[Axien]

So someone else’s freedoms should be limited so you can feel “comfortable”?

[kthejoker2]

Uhh yes? Rights conflict with rights all the time, we've already agreed that we have foregone certain rights in certain scenarios ("strict scrutiny") for the safety and welfare of the whole.

You have to wear pants, you can't drive at night without headlights, you can't sit in a restaurant yelling F*K at the top of your lungs in between bites, you have to get a permit to hold a music festival on the street, you can't post political signs on my property ...

Man is born free and eveywhere in chains, literally this is a solved problem from 260 years ago.

[codyb]

Lol, yes.

If people want to eat at restaurants unvaccinated in NYC they have a variety of options. They can eat outside in the stalls which often have heat and shields against the wind. They can order at home and eat with their friends who want to take that risk.

Going to a concert so you can more likely catch and spread a highly infectious virus and become more sick and hospitalized isn't some constitutional right.

And the value of not having people who'll willingly "limit someone else's freedoms" by spreading a virus they could be vaccinated against, well, at the end of the day, I'd rather "limit their freedoms" to use your term, then the person who didn't need to catch it anyways and is now sick or hospitalized. That sounds a lot more like "limited freedoms" than "Oh no, I can't see a play".

[jrs235]

Why not allow businesses (and concerts and plays and etc.) to decide if they want to allow unvaccinated customers (or not)? That's their business. If you don't want to visit businesses (and concerts and plays and etc.) that allow unvaccinated customers then don't go to those businesses (and concerts and plays and etc.). That's your business.

[yanmaani]

What about attending political protests?