South FL Landlord Requires New Tenants to be Vaccinated

Post Reply New Topic

It seems odd that the same people citing "Religious Exemption" for refusing the covid vaccines do not cite the same reason for not getting vaccinated against the flu, rubella, mumps, measles, polio, and whooping cough.  They also seem to have no qualms about taking aspirin, benadryl, insulin, plavix, statins, or vitamin supplements on a daily basis.

There are some people who believe in garbage conspiracy theories---like a vaccine would insert a "microchip" into them so the government could keep tabs on them.

There are some people who are mighty sensitive to an "infringement upon rights," and don't consider the public health issue involved with COVID. Those sorts of people remind me of Typhoid Mary.

Then....there are some people who are reluctant to take the COVID vaccines because it doesn't seem to confer the same protection from the illness as, say, the polio, measles, mumps, etc. vaccines. They notice people getting "breakthrough infections"--less serious, usually, but troubling. There is the sense that "not enough research has been done," and that taking the vaccine would inject into the body something whose character is not "known" enough.

I took the vaccine. And I believe we all should take the vaccine. But it is sort of understandable why there are people who are reluctant to take the vaccine.

The subject of this thread is not about people refusing to be vaccinated against the coronavirus; it is about a landlord's right to decide who shall and shall not have access to the landlord's privately-owned rental property.

Maybe this might help you understand the point of view of many of these people regarding the covid vaccinations, and how they differ from other medication:

Source: https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/

There is the issue of HIPAA....and a private landlord's right to access to a tenant's medical records.

I believe, if I was a landlord, that I would prefer a vaccinated tenant.

Who cares what ignorant people think, as long as they do not endanger themselves or others?

I say they are being both hypocritical and disingenuous by citing the "religious exemption" rule to avoid the coronavirus vaccine when they would gladly pop a few pills to avoid a headache.

Except the pills they "pop" aren't created through the use of aborted foetuses (as opposed to the vacines, which detail you thoughtfully cut from my post when "quoting" it, that were created using these), and so would not impact on their religious beliefs.

The fact you may not agree with those people on this point doesn't change the fact that to them this is a relevent, and important, consideration with regards to their religious beliefs.

If you are implying that mRNA coronavirus vaccines are created through aborted foetuses, then you are lying.  The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are NOT made from a virus and are NOT manufactured using fetal cell lines.

Yep....the aborted fetuses thing is a conspiracy myth.

So citing "Religious Objections" to the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna is just a lame-arsed excuse, and the landlord is well within his rights to refuse to rent to anyone who does not receive them.

Source: https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf


Source: https://factcheckni.org/articles/covid-19-vaccines-and-aborted-fetuses/

The question is what the individual believes regarding the use of these cells in the development or testing of the vaccine - what you say they should believe\how you think this should affect their individual beliefs has no value.

Again, the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were not derived from fetal cell material.  The only other vaccine available in America is the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which was derived from retinal fetal cells obtained in 1985; and, like other vaccines manufactured using the cell lines, fetal cells are not actually present in the J&J COVID-19 vaccine.

From the report YOU CITED...

Quote:

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were found to be ethically uncontroversial by the pro-life policy organization the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Further, the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, a committee within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has stated: “neither Pfizer nor Moderna used an abortion-derived cell line in the development or production of the vaccine. However, such a cell line was used to test the efficacy of both vaccines. Thus, while neither vaccine is completely free from any use of abortion-derived cell lines, in these two cases the use is very remote from the initial evil of the abortion…one may receive any of the clinically recommended vaccines in good conscience with the assurance that reception of such vaccines does not involve immoral cooperation in abortion.”

Now that you have derailed yet another thread with misleading information, you can go away happy ... I hope.

Last edited by Fnord on 16 Sep 2021, 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm all for property rights but does a landlord even have the legal right to ask a person's private medical status?

In many places, when a person receives a covid vaccine, their name and vaccine status become part of the publically-available county health records.  The landlord may not need to even mention vaccines to prospective renters to find out their status.

Also, each person is issued a "shot-card", detailing when and where they were vaccinated, and which type of vaccine they received (I received the Pfizer, and my wife received the Moderna).  This shot-card must be shown on demand to gain access in many public entertainment venues in Los Angeles County, for example.

As I stated, what you think on the subject has no value - It is what the individual's religious beliefs are that concerns how the individual treats the vaccine.

You would also have noticed, from the quote you removed:

Source: https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf

For some people, the mere use of those cells for testing can be enough (regardless of any reports you, or anyone else, may produce which states the use of the vaccines is "ethical") for them to decide the use of such material derived this way is against their religious beliefs.

Accusing me of "lying", or "derailing a thread with misinformation", when I am simply trying to provide an insight into the reason some people have a legitimate (to them) religion-based reason to not want to have the vaccine, doesn't change the fact that these reason exists in those people's minds - attacking me for simply trying to explain how those people think\feel isn't going to make them suddenly change their personal beliefs.

Why derail threads with irrelevant misinformation?  Who cares how ignorant people think?