Walmart & Sam's...starting next week...

[kadee79]

Will require ALL customers to wear masks...at ALL stores in the US.


www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/business/walmart-masks/index.html

Glad to see this happen since DH & I are among the few who do in our area.

[swamp]

But mah rights!!!!

I need ADA accomodations.   It violates HIPPA!!!

This is communism!!! 

BUT MAH RIGHTS!!!! 

[billisonboard]

All is truly lost now with the deep state taking over one of the last strongholds of Merica. Hells Bells, might as well surrender and sign up for Amazon Prime.

[pulmonarymd]

These national companies are in a tough spot. If they do not require a mask, those of us who think it is the right thing to do, won't go in. They then have to worry about pissing off the my rights crowd. It is tough doing the right thing

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I predict a shooting or fist fight in the parking lot in about 24-48 hours after implimentation at our trashy Wal-mart location in town.

[haapai]

As someone who works in a similar store, I applaud this move.  I'm sure that enforcing it will be daunting, especially in places where masks are not required or cases are low, but it is good practice for this winter.

[Tiny]

Jul 15, 2020 15:29:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

But mah rights!!!!

I need ADA accomodations.   It violates HIPPA!!!

This is communism!!! 

BUT MAH RIGHTS!!!! 

 it's not the government telling you to wear a mask.  It's WalMart/Sams.  If they can make you wear shoes and pants (and to not be toting a gun)  to gain entrance to the store - they can make you wear a mask.    Just saying...   

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 15, 2020 16:35:07 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Jul 15, 2020 15:29:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

But mah rights!!!!

I need ADA accomodations.   It violates HIPPA!!!

This is communism!!! 

BUT MAH RIGHTS!!!! 

 it's not the government telling you to wear a mask.  It's WalMart/Sams.  If they can make you wear shoes and pants (and to not be toting a gun)  to gain entrance to the store - they can make you wear a mask.    Just saying...   

You think they are smart enough to understand that?

[swamp]

Jul 15, 2020 16:35:07 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Jul 15, 2020 15:29:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

But mah rights!!!!

I need ADA accomodations.   It violates HIPPA!!!

This is communism!!! 

BUT MAH RIGHTS!!!! 

 it's not the government telling you to wear a mask.  It's WalMart/Sams.  If they can make you wear shoes and pants (and to not be toting a gun)  to gain entrance to the store - they can make you wear a mask.    Just saying...   

I was being facetious 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2020 17:42:59 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 15, 2020 16:35:07 GMT -5 Tiny said:

 it's not the government telling you to wear a mask.  It's WalMart/Sams.  If they can make you wear shoes and pants (and to not be toting a gun)  to gain entrance to the store - they can make you wear a mask.    Just saying...   

I was being facetious 

yes. of course.

but let's be clear- if WalMart had and "underwear outside" policy, it is absolutely their RIGHT to do that. they are a private company, and they can demand anything they like of customers within the limits of accommodation and safety.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Apparently Alabama is now mandating masks....if you can’t maintain 6’ social distance. 

[haapai]

I've got a sneaking suspicion that some things (other than new case numbers) have been published and widely shared in the last few weeks or days that have caused grocers to do an about-face on this issue.  That is, despite the danger to store personnel being asked to enforce mask-wearing, the tune has changed. 

I'm deadly curious as to what changed the tide.  Was it something in a legal journal or something from a public health angle?  Was it just about commerce and competition i.e. proxy shoppers do not buy on impulse and your competitors are doing something similar?  Was it an employee liability angle that tipped the scales? 

Whatever it was, I'm glad that the tide has turned.  It's much better that it turned now instead of later. 

[djAdvocate]

the tide has not turned, but it is turning. and it will turn more when we start seeing record numbers of people dead. I am sorry to say that I think that this will be the only thing that does it.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2020 15:29:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

But mah rights!!!!

I need ADA accomodations.   It violates HIPPA!!!

This is communism!!! 

BUT MAH RIGHTS!!!! 

(HIPAA)

[Iggy aka IG]

Grateful for online shopping and pickup options!

[lynnerself]

It's about time. My niece works in Walmart  in Kansas City and mostly likely had a case of Covid back in April.

