Federal Judge Grants NCL Preliminary Injunction v Florida

[flamingos]

31 minutes ago, bigdaddyyo said:

Because that is the world we live in now unfortunately.  We didn't care 18 months ago about vaccinations and would have never thought twice about it.  Hell the argument would have been laughable, but now we live in different times.  People are now identifying their vaccination status on social media/apps etc.  It has 100% become a protected class.  People are now identified more in this country by vaccination status then any other class/status of people.  You either are or you aren't, just that simple.

Posting on social media does not a 'protected class' make.

[RFerrington]

26 minutes ago, orville99 said:

None of which meets the threshold for a protected class under any existing federal law.

Neither did any of the other protected classes until they were created by the courts.

[smplybcause]

4 minutes ago, bigdaddyyo said:

In regards to cruising did you ever get on a boat prior to the pandemic and wonder whether or not the other 5000 people on the boat had their vaccines?  The answer is no. You got on the boat and had the time of your life.. You got off the boat just fine.  Not once did it cross your mind. 

 

I didn't have to wonder. Thanks to mandatory vaccines to go to school in the majority of the developed worlds - the vast majority of people out there are vaccinated against the communicable diseases that have vaccines. With the flu shot being the only exception that isn't as at high of rates. 

 

 

[Pratique]

1 hour ago, TXRANCHER said:

 However, What I have suggested is my support is only limited to a remand of the order back to the district court stating it must cure the unconstitutionality of its order by applying it to all US Ports and in so doing ruling that the Alaska Tourism Restoration Act is also unconstitutional.  The ATRA suffers from the same defect. Congress set a different set of commerce regulations for it than it did for other US ports. The also violates the No Port Preference Clause of the Constitution. That law is also clearly unconstitutional. 

   

It seems you are saying that both the ATRA and the injunction in its present form are unconstitutional. The clause you cite is in Article I, which applies to Congress, not the Judiciary. But in any event, constitutionality is rarely clear cut. There are many ways to interpret the Constitution including pragmatism.

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45129

Edited August 10, 2021 by Pratique

[CT Sean]

18 minutes ago, bigdaddyyo said:

In regards to cruising did you ever get on a boat prior to the pandemic and wonder whether or not the other 5000 people on the boat had their vaccines?  The answer is no. You got on the boat and had the time of your life.. You got off the boat just fine.  Not once did it cross your mind. 

I've also never sailed during a smallpox or measles pandemic.  If I had the opportunity, there's a good chance I'd have thought differently.

 

Have you ever sailed during a smallpox or measles pandemic? 

Edited August 10, 2021 by CT Sean
grammar

[alfaeric]

29 minutes ago, bigdaddyyo said:

Just because they aren't a protected class by law does not mean they do not have rights.  Like I said before I could care less if ANY business fails or succeeds.  People choose to run their business the best way they see fit and if they don't want to cater to a specific population/demographic/race/gender/religion/vaccination status etc I could care less.  That is on their business, nobody is forcing people to shop or do business with that company.  This is really simple logic and I don't understand why you cannot follow.

What is it that you want, then?

 

If you want vaccine status to be protected, then you need to change the laws and make it that.  Given that it's not for pretty much all of the other vaccines we get, I don't see that as happening.

 

But on the other hand, you want businesses to do what they want.  Which says that it's not right that Florida force businesses to run in a manner the governor sees fit.

 

I'm confused.

 

This specific case is more about- does Florida have the power to tell companies how to run their business WRT a medical status.  Bearing in mind, nobody has taken them to court over them not allowing pregnant women within a time period.  Both pretty  much are an admission of the cruise lines not being able to deal with a specific health issue- one would be someone with COVID, and the other giving birth.

[orville99]

38 minutes ago, RFerrington said:

Neither did any of the other protected classes until they were created by the courts.

Correct, and until/unless that happens, anti-vax are just a group that has made the choice to self-isolate from me.

Edited August 10, 2021 by orville99

[cured]

59 minutes ago, bigdaddyyo said:

Because that is the world we live in now unfortunately.  We didn't care 18 months ago about vaccinations and would have never thought twice about it.  Hell the argument would have been laughable, but now we live in different times.  People are now identifying their vaccination status on social media/apps etc.  It has 100% become a protected class.  People are now identified more in this country by vaccination status then any other class/status of people.  You either are or you aren't, just that simple.

Vaccination status is a choice therefore is not a protected class. A person can change their situation with a change in choice if they wanted. A choice is not protected.

