Posted on 11/24/2021 9:09:38 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Santa Cruz County in California issued a mask mandate for all indoor settings, including private homes, ahead of the holiday season.
The mandate went into effect at 11:59 p.m. on November 21 and requires “all individuals to wear a face covering when indoors regardless of vaccination status.”
Unfortunately, a potential winter surge appears to be a significant threat to the health and safety of our community,” said Santa Cruz County Health Officer Dr. Gail Newel in the announcement. “As we look forward to spending time with those we love during the holidays, it is important to protect vulnerable friends and family members by wearing a mask indoors.
The mandate requires masks for private homes when “non-household members” are in attendance.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Just tell your demonrat relatives that you will not wear masks and perhaps they will stay away and you can enjoy dinner without being lectured about how Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist who crossed state lines to massacre black people
How do they enforce that?
I remember reading about a cult that progressively took over the private lives of its members. Married couples were instructed on when, where, and how often they should have sex. I figure that someone who would willingly go along with that is completely under the cults control.
So, how they gonna enforce this again? These people are insane
I would love to hear that at a Trump rally...
Absolutely!.........................
I looked, too.
This quarantine is what’s holding up herd immunity.
Their outrage was that they weren't the oppressors they accused others of being.
Kind of like the saying about healthcare: if you think it's expensive now, wait until it's free.
Thats ok, here in SoCal they are warning everyone about Power Outages for high winds thru friday
Get the %€#& government out of people’s private homes. And stick your precious masks where the sun don’t shine.
Just make a giant mask out of sheets and cover the front of your house.
Good to go.
Stepfords to the government. They are all stepfords.
We have huge loopy enclaves,throughout the state, but as far as throughly crazy complete counties I think Santa Cruz
And San Francisco probably top the list. The people there on the whole are stupid enough that I wouldn’t be surprised if there was substantial compliance with this order.
On the way to jail, stop by a Walgreens to loot $999 worth of merchandise. You'll be home in time for Thanksgiving dessert.
I live in Santa Cruz County. Ironically Gail Newell like most women in local government don’t like man dates. They don’t like men at all.
It should be called Santa Commie County as it is commies that run it.
That’s one trashy community. I made the mistake of staying there one night about 10 years ago because I had an interest in a particular locomotive in that town. Bums everywhere, and at night it was drunk and stoned wastrels everywhere, aggressively panhandling.
Lawrence v. Texas, a legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6–3) on June 26, 2003, that a Texas state law criminalizing certain intimate sexual conduct between two consenting adults of the same sex was unconstitutional. The Court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults. [Also]
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court struck down a law barring the use of contraceptives by married couples. In Griswold, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that couples, at least married couples, had a right to privacy,[11] drawing on the Fourth Amendment's protection of private homes from searches and seizures without a warrant based on probable cause, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law in the states, and the Ninth Amendment's assurance that rights not specified in the Constitution are "retained by the people". Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) expanded the scope of sexual privacy rights to unmarried persons.[12] In 1973, the choice whether to have an abortion was found to be protected by the Constitution in Roe v. Wade. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
So, even sodomy cannot be banned, much less in private homes, nor (in principle) the use of contraceptives required, even though sodomy is shown to be responsible for 81% of new HIV cases aged 13 and older among men - - despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population - and 92% of new HIV among youth, and (historically) a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death, and despite decades of attempting to tame it into being "safe." (If a consensual religious practice as the Lord's supper resulted in these stats then it would be treated as the plague.)
Yet not wearing a prophylactic (mask) by consensual agreement is outlawed for wearing one is due to a virus with a IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) of about 0.65%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