[tallguy]

It may surprise some to know that in the middle of my dislike of government-mandated mask procedures, I actually do agree with the right of a business to require a mask as a condition to entry. As a private entity they are fully entitled to set the rules as they choose, and if they apply it equally to all persons it is not discriminatory. I do not have an absolute right to patronize any business I wish in any manner I wish. I do have an issue with government preemptively treating me as a threat when I am not one, and coercing me in some manner on the basis of that nonexistent threat. One can argue that government does in fact have that right in the name of public safety, but they cannot argue that it is not in fact a limitation of individual rights. If that is someone's position, fine, but at least own it.

[billisonboard]

Jul 15, 2020 19:03:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It may surprise some to know that in the middle of my dislike of government-mandated mask procedures, I actually do agree with the right of a business to require a mask as a condition to entry. As a private entity they are fully entitled to set the rules as they choose, and if they apply it equally to all persons it is not discriminatory. I do not have an absolute right to patronize any business I wish in any manner I wish. I do have an issue with government preemptively treating me as a threat when I am not one, and coercing me in some manner on the basis of that nonexistent threat. One can argue that government does in fact have that right in the name of public safety, but they cannot argue that it is not in fact a limitation of individual rights. If that is someone's position, fine, but at least own it.

Not sure what "right" it is limiting. It is a limitation of personal freedom.

[tallguy]

Jul 15, 2020 19:11:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 15, 2020 19:03:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It may surprise some to know that in the middle of my dislike of government-mandated mask procedures, I actually do agree with the right of a business to require a mask as a condition to entry. As a private entity they are fully entitled to set the rules as they choose, and if they apply it equally to all persons it is not discriminatory. I do not have an absolute right to patronize any business I wish in any manner I wish. I do have an issue with government preemptively treating me as a threat when I am not one, and coercing me in some manner on the basis of that nonexistent threat. One can argue that government does in fact have that right in the name of public safety, but they cannot argue that it is not in fact a limitation of individual rights. If that is someone's position, fine, but at least own it.

Not sure what "right" it is limiting. It is a limitation of personal freedom.

Yes, in this instance I am equating the two.  Besides, "RIGHTS" was already up there so many times in such big, pretty red letters....  

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 15, 2020 19:03:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It may surprise some to know that in the middle of my dislike of government-mandated mask procedures, I actually do agree with the right of a business to require a mask as a condition to entry. As a private entity they are fully entitled to set the rules as they choose, and if they apply it equally to all persons it is not discriminatory. I do not have an absolute right to patronize any business I wish in any manner I wish. I do have an issue with government preemptively treating me as a threat when I am not one, and coercing me in some manner on the basis of that nonexistent threat. One can argue that government does in fact have that right in the name of public safety, but they cannot argue that it is not in fact a limitation of individual rights. If that is someone's position, fine, but at least own it.

I‘ii own it. In the public health realm, the government has wide latitude. They can throw you in jail if you do not comply with treatment, require you to name your contacts and sexual partners, limit your movements, and many other limitations on your liberty in a public health crisis. I would argue this qualifies. Now, it is a power that should not be used without serious consideration. But, you do not have a right to infect other people. Since we cannot determine someone’s risk of infection by looking at them, it is safest to limit everyone so we do not discriminate against someone unnecessarily

[billisonboard]

Jul 15, 2020 19:16:27 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 15, 2020 19:11:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Not sure what "right" it is limiting. It is a limitation of personal freedom.

Yes, in this instance I am equating the two.

[justme]

Jul 15, 2020 18:16:47 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2020 15:29:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

But mah rights!!!!

I need ADA accomodations.   It violates HIPPA!!!

This is communism!!! 

BUT MAH RIGHTS!!!! 

(HIPAA)

Trust me, the ones shouting this don't know it's HIPAA

[justme]

I believe I heard my news said Best Buy is also going to require masks.

Good on Walmart - I've been avoiding it and doing the curbside pickup when I need stuff from them.


Also saw this today. If only. www.statnews.com/2020/07/14/if-everyone-wore-mask-covid19-could-be-controlled-cdc-director-urges/

[thyme4change]

Well, I guess capitalism will save us all.

