No more masks at VA privates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our private - the best in the state of VA - just sent out an announcement today that the mask requirement will continue and will be strictly enforced. Take that you PoS trumplicans with your pathetic Governor Youngkin.

So you're some Potomac booster that thinks your school is the BEST. Love how you threw it in there.

Funnily enough PP you are the only one who named the school - because of course Potomac really is and always has been ranked as the #1 school in the state of VA. When you know You know.

And Potomac sent no such email today. I assume they will but don’t believe this poster has anything to do with the school

Might want to check your email. Potomac sent out a school wide email today at 11:13 am regarding close contact and it included a statement on the mask policy. It will continue to be enforced as previously stated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-life. A stupid rag on my child’s face is not doing anything for his life or anyone else’s. We’ll see — I suspect the fearful snowflakes will be the ones fleeing—you all can setup your own new school where you can all wear tinfoil hats, too.

Pro-life referred to the bayonette comment but either way you are a total hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-life. A stupid rag on my child’s face is not doing anything for his life or anyone else’s. We’ll see — I suspect the fearful snowflakes will be the ones fleeing—you all can setup your own new school where you can all wear tinfoil hats, too.

Pro-life referred to the bayonette comment but either way you are a total hypocrite.

It was a reference to the way they enforced the desegregation orders in the South — when schools tried to refuse entry to certain students in violation of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-life. A stupid rag on my child’s face is not doing anything for his life or anyone else’s. We’ll see — I suspect the fearful snowflakes will be the ones fleeing—you all can setup your own new school where you can all wear tinfoil hats, too.

Pro-life referred to the bayonette comment but either way you are a total hypocrite.

It was a reference to the way they enforced the desegregation orders in the South — when schools tried to refuse entry to certain students in violation of the law.

Duh. Stupid reference frankly but you are a trumplican so no surprise there. And if you are willing to even suggest using the national guard with guns and bayonettes to get your unmasked kid into school you have serious serious problems. Even in jest. I can say with 100% confidence that if you have a kid at a reputable private and express this opinion, you and your family are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

That would be a great response if “protected class” was the only legal authority of the land. Private parties cannot enter a valid enforceable contract to violate the law.

What is the legal authority that allows the state to regulate private enterprise in this way? Various businesses are headquartered here. If Nestle wants to require masks in its offices, can the state prohibit it? If so, on what authority. I understand schools are different, and the EO cites VA law stating that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning their kids education, but no one it forcing a parent to sent his child to any particular private school. If the parent doesn’t like a mask mandate, or any other rule, that parent can exercise his fundamental right to make decisions regarding his kid’s education by choosing a different private school or sending the kid to public school or homeschooling. And if I don’t want to wear a mask inside any other private business that might want to require them, I can take my business elsewhere. Sorry if I’m missing something, but I don’t think the state can regulate private businesses like this, especially when there are plenty of other options through which a parent disliking masks can exercise fundamental rights to send kid to school that doesn’t require them or homeschool.

I guess the last two years of living subject to executive mandates into every aspect of our private lives — curfews; shuttering gyms; closing restaurants; banning private gatherings over X number of people; etc.

Only now when the mandate goes the other way and enforces individual choice is the concept of government intrusion into private business being questioned? Only now you’re asking this? The precedent has been set.

My private school was all set to go masks optional at the beginning of the year when the governor intruded and required masks, yes for private schools too. But only now when it goes the other way suddenly it’s being questioned?

All of those things were arguably measures taken by the state to protect the public health in a global pandemic and were also instituted by many other governments. The state has pretty broad and flexible power to protect public health in emergencies.

As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding state authority to regulate private enterprise in the way the EO attempts to do with respect to requiring an opt out from masks in private schools, and you do not have a right to a private school education at a particular private school. As far as I can tell, all this does is mean that a school does not HAVE to keep a mask mandate, but it can DECIDE to keep one if it wants to do so. Private businesses have pretty wide authority to set the terms on which they will do business (with some exceptions like those mentioned above). If your school keeps masks and you don’t want your child in a mask, you are then free to exercise your choice to not do business with that school and find another that aligns with your views on masks. Nevertheless, if there is something of which I am unaware that gives the state this power over private business, I’d like to hear it, but no one (including the person who wrote the EO) has actually cited anything to support that proposition. My guess is some schools will go mask optional, and others will keep requiring them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-life. A stupid rag on my child’s face is not doing anything for his life or anyone else’s. We’ll see — I suspect the fearful snowflakes will be the ones fleeing—you all can setup your own new school where you can all wear tinfoil hats, too.

