To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[jamil]

Lowes is private property that happens to be a business. They 100% have the right to mandate anything they like to allow you entrance.

No they don't. Go look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Look at what the courts have ruled. Maybe you're making a "should" argument too, but if you're making an "is" argument, you're wrong.

 

[MCgrease08]

You, sir, are a dirty anarchist.

 

[SwikLS]

 

[JTScribe]

 

[BigRed]

I cannot believe people are still debating this scam.

 

[churchmouse]

I cannot believe people are still debating this scam.

Yeah its a time filler for some.

 

[Ingomike]

Can a business mandate people to sacrifice their ugly child before entering the establishment? Clearly there is a legal limit. Legislation and the courts have established the concept of public accommodations. And that's just the way it is. People can argue about the way it SHOULD be. But the way it is, you're right that businesses that operate as a public accommodation can't do just anything they want. But if what they're requiring is not illegal, and it's enforced without discrimination against the established protected classes, they can. One could argue that it discriminates against people who can't wear masks for health reasons. But anyway, it sounds like you're making a "should" argument more than an "is" argument, becuase they can obviously do it. They have.

I am making the case that anyone that does not want to wear a mask can say they don't for health reasons and there is nothing they can do about it. Requiring proof is against HIPPA privacy. So effectively they cannot enforce this and only have because no one has properly challenged this.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[nonobaddog]

To properly challenge this, it would probably be best to have somebody with documented health reasons for not masking do it. They could still keep their health info private but just in case some Karen goes full-Karen and it ends up in court which is where it needs to go.

 

[J Galt]

He's an ass.
The people propping him up are ass too.

Yes they are.

 

[jamil]

I am making the case that anyone that does not want to wear a mask can say they don't for health reasons and there is nothing they can do about it. Requiring proof is against HIPPA privacy. So effectively they cannot enforce this and only have because no one has properly challenged this.

I suspect they would lose. You go in a grocery store without a mask. Karen reports you to the manager. Manager tells you to leave or put on a mask. Even offers you a disposable. You say you have a condition that makes it unsafe for you to ware it. The manager won’t even ask you for proof of your condition. Zhe will just tell you to use their pick-up service. Or, worst case, tell you to **** off.

My sense is that the courts would rule that it’s a pandemic and the stores are abiding by emergency orders.

 

[BugI02]

This ^^^^. I suspect if you wish to claim an exemption the burden of proof will be on you. They can't make you provide the proof, you can't make them provide the exemption. Mexican standoff (is it still allright to use that term? )

 

[spec4]

Yesterday wife and I had breakfast at the Omlette House in Schererville. None of the staff had masks on. First time I've seen that in over a year. The majority of customers were unmasked.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Last Saturday we celebrated our anniversary at Bynums Steakhouse in Martinsville. No staff wearing masks along with about 75% of the customers. It was almost like being back in America again.

 

[nonobaddog]

This ^^^^. I suspect if you wish to claim an exemption the burden of proof will be on you. They can't make you provide the proof, you can't make them provide the exemption. Mexican standoff (is it still allright to use that term? )

This is why you need someone with documented health reasons why they can't wear a mask. The burden of proof could be met but only by exposing legally protected private information. This would expose the Catch 22 situation and drop it on the courts.
HIPAA vs emergency overreach panic mandate for ineffective mitigation.

 

[Ingomike]

This is why you need someone with documented health reasons why they can't wear a mask. The burden of proof could be met but only by exposing legally protected private information. This would expose the Catch 22 situation and drop it on the courts.
HIPAA vs emergency overreach panic mandate for ineffective mitigation.

This. I just recently studied the law as it pertains to health related accommodations. Take the case of a service animal, a retailer is ONLY allowed two questions by law, is that a service animal, and what tasks does the animal perform? No proof or documentation can be asked for. HIPPA is similarly constructed for privacy and I doubt the Feds would rescind privacy even in a pandemic.

 

[BugI02]

This is why you need someone with documented health reasons why they can't wear a mask. The burden of proof could be met but only by exposing legally protected private information. This would expose the Catch 22 situation and drop it on the courts.
HIPAA vs emergency overreach panic mandate for ineffective mitigation.

I just don't see this working. YOU are the one asking for accommodation, they can simply refuse to accommodate you without some proof of the necessity. Then the ball is in your court. You aren't being forced to reveal any information, you can always mask up or leave. I believe the courts will decide that there are remedies available to you that do not involve infringing on HIPAA

 

[Mark-DuCo]

HIPAA would not apply to these scenarios. HIPAA pretty much only pertains to healthcare providers, and people in the medical field who handle patients medical information, not the general public.

There may be other laws that could stop them from asking you if you really have a medical condition, but HIPAA does not apply.

http://www.healthlawoffices.com/doe...tion-about-exemption-from-a-face-mask-policy/

 

[Sylvain]

HIPAA would not apply to these scenarios. HIPAA pretty much only pertains to healthcare providers, and people in the medical field who handle patients medical information, not the general public.

There may be other laws that could stop them from asking you if you really have a medical condition, but HIPAA does not apply.

http://www.healthlawoffices.com/doe...tion-about-exemption-from-a-face-mask-policy/

This.
Also people can ask you anything they want.
You just don't have to answer.

I don't think there's any law that can keep someone from asking anything.

People at the grocery store can ask about my medical history, and I can tell them to **** off.

 

[Ingomike]

This.
Also people can ask you anything they want.
You just don't have to answer.

I don't think there's any law that can keep someone from asking anything.

People at the grocery store can ask about my medical history, and I can tell them to **** off.

The law clearly states that a retailer cannot ask about a handicap. This would also bring in ADA.

"Because service animals are permitted within public establishments, they are often observed by a reasonable person as a service animal and not a pet. This means that when this is the case, the business must permit the person and his or her service animal within the premises without asking for documentation. It is only when the dog cannot be seen as a service animal that the management may request this paperwork. However, no other documentation may be asked for such as papers for the dog being licensed as a service animal, training or other such matters. The disabled person may show a decal or other proof he or she is disabled, but disclosing what the disability is not necessary. It is usually only needed to provide an employer with this information."

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-a-business-ask-about-my-disability-and-my-need-for-a-service-dog-42550

This clearly has not been tested but if an individual has a condition that they cannot wear a mask this would apply.