Jim Wetzel said…
Your post reminds me of the clownish libertarian take of a few months ago, when Apple, Google, and Amazon Web Services got together and decided there shouldn't be a Parler any more. More than a few of the LP types intoned: "The First Amendment only says that Congress can't abridge free speech. These are private companies, they can do what they want with their businesses ..."

The point was: the distinction between large corporations and government is a distinction without the faintest hint of a difference. For that matter, there's no practical difference between government and the "prestige" media, or between government and the academy, or any combination of these entities. Call it, collectively, what you please. The One Percent, the Cathedral ... by whatever name, it's simply a ruling class. And, as George Carlin is supposed to have said, "It's a nice, big club -- and you ain't in it."

I concede that it's possible that a few of what normal people would recognize as an entrepreneurial business on a human scale -- a corner hardware store, a non-chain coffee shop, a florist, a bakery -- might see fit to deny admittance to filthy, unvaxxed walking fountains of contagion such as myself. But I think we all know what "private" businesses will be pushing The Jab. They'll be the corporate behemoths. The Walmarts, the Best Buys, the Krogers, the Home Despots. And there again, we see the nominal distinction between such entities, and the government that they've bought, disappear like the morning mist on a summer day.

This doesn't end well. Nor does it end at the fabled ballot box. "We ain't votin' our way out of this."