Hmmm, let me fire mine up and I'll have you a guess momentarily.

"Please stop allowing people to embarrass us" does not sound like the kind of justification you would need for an exemption of this kind. In fact, it's exactly the kind of thing these types of requests are designed to mitigate.

Ok, lets just get to brass tacks then. Is there anything constitutional that precludes the government from enacting a mask mandate? Everything I've seen indicates there is not. the best thing I've found thus far is:

That said, I don't necessarily "like" the idea of being forced to wear a mask, but I respect the need to protect the population. My issue lies with people who are declaring their rights as being trodden on when in fact they just don't like what's being done.

I have no derision for peoples rights. In fact, if you read my opening comment you'd see I agree with people protecting their rights. My derision is cast at people who use that word to describe anything they want protected, regardless of whether it is an actual right or not.

There's plenty of examples. You wear a seatbelt because the law compels you. You wear a shirt and shoes into almost all public establishments because they compel you. And trying to attach symbology like the armbands is just an excuse. No one at the government level has ever suggested anything other than the technical requirements of the masks features, not it's cosmetic implementation.

Ok, sure, but exactly what rights are impacted by public mask mandates? Your "right" not to be inconvenienced or uncomfortable for the sake of public safety? Nothing I can find indicates that mask mandates create an actual infringement of the constitution, people are just assuming it does.

Virus pathogens are indeed very small, but they don't just freely float around. They're bonded almost exclusively to something else, such as water droplets, that are *much* bigger and *are* caught by the masks.

Essentially there's a large enough demographic of people that feel their "rights" supersede everything else. They were *going* to find something that substantiated what they wanted to do. And to be fair, I agree with their thinking to a degree (in regards to protecting your rights), but there are exceptions. And masking for the sake of public safety during outbreaks is one of them I think.

I have a basic question. Were you there? Because if you weren't, your assertion that every single person there identified as female is completely without basis. The article is saying there were cisgender males there, and unless you can equivocally account for everyone in attendance, calling any of us bigoted just for READING WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS is just you seeking out persecution that (in this case) doesn't exist.

You're just looking for a reason to be outraged. And I didn't say all the "guys" were cisgender, just some of them. And if you actually read the article you'd see they even state that the participation of self-identifying males dramatically increased. So please, just calm down the knee-jerk reactions.

Bullshit. You're just looking for a reason to be outraged. And I didn't say all the "guys" were cisgender, just some of them. And if you actually read the article you'd see they even state that the participation of self-identifying males dramatically increased. So please, just calm down the knee-jerk reactions.

People are downvoting you because you're making blatantly toxic and untrue statements. A lot of the guys there were literally just cisgender dudes who just wanted a job and showed up anyway. This isn't about oppressing the alphabet, it's about a minute range of opportunities focused on lifting up women that are being railroaded by guys. And I think it's wildly hypocritical of you to focus so heavily on the oppression of alphabet folks but completely miss the oppression of women that's occurring and is THE ACTUAL POINT of the outrage.

I'm wondering if celebrities taking to the internet to make these denouncements won't have the opposite effect they're hoping.

Just because a company chooses not to instantly go nuclear doesn't mean the rules don't exist. Kind of crazy that you think differently, or that the rules just don't exist when Amazon has already made it clear folks are not going to like the result if they dig their heels in. Unlikely they would say that publicly if they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Got it. You're choosing to completely ignore what I'm actually saying and focusing purely on the extremity of an example that was intentionally absurd to drive the point home. I guess I should have made it more extreme and then maybe you would have gotten it. It's pretty clear at this point that you either don't want to discuss this, or just feel like arguing, so I'll just say it one last time:

There's nothing inherently wrong with coming to a workplace and being expected to follow the rules or be shown the door. You've made it abundantly clear you think the rules don't exist. Cool. I think they do. I guess we'll see what happens in the coming months.

How do you know they don't exist? I almost feel like you've never worked in a corporate setting because I've never seen one that didn't include a very stringent, "Here are the rules, and they're subject to change" document that everyone signs during in-processing. What kind of hippie environment do you think Amazon is running that they just tell folks, "Come on in and we'll figure it out as we go. The hookah lounge is down the hall and to the left."

There is literally nothing hyperbolic about coming to a workplace and being expected to follow the rules or be shown the door.