Nah, you’re pro-birth. Y’all don’t give a rip about kids other than your own* and the minute they leave the womb.

* And even then that’s debatable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-life. A stupid rag on my child’s face is not doing anything for his life or anyone else’s. We’ll see — I suspect the fearful snowflakes will be the ones fleeing—you all can setup your own new school where you can all wear tinfoil hats, too.

Pro-life referred to the bayonette comment but either way you are a total hypocrite.

It was a reference to the way they enforced the desegregation orders in the South — when schools tried to refuse entry to certain students in violation of the law.

That people like you continue to use things like the holocaust and the civil rights movement as comparisons for public health measures really does say a lot about your character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-life. A stupid rag on my child’s face is not doing anything for his life or anyone else’s. We’ll see — I suspect the fearful snowflakes will be the ones fleeing—you all can setup your own new school where you can all wear tinfoil hats, too.

Pro-life referred to the bayonette comment but either way you are a total hypocrite.

It was a reference to the way they enforced the desegregation orders in the South — when schools tried to refuse entry to certain students in violation of the law.

That people like you continue to use things like the holocaust and the civil rights movement as comparisons for public health measures really does say a lot about your character.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Catholic schools will do away with masks if they haven’t already.

I agree its in line with the Bishop's stance on masks a Church - optional.

BI sent an email last night asking parents their preference saying the diocese is considering what to do. I will be livid if they lift the mask mandate with the rate of infections being so high right now.

That’s great news that BI is giving parents a voice.

I think it should be up to the kids and the teachers who are there every day and will suffer the consequences of getting covid. The kids don't care about wearing masks. They're used to it and would much prefer wearing masks than being virtual. It is the idiot parents who have turned this into some political and culture war. The timing is nuts.

BI asking for feedback from the students, parents, teachers, and staff.

Are they also polling families on the dress code? Really not sure why parents would get to decide this. Use CDC guidelines and consult with public health agencies and experts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Catholic schools will do away with masks if they haven’t already.

I agree its in line with the Bishop's stance on masks a Church - optional.

BI sent an email last night asking parents their preference saying the diocese is considering what to do. I will be livid if they lift the mask mandate with the rate of infections being so high right now.

That’s great news that BI is giving parents a voice.

I think it should be up to the kids and the teachers who are there every day and will suffer the consequences of getting covid. The kids don't care about wearing masks. They're used to it and would much prefer wearing masks than being virtual. It is the idiot parents who have turned this into some political and culture war. The timing is nuts.

BI asking for feedback from the students, parents, teachers, and staff.

Are they also polling families on the dress code? Really not sure why parents would get to decide this. Use CDC guidelines and consult with public health agencies and experts.

I agree other parents should not be able to decide what my child does. Dear Bishop - Follow the Governor Let parents parent their own children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Catholic schools will do away with masks if they haven’t already.

I agree its in line with the Bishop's stance on masks a Church - optional.

BI sent an email last night asking parents their preference saying the diocese is considering what to do. I will be livid if they lift the mask mandate with the rate of infections being so high right now.

That’s great news that BI is giving parents a voice.

I think it should be up to the kids and the teachers who are there every day and will suffer the consequences of getting covid. The kids don't care about wearing masks. They're used to it and would much prefer wearing masks than being virtual. It is the idiot parents who have turned this into some political and culture war. The timing is nuts.

BI asking for feedback from the students, parents, teachers, and staff.

Are they also polling families on the dress code? Really not sure why parents would get to decide this. Use CDC guidelines and consult with public health agencies and experts.

I agree other parents should not be able to decide what my child does. Dear Bishop - Follow the Governor Let parents parent their own children.

+1 parents should be the ones to decide whether masks are appropriate for their children!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

That would be a great response if “protected class” was the only legal authority of the land. Private parties cannot enter a valid enforceable contract to violate the law.

