Look to the framing

[sonia]

I just read a post about someone who is unvaccinated making the claim that it's discrimination to ask about vaccination when seeing clients in person.

Obviously I disagree since I am doing exactly that.

Yes, boundaries discriminate in the original sense of discerning between things. Boundaries say, "Yes to this, no to that." But it is not discrimination in the legal, unfair sense, and framing it that way is confusing at best and disingenuous at worst.

Boundaries say, you can choose not to be vaccinated and not come into my vaccination-only space as a consequence. Even if remaining unvaccinated is a medical necessity rather than a free choice, that doesn't invalidate the boundary.

I recently had a conversation with my aunt where she wanted to "agree to disagree" about the fact that she's not vaccinated. I said no, I can't just skip over it, because it bothers me. I see it as a responsibility to the community to be vaccinated if at all possible. It's not an individual private choice that has to be respected. That's co-opting the language of tolerance and respect for behavior that directly harms the community.

Comments

[suncat]

I completely agree. You state it well.

I wonder if people like your aunt flail around at not being allowed to drive while under the influence. Or for a less life-critical example, if they now won't be respecting the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" mandate that has been part of most public businesses, especially restaurants, for decades.

[sonia]

Thanks for the support. This inversion of who should be respecting whom is crazy-making for me.

I don't know about those things in particular, but my aunt does have the, "I'm special, the rules don't really apply to me" mindset.

[minoanmiss]

I just read a post about someone who is unvaccinated making the claim that it's discrimination to ask about vaccination when seeing clients in person.

*groans*

That's co-opting the language of tolerance and respect for behavior that directly harms the community.

Well and truly said.

[sonia]

Thanks!

[silveradept]

There's base hypocrisy involved in asserting that someone has the individual right not to take vaccination and also asserting that other people do not have the individual right to refuse anyone who doesn't take vaccination. "My body, my right" goes both ways, and arguing that it's legal discrimination to refuse someone who is a public health hazard is certainly a take.

[sonia]

That's a good point! Maybe that's part of why the argument has such a slippery feel to me.

[silveradept]

It's the standard "for me, but not for thee" argument that gets made when those who believe themselves the Chosen have to confront the reality that others exist and do not recognize (and may even actively resist) their Inherent Superiority. Anything that doesn't immediately give them what they want, the way they want it, and with a smile or a "we're not worthy" from their inferiors must be persecution, how dare they.

It's slippery if you think they're arguing from any other premise than "I'm Right, and what I want to do is Right and anything that stops me or denies me is Wrong."