It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Candace Owens Was Denied China Virus Test

page: 10
66
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2021 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: bigsnowman

She is being forced to take the test because she is not vaccinated.

She is attempting to comply.



posted on Sep, 4 2021 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Although I'm a vaccine plus mask believer, this is so wrong and unethical in many levels. A business should provide business regardless their political view, as long as it doesn't break the law
edit on 4-9-2021 by Paraxitologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2021 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: Ellie Sagan

A private business should have no obligation to serve anyone and should have the right to deny service for any reason.


Ordinarily I'd agree with you, except, that business was receiving Federal funding. To me that means that it is no longer a "private" business. She was trying to follow Government mandates, not make personal choices. The main reason that lab was chosen was that they process the test immediately. Any other lab she would have to wait, maybe several days.

That brings up something else. How long is a "not infected" test result good for? I mean I could get a test today and get infected tomorrow.


Not all federal funding is equal. There's federal funding where the state pays for funding into essential services or where it fills gaps left by the private sector. And there's federal funding where the state buys a service on the free market.



posted on Sep, 4 2021 @ 06:58 AM
link   
So which applies here and why should it allow the private organization the ability to accept grants to perform a public service and deny that service for personal reasons? And further slander the individual?



originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: Ellie Sagan

A private business should have no obligation to serve anyone and should have the right to deny service for any reason.


Ordinarily I'd agree with you, except, that business was receiving Federal funding. To me that means that it is no longer a "private" business. She was trying to follow Government mandates, not make personal choices. The main reason that lab was chosen was that they process the test immediately. Any other lab she would have to wait, maybe several days.

That brings up something else. How long is a "not infected" test result good for? I mean I could get a test today and get infected tomorrow.


Not all federal funding is equal. There's federal funding where the state pays for funding into essential services or where it fills gaps left by the private sector. And there's federal funding where the state buys a service on the free market.



posted on Sep, 4 2021 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: bigsnowman

Fear-mongering... Judging by the CDC's own VAERS data I think the bigger fear-mongering is on the other foot.

Out of 650,075 reported accounts of the vaccines in the United States there are 13,911 deaths attributed to it. That's 2.1%

Of the 40,703,674 covid cases in the United States as listed by worldometers there are 664,935 deaths. That's 1.6%

With the exception of certain demographics your odds are better catching the virus naturally. At least if we trust the official stats. Keep in mind there are fewer than 700,000 total reports of vaccines in regards to side effects versus no side effects, so that figure may or may not run consistent with larger numbers.

That's just mortality. Again, at VAERS one can see everything. Permanent disabilities attributed to the vaccines is a whopping 18,098! Freaking Bell's Palsy? 4,832!

Don't tell me Candice Owens is fear-mongering when CDC and FDA managed information is showing worse outcomes for the cure than the disease.

ETA - If Candice Owens is being denied testing because she is echoing real data, then the testing facility ought be denied any government assistance. Private owned business can do whatever it wants IMO, but they should not receive government assistance when discriminating.

Besides, wouldn't they want to test everyone regardless? If Candice wants a test, they refuse service, and she actually has the virus, then whichever old ladies catch it and die is on their hands.

Using the true fear-mongerers' logic when grandma catches covid from Candice and dies it is actually the testing facility's fault for refusing service.

Anyway, dangerous game discriminating based on politics.
edit on 4-9-2021 by filthyphilanthropist because: To make post relevant to OP



posted on Sep, 4 2021 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Candace Owens rocked on Tucker a few nights ago!


It does show how the authoritarians act like fascists. My body my choice has been rendered meaningless by non-elected bureaucrats and corporate interests.

They extort workers into taking a poison into their body and have a clear conscience.

The whole Plandemic thing is so obvious.



posted on Sep, 5 2021 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Look at.how much hate you spew, and realise you are the minority.
You don't even call it discrimination if it's someone you don't like. That's the epitome of discrimination you fool.

a reply to: bigsnowman



posted on Sep, 5 2021 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Candace Owens crying again? LOL. No one really cares.



posted on Sep, 7 2021 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma

Anthony Fauci lying again? Nobody is surprised.



posted on Sep, 9 2021 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

If they are receiving a single penny of tax dollars to run that facility they have relinquished any rights they had as a private business. You cannot take money from citizens by force to subsidize a service for community health, then deny service to the community like you have a mechanic shop. That's the same as a library or subsidized garbage collection denying service.



posted on Sep, 9 2021 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TrollMagnet




If they are receiving a single penny of tax dollars to run that facility they have relinquished any rights they had as a private business.

That's not factual, it's only your opinion. I took state funding for other things than the disability bathroom upgrades. Just because I got a super charger subsidized, doesn't mean I relinquish my private business to the state. The service is that I provide this thing for the public now, adding to the infrastructure no one else would do.

I can do what I want with my business, one is not coupled to the other. You're trying to make something black and white here that isn't.

Now, do I agree that if the whole lab as a whole was funded by state, that exclusions made like for Owen is morally wrong ? Yes, I despise it. Because it's abuse of power and their claim that she hurt's their business, I still think they need to prove that.

It would be the same if I ban someone I do not like from accessing my property to use the supercharger that was funded to a degree by taxes. I originally have the power to do this and the one I would discriminate (I would never), would have to prove it.

To cut the case, it's their right first and foremost, but it can be challenged in such circumstances. We say "Sometimes the right to do something is not the right thing to do".




posted on Sep, 9 2021 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

No, they need to apply that standard to everyone. That is the law. or it does fall under discriminations. If rules were put forth in advance, and she did not qualify, then that's OK, but that rule MUST be applied to ALL. Especially since the service she is offering is a subsidized service. That's not the same as you have a mechanic shop and got a grant for a handicap ramp then deny service to people. They specifically were awarded money to test people quickly, and are denying the people who paid for that service testing based on personally arbitrary beliefs.

They will get their asses handed to them in court. Especially since it is a time sensitive health matter that the person knew could not be met by anyone else in the area as they spelled out in their email. Denying health services takes it to a higher level.



posted on Sep, 9 2021 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TrollMagnet

A x#th I messed up a sentence.

Yes of course if it is state funded to be run, then I agree about the law part. I just disagree with the "single penny" because, see my situation. Different country though but normally these laws are all the same because no business would subscribe their soul to the state for a little subsidary.

Translational and lack of attention while writing from my side.



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigsnowman
Good! Her fear-mongering and propaganda have killed and hurt who knows how many americans. The vaccine doesn't work but the test does? Get bent, Candace


Agreed. Leaving her political bent out of the matter, she has actively persuaded the ignorant to not protect themselves and others, karma. She is reaping what she sowed, and shed no tears - I'm sure she can find a place to test her.

BTW this "China virus" stuff is BS, and calling it that has caused a backlash towards some of Asian descent. Call it what it is, Covid 19



posted on Sep, 19 2021 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: IAMTAT

It's a private business and can do what they want. I don't agree with it, but it's their choice to do it.

Can they refuse to serve someone who is black?

Can they refuse to serve someone who is gay?

Yeah, so, you're actually just full of #.



posted on Sep, 19 2021 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yes. Yes. I've explained my stance on total deregulation a few times in here.

Not sure why you need to hurl an insult. Chill out.



posted on Sep, 20 2021 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yes. Yes.

You believe that a business can discriminate against someone based on the fact they are black or gay?

You're either extremely naive, ignorant - or lying.


I've explained my stance on total deregulation a few times in here.

Unless...you're saying they should be able to, not that they can... ?

If so, then just fyi, that is not what you said - but I also agree wholeheartedly with the principle that they should be able to.



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join