 

A protected class cannot change their situation to effect a change in their situation. For instance, a person cannot change their color of skin, their ethnicity, nor their sexual orientation to access things that might be illegally denied to them.  The only protected class that is arguably changeable is religious affiliation. However, religious freedom is not a global health matter.

 

Vaccination is merely a health choice one makes that they feel is the best choice for them. Just as a business makes the same choices for their business that is best for their business based on hard science and medical knowledge.

 

To beleaguer a business because they don't make the same choice as you nor happily put aside their choices to cater to yours is not protected status. It is more akin to a foot stomping toddler tantrum when told no and they figure out they can't always get their way. To demand that businesses cater to your choice and not be allowed their own choices is the me-me centric thought process of a toddler. Usually one learns that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, that choices have consequences, relatively young in life.

 

I am not sure what social media has to do with determining protected class. If one is confident about their choice, why does it matter that others are posting their choices online.  

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by cured

[bigdaddyyo]

30 minutes ago, cured said:

Vaccination status is a choice therefore is not a protected class. A person can change their situation with a change in choice if they wanted. A choice is not protected.

 

A protected class cannot change their situation to effect a change in their situation. For instance, a person cannot change their color of skin, their ethnicity, nor their sexual orientation to access things that might be illegally denied to them.  The only protected class that is arguably changeable is religious affiliation. However, religious freedom is not a global health matter.

 

Vaccination is merely a health choice one makes that they feel is the best choice for them. Just as a business makes the same choices for their business that is best for their business based on hard science and medical knowledge.

 

To beleaguer a business because they don't make the same choice as you nor happily put aside their choices to cater to yours is not protected status. It is more akin to a foot stomping toddler tantrum when told no and they figure out they can't always get their way. To demand that businesses cater to your choice and not be allowed their own choices is the me-me centric thought process of a toddler. Usually one learns that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, that choices have consequences, relatively young in life.

 

I am not sure what social media has to do with determining protected class. If one is confident about their choice, why does it matter that others are posting their choices online.  

 

 

Maybe you didn't read or choose not to read the other 10 times on this thread where I said I don't care what businesses choose to do with their business.  If they don't want me in their business then I don't care. I don't have to shop there, I can spend my money at other businesses.  That is my choice.  So in the end, they have a choice and I have a choice.  I'm not demanding that any business cater to my needs.  They can do whatever they deem is the right thing to do to make them successful.  If they aren't successful, then either they change what they are during or they shutdown.  Pretty simple logic.

[orville99]

3 minutes ago, bigdaddyyo said:

Maybe you didn't read or choose not to read the other 10 times on this thread where I said I don't care what businesses choose to do with their business.  If they don't want me in their business then I don't care. I don't have to shop there, I can spend my money at other businesses.  That is my choice.  So in the end, they have a choice and I have a choice.  I'm not demanding that any business cater to my needs.  They can do whatever they deem is the right thing to do to make them successful.  If they aren't successful, then either they change what they are during or they shutdown.  Pretty simple logic.

You do realize that you are arguing against yourself, right?

[bigdaddyyo]

2 minutes ago, smplybcause said:

 

An exemption for those that medically can't get it. A lot of exemptions for religious reasons. some have exemptions for just because and a lot are getting rid of it - not most as you contend. And if you go by population - it's even less. The most populous states don't even have a religious exemption (California and NY). 

 

But even with those exemption vaccination rates are far and above the rates for covid. 

Just to make this easier, here is a link to show all of the states that have personal or religious exemptions.  That is over 90% of the US.

 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx

[alfaeric]

8 minutes ago, bigdaddyyo said:

Maybe you didn't read or choose not to read the other 10 times on this thread where I said I don't care what businesses choose to do with their business.  If they don't want me in their business then I don't care. I don't have to shop there, I can spend my money at other businesses.  That is my choice.  So in the end, they have a choice and I have a choice.  I'm not demanding that any business cater to my needs.  They can do whatever they deem is the right thing to do to make them successful.  If they aren't successful, then either they change what they are during or they shutdown.  Pretty simple logic.

So then it's ok for cruise lines to require a vaccine.  Makes sense now.

 

Not sure why you care so much about vaccine status, then.

[coffeebean]

13 hours ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

I agree.  Until cases go down and variants subside, it’s not very prudent to offer entirely unvaccinated cruises.  In various surveys, the majority of people who cruise, want fully vaccinated cruises and I’m sure they would not like getting on a ship with a previous unvaccinated sailing, no matter how hard they cleaned and scrubbed. 

