It is a matter of law, you are correct, and your dishonesty is quite humorous. I believe I said you want to engage in law fare and have a judge enforce your will. I also stated that if this is your position, your remedy is to run for office, and then pass a law. Your so called proposal to create laws are set that, proposals. Not law. I think you pain with a broad brush. I can name several prominent conservative who disagree with your position.
And you are trying to limit the freedoms of an employer. just not through legislative action. The laws as it stands in various states that are at will states (which if you had any historic understanding were the original positions supported by conservatives) you would understand that the conservative position is that of private contracts and remedies of torts. You are a neocon by definition espousing this particular line of thought.
Perhaps you should in no particular order:
1. Actually make an argument that is supported by law
2. Actually understand the context of your argument
3. Not falsely claim agreement and you have some how proven a point when you demonstrate only a superficial understanding of the issues
4. Stop employing obviously Alinsky techniques when you are getting your ass kicked in an argument
5. Lay off the insults — the neglecting patient crack is seriously close to libel.
In conclusion, perhaps it would be reasonable to actually make an adult argument instead of implying 6 year old debate strategies.
Have a pleasant evening
You’re projecting. Again.
We are working on passing those laws. Laws which respect the freedom and well-being of employees. Those laws are all proposed and supported by conservative R’s, and they are opposed by D’s and RINO R’s here in TX. We know they are RINO’s, because the business lobby RINO R’s have the lowest conservative index scores, barely above the D’s. Our project is part of the same conservative project which restored the right of employees to have their personal weapons locked in their cars. Virtually every true conservative organization (not the neocons, not the business lobby) is on our side.
The rights of employers are not unlimited. Thank you for acknowledging that in your earlier post. There are simply far less onerous health measures to be had than the clot shot bioweapon. No one is opposed to those less onerous measures (sanitation, working from home, keeping vitamin D levels up, extra cleaning in common areas, masks in crowded areas). We’re only opposed to the ones which permanently change our immune systems. And we’re not going to do them, but we will keep our jobs.