texas covid-19 vaccination
Is refusing service to unvaccinated equal to a vaccination mandate?
<p>Yesterday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order <a href="https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/EO-GA-40_prohibiting_vaccine_mandates_legislative_action_IMAGE_10-11-2021.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">GA-40</a> that says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any
individual, including an employee or a consumer, who objects to such
vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious
belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The American Contract Bridge League is planning on hosting its national tournament in Austin next month. Their safety protocols for the tournament state:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In accordance with the city of Austin’s current safety requirements to minimize COVID-19 exposure and spread, face masks must be worn at all times in the tournament area. Additionally, participants of any NABC event must be fully vaccinated and will be required to show proof of their COVID-19 vaccine status. We will notify attendees at a later date with details on how to verify their vaccination status to ensure the verification process is as seamless as possible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Many of the prospective attendees are wondering whether the EO prohibits ACBL from implementing this requirement. IANAL, but my opinion is that it doesn't. Denying service to an unvaccinated individual is not the same as <em>compelling</em> them to get vaccinated. As a precedent, I refer to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Masterpiece Cakeshop</a> decision, which allowed a cake shop to refuse to sell a wedding cake to for a same-sex wedding; they weren't forcing the couple to stop being gay. And it's not a civil rights violation, as being unvaccinated is not a protected class.</p>
<p>Is my interpretation reasonable?</p>

<p>I think that is not a &quot;reasonable&quot; interpretation of the order, but that's separate from the question of what will be enforced. Focusing on the word of the order,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any
individual, including an employee or a consumer</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What does it mean to &quot;compel&quot; a person to do something? A court can compel a person to stay in jail for some period of time, and can order the police to use force to enforce that requirement – that's the classical example of compulsion. Nobody <em>except</em> the police can compel a consumer to do anything. All of the words of the order have to be given meaning, and it is not reasonable to say that &quot;compel&quot; is limited to &quot;actions backed up by police action&quot;. The government does not separately compel &quot;consumers&quot; and &quot;employees&quot; to do things.</p>
<p>In order to sensibly interpret &quot;compel&quot; and &quot;consumer&quot;, this has to interpreted as including things other than &quot;pointing a gun at a person&quot;. The only sensible interpretation is one that includes denying service to those who do not comply. In addition, the series of &quot;Whereas's&quot; clearly indicate a ban on &quot;no shots, no service&quot; conditions. It remains to be seen in court whether this is found to be enforceable (via the &quot;failure to comply&quot; clause, exactly analogous to other emergency powers allowing restrictions on gatherings etc. previously).</p>
