[lesuorac]

> because it treated certain groups of people differently, even though they were in the same situation.

The judge can find whatever they want but to pretend that a sportsball player is the same as a city employee is obviously bogus.

EO 62 [1] very clearly layed out the difference in their situation as concert performers and sportsball players will increase the economic activity of NYC. A city employee just doesn't have the same economic impact as the exempted classes.

Look, the judge is just again vaccination requirements and will find whatever reason they want to justify their position against them. This is pretty much layed out when the judge goes on how the city could've kept its testing strategy despite the fact that the judge doesn't at all justify what effect a testing strategy would have or what effect a vaccination strategy would have or how the two would achieve similar goals or what those goals were (i.e. the judge has no problem making an arbitrary and conspicuous claim about how the state should've ran itself).

[1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/062-003/emerge...

[db48x]

A random unvaccinated public employee _is_ in the same situation as a random unvaccinated private employee. Either they should both be allowed to go to their place of work and work, or neither of them should. No rational basis can exist for a rule that says that it is unsafe for an accountant working for the government to visit their accounting office, but that it is safe for an accountant working in the private sector to visit their office. The virus doesn’t know if you are a private employee or not; either visiting the office is safe or it is unsafe. It cannot be both.