In my forty plus years of Gay rights advocacy, one of the most offered defense for denying a class of citizens of the United States the rights with which all men were endowed by our creator as stated so clearly in the Declaration of Independence as being a self-evident truth, was that any sexual orientation other than the assumed heterosexuality of the majority was a choice, and as such, denial of those rights in law and in individual practice was allowable.

Being a choice, and, therefore, not an immutable characteristic, it was the basis for denying jobs, medical care, housing, and the use of public accommodations.

Some conservative states have proposed and some have passed laws that allow first responders, like EMTs, to refuse treatment to a Gay person because its being a choice, they can refuse help because their chosen religion objects to what they feel is a choice.

I am not saying who is right or who is not,but I want to point out that if there are two sides discussing the issue of sexual orientation being a choice or not, that very discussion shows that there is uncertainty about the existence of a choice,

When it comes to vaccinations, getting an injection or not is a conscious choice without nuance, uncertainty, or, as the choice is often declared as one, lack of clarity as to its being a choice.

You either get the vaccine because you choose not to, or get it because you do. There is no fuzziness about it.

The unvaxxed claim they are becoming second class citizens who are being denied the right to enjoy things like restaurants and bars, may have to make tough choices to keep their jobs, and can be denied the use of such public services as mass transit because they have decided to make a lifestyle choice, but choices, after all, must be respected.

Some complain they have to resort to various forms of subterfuge to get into places vaxxed people with masks and proof of the vaccine and boosters can so freely do. They do not like that in order to enjoy a gathering equally to the vaxxed, they might have to find ways to appear to have all their shots.

They do not want to be dprived by others because of their choice.

They could be banned from schools, restaurants, concerts, plays, planes, and the military.

They could be facing this for their whole lives.

Who, before them, has ever had that happen because of what some people choose to believe is a choice with which they do not agree even as its being a definite choice is subject to debate?

They are being singled out for persecution. 

Vaccine and mask mandates could deny entry or allow merchants to refuse to provide goods and services to those who reject the vaccine, but, again, because their choice must be respected, unlike the Gay couples denied goods and services because some baker, photographer, or some restaurant does not agree with their alleged choice to be Gay, such treatment based on their choice is just wrong.

Still, keep your tablet handy, as you never know when you are having issues buying your medicines. sildenafil online india It should never cheap cialis without prescription be used with nitrates, hypoglycemic agents and beta -blockers. If you find a drop in your performance, get male enhancement pills like Kamagra, check out address levitra on line, Caverta etc. Having stated that fact, it is also viagra sales canada apparent that many manufacturers take advantage of women’s needs for augmenting sexual pleasure.

One example of their thinking was the Colorado “Prohibit Discrimination COVID-19 Vaccine Status” bill (HB21-1191) which would have protected those who choose not to get vaccinated, wear a mask, or get tested from not getting or losing a job they already have, not being allowed to physically attend a college or school, not being allowed to eat in a restaurant, or being denied all the other rights and privileges of the unvaxxed, but was defeated with eight Democrats voting no and five Republicans voting yes.

Those in favor of the bill complained it was ironic that those who have been widely supporting the “My body, my choice” affirmation of personal bodily autonomy and which the anti-vaxxers generally ignore when it applies to others not of their religious or political persuasion or their back in the past concepts of gender and gender equality didn’t respect their choice.

The largest group among the unvaxxed are white Republicans and they do not want to be treated for their choice the way they had treated others because of an assumed choice. They fear separate-but-equal situations in bars restaurants, shops, schools, grocery stores, and any type of public accomodation.

When the GLBT community wanted protection from not getting or losing a job, not being allowed to physically attend a college or dine at a restaurant, or being kept from enjoying all the other rights and privileges of the straight citizens, and when they sought equal entry and use of bars, shops, schools, grocery stores, and all manner of public accommodation, these were called “special rights” because of the alleged choice as a basis to deny this, while the very people now who are in the majority of anti-vaxxers demand they be allowed these rights in spite of their choice, and, so, are by their own standards demanding “special rights”.

Politicians have garnered votes on the need to deny “special rights”. Churches got fuller donation plates and more mega-churches, yachts, and mansions as they promoted and presented proof that it is incorrect to bestow rights in light of a choice.

The anti-vaxxers may claim they should not be denied their rights and privileges because of their choice, but to be consistent, they need to accept the system they created that allow for this.

Otherwise, they are demanding special rights, and they have already taken up so much time proving this would be the wrong thing to do.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.