As the saying goes, the privilege of declining service is now widely accepted. Companies have the freedom to establish their own regulations for service, but they were infringing upon individuals’ civil liberties by dictating their attire choices. Many believed that businesses were violating their civil rights by imposing restrictions on what they could wear, even though there was no government requirement at the state or federal level. This response from businesses was aimed at excluding individuals with long hair and hippie-like appearance from their establishments, as evidenced by the signs they put up on their doors that read, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” This sparked public outrage during the 1970s.
It is also a law that riders under the age of 18 must wear helmets when riding motorcycles. Additionally, both passengers and drivers are required to wear seat belts, and California’s seat belt laws first took effect on January 1, 1986, two years later. In 1984, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld a mandatory auto insurance law, which eventually led to motorists losing their licenses or facing liability coverage if they failed to prove traffic violations. Similar reactions were heard in the 1980s when California enacted a variety of laws.
Despite scientific studies demonstrating the life-saving benefits of seatbelts and helmets, there was a vocal opposition from “the government” that meddled with your lives.
If you are driving a car and you do not have proof of insurance, you are exposing yourself to lethal consequences. The risk of exposure is greater for you if you are not wearing a seatbelt, compared to someone who is not wearing one. Similarly, if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, you are putting yourself at risk when someone passes you.
Abiding by the regulations, no individuals have suffered harm and no individual freedoms have been impacted. These practices have become instinctive, all of them. We do not risk driving without insurance, ensure that our children are wearing protective headgear, and fasten our seatbelts immediately upon entering a vehicle, even after many years. We would never contemplate entering a store without shoes and a shirt.
We are still debating this. It should be emphasized that wearing a mask is necessary in order to protect the nation from the ongoing pandemic, which has been prevalent for almost a year now. Unlike some Asian countries where wearing masks is a common practice, it is understandable that the U.S. Was not culturally prepared for this. However, businesses have the right to refuse service to those who refuse to wear masks. Just like the “no shoes, no shirt, no service” policy, we didn’t give much thought to the pandemic until now.
The absence of vaccines has led to the spread of the virus, but we can reduce it by practicing three things: handwashing, maintaining physical distance, and wearing masks. Unfortunately, the issue of mask compliance has turned into a political matter instead of a health concern, even though there is evidence supporting its importance.
Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend that the public wear masks for public health, following the guidance issued by the California Department of Public Health in April 2020.
“As Dr. Abrams highlighted, there is a distinct boldness in expressing anger and disregarding the necessity of wearing a mask.” Nevertheless, demonstrations against mask-wearing have become increasingly common. An examination of data from Johns Hopkins University revealed that California was ranked as the state with the highest rate of coronavirus spread per capita.”
Ensuring the safety and health of the public by enacting laws to protect them is the quintessential role of the government. The government has the right to enact laws that do not violate your rights, such as wearing seatbelts, shoes, and shirts, and even wearing a mask despite the protests.
“[T]here are numerous constraints to which every individual is inevitably subject for the collective welfare. On any other foundation, organized society could not exist securely for its members,” the court added. The court determined that the mandate did not infringe upon Jacobsen’s freedom or “the innate entitlement of every independent individual to manage their own physique and well-being in the manner they deem most appropriate.” This case clearly elucidates why mask mandates do not breach any constitutional entitlements related to privacy, health, or bodily wholeness. The case has not been reversed. In response to protestors arguing that masks infringe upon their liberty (“my body, my choice”), they should focus their attention on Jacobson vs. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, where the Supreme Court upheld the state’s requirement for smallpox vaccination.
In order to spread awareness about our constitutional rights, we must not disregard our social obligation to protect one another. The evident argument is that the government’s limited ideals do not release us from our responsibility.
The customary practice in California, “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Masks, No Service” will be implemented if businesses collaborate. Face coverings will be donned if there is no alternative, logic dictates that. Currently, masks are indispensable. All of us will be more secure.