What is the legal authority that allows the state to regulate private enterprise in this way? Various businesses are headquartered here. If Nestle wants to require masks in its offices, can the state prohibit it? If so, on what authority. I understand schools are different, and the EO cites VA law stating that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning their kids education, but no one it forcing a parent to sent his child to any particular private school. If the parent doesn’t like a mask mandate, or any other rule, that parent can exercise his fundamental right to make decisions regarding his kid’s education by choosing a different private school or sending the kid to public school or homeschooling. And if I don’t want to wear a mask inside any other private business that might want to require them, I can take my business elsewhere. Sorry if I’m missing something, but I don’t think the state can regulate private businesses like this, especially when there are plenty of other options through which a parent disliking masks can exercise fundamental rights to send kid to school that doesn’t require them or homeschool.

I guess the last two years of living subject to executive mandates into every aspect of our private lives — curfews; shuttering gyms; closing restaurants; banning private gatherings over X number of people; etc.

Only now when the mandate goes the other way and enforces individual choice is the concept of government intrusion into private business being questioned? Only now you’re asking this? The precedent has been set.

My private school was all set to go masks optional at the beginning of the year when the governor intruded and required masks, yes for private schools too. But only now when it goes the other way suddenly it’s being questioned?

All of those things were arguably measures taken by the state to protect the public health in a global pandemic and were also instituted by many other governments. The state has pretty broad and flexible power to protect public health in emergencies.

As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding state authority to regulate private enterprise in the way the EO attempts to do with respect to requiring an opt out from masks in private schools, and you do not have a right to a private school education at a particular private school. As far as I can tell, all this does is mean that a school does not HAVE to keep a mask mandate, but it can DECIDE to keep one if it wants to do so. Private businesses have pretty wide authority to set the terms on which they will do business (with some exceptions like those mentioned above). If your school keeps masks and you don’t want your child in a mask, you are then free to exercise your choice to not do business with that school and find another that aligns with your views on masks. Nevertheless, if there is something of which I am unaware that gives the state this power over private business, I’d like to hear it, but no one (including the person who wrote the EO) has actually cited anything to support that proposition. My guess is some schools will go mask optional, and others will keep requiring them.

The state has broad authority to protect the civil liberties of people as well. Especially in the case where private schools that had NO MASK MANDATE before governor blackface forced them to institute mandates, the government has the authority to reverse that policy and undo the damage it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

That would be a great response if “protected class” was the only legal authority of the land. Private parties cannot enter a valid enforceable contract to violate the law.

What is the legal authority that allows the state to regulate private enterprise in this way? Various businesses are headquartered here. If Nestle wants to require masks in its offices, can the state prohibit it? If so, on what authority. I understand schools are different, and the EO cites VA law stating that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning their kids education, but no one it forcing a parent to sent his child to any particular private school. If the parent doesn’t like a mask mandate, or any other rule, that parent can exercise his fundamental right to make decisions regarding his kid’s education by choosing a different private school or sending the kid to public school or homeschooling. And if I don’t want to wear a mask inside any other private business that might want to require them, I can take my business elsewhere. Sorry if I’m missing something, but I don’t think the state can regulate private businesses like this, especially when there are plenty of other options through which a parent disliking masks can exercise fundamental rights to send kid to school that doesn’t require them or homeschool.

I guess the last two years of living subject to executive mandates into every aspect of our private lives — curfews; shuttering gyms; closing restaurants; banning private gatherings over X number of people; etc.

Only now when the mandate goes the other way and enforces individual choice is the concept of government intrusion into private business being questioned? Only now you’re asking this? The precedent has been set.

My private school was all set to go masks optional at the beginning of the year when the governor intruded and required masks, yes for private schools too. But only now when it goes the other way suddenly it’s being questioned?

All of those things were arguably measures taken by the state to protect the public health in a global pandemic and were also instituted by many other governments. The state has pretty broad and flexible power to protect public health in emergencies.

As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding state authority to regulate private enterprise in the way the EO attempts to do with respect to requiring an opt out from masks in private schools, and you do not have a right to a private school education at a particular private school. As far as I can tell, all this does is mean that a school does not HAVE to keep a mask mandate, but it can DECIDE to keep one if it wants to do so. Private businesses have pretty wide authority to set the terms on which they will do business (with some exceptions like those mentioned above). If your school keeps masks and you don’t want your child in a mask, you are then free to exercise your choice to not do business with that school and find another that aligns with your views on masks. Nevertheless, if there is something of which I am unaware that gives the state this power over private business, I’d like to hear it, but no one (including the person who wrote the EO) has actually cited anything to support that proposition. My guess is some schools will go mask optional, and others will keep requiring them.