[tallguy]

Jul 15, 2020 19:17:56 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jul 15, 2020 19:03:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It may surprise some to know that in the middle of my dislike of government-mandated mask procedures, I actually do agree with the right of a business to require a mask as a condition to entry. As a private entity they are fully entitled to set the rules as they choose, and if they apply it equally to all persons it is not discriminatory. I do not have an absolute right to patronize any business I wish in any manner I wish. I do have an issue with government preemptively treating me as a threat when I am not one, and coercing me in some manner on the basis of that nonexistent threat. One can argue that government does in fact have that right in the name of public safety, but they cannot argue that it is not in fact a limitation of individual rights. If that is someone's position, fine, but at least own it.

I‘ii own it. In the public health realm, the government has wide latitude. They can throw you in jail if you do not comply with treatment, require you to name your contacts and sexual partners, limit your movements, and many other limitations on your liberty in a public health crisis. I would argue this qualifies. Now, it is a power that should not be used without serious consideration. But, you do not have a right to infect other people. Since we cannot determine someone’s risk of infection by looking at them, it is safest to limit everyone so we do not discriminate against someone unnecessarily

You didn't need the first few sentences.  I think I have stipulated previously that if someone, say me, is infected, then government can limit my liberties in the name of public health and safety.  I would be the outside threat to others, and it is one of government's functions to protect society from me.  That is all fine.  If I am not, then it is an imposition on my liberty to restrict me.  Your last sentence is relevant.  Government does have wide latitude, as you stated here and as I have done earlier.  There are acceptable reasons for certain restrictions.  I am unconvinced that fear should be one of them.  I think you mentioned in a discussion last week something along the lines that it is unfortunate that so few people put as much thought into their beliefs and actions as I do, and that if everyone did you would likely agree with me.  I agree.  People are fundamentally stupid.  Not all, of course, but many.  We may have to limit everybody because of those individuals, but I don't have to like it or be silent about it.    

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 15, 2020 20:07:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 15, 2020 19:17:56 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

I‘ii own it. In the public health realm, the government has wide latitude. They can throw you in jail if you do not comply with treatment, require you to name your contacts and sexual partners, limit your movements, and many other limitations on your liberty in a public health crisis. I would argue this qualifies. Now, it is a power that should not be used without serious consideration. But, you do not have a right to infect other people. Since we cannot determine someone’s risk of infection by looking at them, it is safest to limit everyone so we do not discriminate against someone unnecessarily

You didn't need the first few sentences.  I think I have stipulated previously that if someone, say me, is infected, then government can limit my liberties in the name of public health and safety.  I would be the outside threat to others, and it is one of government's functions to protect society from me.  That is all fine.  If I am not, then it is an imposition on my liberty to restrict me.  Your last sentence is relevant.  Government does have wide latitude, as you stated here and as I have done earlier.  There are acceptable reasons for certain restrictions.  I am unconvinced that fear should be one of them.  I think you mentioned in a discussion last week something along the lines that it is unfortunate that so few people put as much thought into their beliefs and actions as I do, and that if everyone did you would likely agree with me.  I agree.  People are fundamentally stupid.  Not all, of course, but many.  We may have to limit everybody because of those individuals, but I don't have to like it or be silent about it.    

You just made the same argument I do against all the standards and protocols put into place in medicine. If you do not follow them, even if you are right, you can have to answer for not doing what they say. They improve care with the bottom half of physicians, but can actually limit good physicians. I don’t like it either, but from a societal standpoint, likely are an overall positive. So I do understand where you are coming from

[djAdvocate]

this exchange is worthy of archiving. /\

[tallguy]

You always did have good taste.  

[swamp]

Jul 15, 2020 18:16:47 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2020 15:29:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

But mah rights!!!!

I need ADA accomodations.   It violates HIPPA!!!

This is communism!!! 

BUT MAH RIGHTS!!!! 

(HIPAA)

I'm aware of that too.   Just noting that I have never seen HIPAA "spelled" correctly in one of these rants. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 16, 2020 9:13:53 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 15, 2020 18:16:47 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

(HIPAA)

I'm aware of that too.   Just noting that I have never seen HIPAA "spelled" correctly in one of these rants. 

I thought it was highly unusual an attorney would not know the correct acronym for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.