Also....considering folks who have already been on ships with unvaccinated kids are reporting that the crew are not enforcing masking of these kids. Kids are indoors without masks. Not a good model if you ask me.

[coffeebean]

12 hours ago, Iamcruzin said:

Personally I would rather them cancel unvaccinated. These new requirements allow Royal to save face with the unvaccinated passengers. Parents with children who can't be vaccinated shouldn't be putting them in harm's way just to be on vacation. I wouldn't even book a flight if I had children under age.  I wonder how many of those who are able to be vaccinated but won't would change their minds if they couldn't cruise.

I often wonder that myself.

[coffeebean]

10 hours ago, jrapps said:

I believe both are going the under 95% route. The difference is on ships out of TX, everyone on the ship 12+ is vaccinated. Required.

 

True. In Florida, Royal allows unlimited amount of un-vaxxed adults and children on their ships.

[ReneeFLL]

On 8/9/2021 at 4:45 PM, At Sea At Peace said:

…as long as 'something other than fully vaccinated is offered.

 

Why should they have to? If a business wants to try to protect themselves they should be able to. Just saying.

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by ReneeFLL

[orville99]

11 hours ago, coffeebean said:

 

True. In Florida, Royal allows unlimited amount of un-vaxxed adults and children on their ships.

Only accurate on Bahamas and Western Caribbean cruises. Eastern Caribbean routes (through 10/31/21) that include the USVI are restricted to vaccinated-only for every passenger 12 YO and up. I expect Western Caribbean cruises will quickly morph to vaccinated-only as well.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

19 minutes ago, orville99 said:

Only accurate on Bahamas and Western Caribbean cruises. Eastern Caribbean routes (through 10/31/21) that include the USVI are restricted to vaccinated-only for every passenger 12 YO and up. I expect Western Caribbean cruises will quickly morph to vaccinated-only as well.

Thank you for pointing that out...especially since this is currently a limited and short-term situation.

 

Like many businesses....mandatory proof of vaccination by participants will become more and more common in the cruising world as well (thankfully).

Edited August 11, 2021 by CRUISEFAN0001

[CT Sean]

12 hours ago, coffeebean said:

 

True. In Florida, Royal allows unlimited amount of un-vaxxed adults and children on their ships.

If the NCL ruling sticks - and I'll be shocked if it doesn't, it's pretty long established that a business can refuse service for a wide range of reasons - I would expect Royal and Carnival to start requiring vaccine proof as well in FL. none of these cruise lines want unvaccinated passengers, they're allowing them - while placing as much burden as possible on them - so they could resume operations.

[jrapps]

1 minute ago, CT Sean said:

If the NCL ruling sticks - and I'll be shocked if it doesn't, it's pretty long established that a business can refuse service for a wide range of reasons - I would expect Royal and Carnival to start requiring vaccine proof as well in FL. none of these cruise lines want unvaccinated passengers, they're allowing them - while placing as much burden as possible on them - so they could resume operations.

I agree. We will eventually see a convergence of sailing protocols until each cruise line has a single protocol to follow for all US based cruises. Regardless of the state, port, ship, length of cruise, etc. For simplicity, whatever combination of vaccinations, masking, testing, etc they choose to do, I expect to see Royal apply the exact same rules across the board. And I also fully expect that to be vaccines required for 12+, everyone test 3 days out, and masks onboard indoors.

 

It may take a few more weeks or longer to get there, but it will eventually happen, especially if this ruling is appealed quickly, and the 11th circuit upholds the injunction. That would really solidify the rule.

[At Sea At Peace]

On 8/9/2021 at 4:45 PM, At Sea At Peace said:

Florida announced it will appeal to the 11th CC.  Expected.

 

The Judge's ruling was detailed and massive.  IMO, it wasn't written since the oral arguments.  It was in the can ready to issue.

 

It will be interesting.

 

IMO, I don't mind offering various cruises, 'fully vaccinated, 95% etc., as long as 'something other than fully vaccinated is offered.

 

NCL is a bit at risk on this.

 

8 hours ago, ReneeFLL said:

Why should they have to? If a business wants to try to protect themselves they should be able to. Just saying.

 

 

I believe you were looking at part of a sentence in a multi-sentence post, so here's the whole post.

 

Again, I don't mind various classes of cruises to select from.

 

With reference to 'a business wants to try to protect themselves,' regarding this current virus, there is a bit of risk by proffering that such cruises insure protection.  They don't, and the current variant is the current example of another game changer.

 

Currently, vaccinations make a lot of sense for most people and the cruise lines are cognizant of this. 

