Let me try it this way.
The Federal Government has no authority to use OSHA, or regulatory authority, to pressure companies into doing this.
Such power is given only to the individual states.
And — requiring someone to take a treatment that is under Emergency Use Authorization is prohibited; the Dementia Joe cabal said months ago they won’t be enforcing that prohibition until May of 2022.
And — the Emergency Use Authorization cannot require you to take the jab, if you belong to a group which was excluded on Medical grounds from participating in the trials (including the obese (BMI > 30) and those with high blood pressure, and pregnant women.
Trying to make someone take a non-authorized treatment, and discriminating against them on the basis of a health condition, IS a Constitutional violation.
I did not say that requiring the jab is legal. I do not believe that it is, and I think use of OSHA will be shot down by the courts.
I simply said the argument that sex discrimination laws have anything to do with whether the jab is legal is a bogus argument. This is a distinction that has become lost too often on Free Republic. It is entirely possible to make a crappy argument in support of a position that ultimately is correct, and just because someone points out that the particular argument is crappy doesn't mean that they disagree on the ultimate issue.
If we as conservatives are going to argue against a government action, then it is important that we use good arguments in support of our point rather than bad ones. That's why it is importance to point out bad arguments, even when they are being made by someone on our side.