The state has broad authority to protect the civil liberties of people as well. Especially in the case where private schools that had NO MASK MANDATE before governor blackface forced them to institute mandates, the government has the authority to reverse that policy and undo the damage it did.

You don’t have a civil liberty to not wear a mask in a private business that requires one and particularly in one you are not required to patronize. You do have the civil liberty to take your business elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Catholic schools will do away with masks if they haven’t already.

I agree its in line with the Bishop's stance on masks a Church - optional.

BI sent an email last night asking parents their preference saying the diocese is considering what to do. I will be livid if they lift the mask mandate with the rate of infections being so high right now.

That’s great news that BI is giving parents a voice.

I think it should be up to the kids and the teachers who are there every day and will suffer the consequences of getting covid. The kids don't care about wearing masks. They're used to it and would much prefer wearing masks than being virtual. It is the idiot parents who have turned this into some political and culture war. The timing is nuts.

BI asking for feedback from the students, parents, teachers, and staff.

Are they also polling families on the dress code? Really not sure why parents would get to decide this. Use CDC guidelines and consult with public health agencies and experts.

I agree other parents should not be able to decide what my child does. Dear Bishop - Follow the Governor Let parents parent their own children.

+1 parents should be the ones to decide whether masks are appropriate for their children!

That’s not how public health works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

That would be a great response if “protected class” was the only legal authority of the land. Private parties cannot enter a valid enforceable contract to violate the law.

What is the legal authority that allows the state to regulate private enterprise in this way? Various businesses are headquartered here. If Nestle wants to require masks in its offices, can the state prohibit it? If so, on what authority. I understand schools are different, and the EO cites VA law stating that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning their kids education, but no one it forcing a parent to sent his child to any particular private school. If the parent doesn’t like a mask mandate, or any other rule, that parent can exercise his fundamental right to make decisions regarding his kid’s education by choosing a different private school or sending the kid to public school or homeschooling. And if I don’t want to wear a mask inside any other private business that might want to require them, I can take my business elsewhere. Sorry if I’m missing something, but I don’t think the state can regulate private businesses like this, especially when there are plenty of other options through which a parent disliking masks can exercise fundamental rights to send kid to school that doesn’t require them or homeschool.

I guess the last two years of living subject to executive mandates into every aspect of our private lives — curfews; shuttering gyms; closing restaurants; banning private gatherings over X number of people; etc.

Only now when the mandate goes the other way and enforces individual choice is the concept of government intrusion into private business being questioned? Only now you’re asking this? The precedent has been set.

My private school was all set to go masks optional at the beginning of the year when the governor intruded and required masks, yes for private schools too. But only now when it goes the other way suddenly it’s being questioned?

All of those things were arguably measures taken by the state to protect the public health in a global pandemic and were also instituted by many other governments. The state has pretty broad and flexible power to protect public health in emergencies.

As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding state authority to regulate private enterprise in the way the EO attempts to do with respect to requiring an opt out from masks in private schools, and you do not have a right to a private school education at a particular private school. As far as I can tell, all this does is mean that a school does not HAVE to keep a mask mandate, but it can DECIDE to keep one if it wants to do so. Private businesses have pretty wide authority to set the terms on which they will do business (with some exceptions like those mentioned above). If your school keeps masks and you don’t want your child in a mask, you are then free to exercise your choice to not do business with that school and find another that aligns with your views on masks. Nevertheless, if there is something of which I am unaware that gives the state this power over private business, I’d like to hear it, but no one (including the person who wrote the EO) has actually cited anything to support that proposition. My guess is some schools will go mask optional, and others will keep requiring them.

The state has broad authority to protect the civil liberties of people as well. Especially in the case where private schools that had NO MASK MANDATE before governor blackface forced them to institute mandates, the government has the authority to reverse that policy and undo the damage it did.

You don’t have a civil liberty to not wear a mask in a private business that requires one and particularly in one you are not required to patronize. You do have the civil liberty to take your business elsewhere.

Yes, I do when the mask mandate was only put in place by force of government order (my school had a mask optional policy before the state forced them otherwise). That ship has sailed. Now it’s time to undo the damage.