 

However, shortly was will constitute "being vaccinated?"  Will it be "have you ever been vaccinated?"  Or, will it morph?  Will it be "when were you vaccinated, and risk tiers for how many months post vaccination are you?"  The drug developers have been open with disclosing that the efficacy 'wanes after 6-months and even estimate the 'wane factor every 1-2 months.

 

AKA the 'slippery slope' canard possibility.  Do the cruise lines then have cruise specifics for those vaccinated and not in a high risk category (very old, obese, cardiac or pulmonary disease, etc. per the CDC).

 

Just questions.  I don't have the answers.  I see the current variant upsetting the plans of everyone everywhere and we wait to learn if we are in a surge that will pass like it has in other countries.

 

Take care.

[At Sea At Peace]

8 minutes ago, CT Sean said:

If the NCL ruling sticks - and I'll be shocked if it doesn't, it's pretty long established that a business can refuse service for a wide range of reasons - I would expect Royal and Carnival to start requiring vaccine proof as well in FL. none of these cruise lines want unvaccinated passengers, they're allowing them - while placing as much burden as possible on them - so they could resume operations.

 

That's a really 'hot button' statement that certainly can be refuted across various levels of federal and state court jurisdictions, as well as the SCOTUS.

 

But, with regard to the cruise industry, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

9 minutes ago, CT Sean said:

If the NCL ruling sticks - and I'll be shocked if it doesn't, it's pretty long established that a business can refuse service for a wide range of reasons - I would expect Royal and Carnival to start requiring vaccine proof as well in FL. none of these cruise lines want unvaccinated passengers, they're allowing them - while placing as much burden as possible on them - so they could resume operations.

Agree.  This past week, 3 large local hospitals reported an upwards surge in Covid patients being admitted...and over 97% of them were unvaccinated. Pretty much tells the story these days.

[jrapps]

4 minutes ago, At Sea At Peace said:

 

 

I believe you were looking at part of a sentence in a multi-sentence post, so here's the whole post.

 

Again, I don't mind various classes of cruises to select from.

 

With reference to 'a business wants to try to protect themselves,' regarding this current virus, there is a bit of risk by proffering that such cruises insure protection.  They don't, and the current variant is the current example of another game changer.

 

Currently, vaccinations make a lot of sense for most people and the cruise lines are cognizant of this. 

 

However, shortly was will constitute "being vaccinated?"  Will it be "have you ever been vaccinated?"  Or, will it morph?  Will it be "when were you vaccinated, and risk tiers for how many months post vaccination are you?"  The drug developers have been open with disclosing that the efficacy 'wanes after 6-months and even estimate the 'wane factor every 1-2 months.

 

AKA the 'slippery slope' canard possibility.  Do the cruise lines then have cruise specifics for those vaccinated and not in a high risk category (very old, obese, cardiac or pulmonary disease, etc. per the CDC).

 

Just questions.  I don't have the answers.  I see the current variant upsetting the plans of everyone everywhere and we wait to learn if we are in a surge that will pass like it has in other countries.

 

Take care.

All very valid points. To try and keep my reply within the confines of this thread, all I would say is if this ruling holds, that basically gives the cruise lines the freedom to determine that for their needs.

 

Do they say anyone who's ever been vaccinated ever? or only people who have received a vaccine or booster within the past 12 months? We all wish there was a simple answer to that question from a Covid infection perspective, but from a legal one it could be quite simple (again if the injunction holds) in that it is up to the business (in this case cruise lines) to decide that for themselves.

[alfaeric]

8 minutes ago, jrapps said:

I agree. We will eventually see a convergence of sailing protocols until each cruise line has a single protocol to follow for all US based cruises. Regardless of the state, port, ship, length of cruise, etc. For simplicity, whatever combination of vaccinations, masking, testing, etc they choose to do, I expect to see Royal apply the exact same rules across the board. And I also fully expect that to be vaccines required for 12+, everyone test 3 days out, and masks onboard indoors.

 

It may take a few more weeks or longer to get there, but it will eventually happen, especially if this ruling is appealed quickly, and the 11th circuit upholds the injunction. That would really solidify the rule.

I wonder how long it will take to implement?  As in it being hard to enforce any new requirements for X number of weeks.  Since the full vaccine coverage happens 2 weeks after last (if only) dose- it *seems* that the fastest they can change the rules and not make it impossible for reservation holders to change would be 4 weeks.

 

The second thing- how do you get a good proof?  Seeing news stories that some are paying money to have forged cards (for a free vaccine,...) suggests that something other than the basic piece of paper may be needed.