Noem banned the state gov’t from having a vax mandate. She is correct in not doing it to business as she said ‘it is a slippery slope’, setting precedent that state gov CAN tell businesses what to do and mandate behavior. Good for her. Gov’t shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. In a state with unemployment around 3% there are jobs. Individuals need to step up and say no to these vax mandates.
Do constitutional rights end at the employer’s door?
I disagree 100%. If private companies, businesses, or local school districts or other public agencies that are not state agencies, cities or counties issue vax mandates, that is unconstitutional and the state governments should prevent such unconstitutional force. I could not disagree more.
Many individuals are stepping up, I post as many examples as I can on my twtter. Protests all over, the video of the LAFD Captain I posted yesterday is incredible.
In Noem’s case, she’s doubly wrong as she is going against the SD R state legislators who represent the people of SD.
Governments pick winners and losers every time they issue economic development bonds or grant various types of tax increment financing for private and quasi-governmental buildings and stadiums. The slack, of course, will be picked up the the working-class.
For those businesses to turn around and strong-arm those same citizens is beyond the pale. Remember how the All-Star Game was pulled from Georgia because the “woke” companies didn’t like the new Georgia election laws? Hundreds, if not thousands, of small Georgia businesses were adversely affected by that move.
As far as I am concerned, all economic incentives should be pulled from any such corporation, anywhere, anytime, they try to throw their weight around. If the good people of South Dakota want to prevent “jab” mandates for their citizens, so it be. It is not up to the governor to be a lackey for such corporate interests.
The legislature SHOULD ban businesses from requiring the frankenshot and she SHOULD sign it.
Nobody has the right to require it.