Florida resident here a little confused over C19 protocol.

[M8VER3]

10 minutes ago, boatseller said:

The law says "may not require...to gain access".

 

No one is being denied access based on vax status.  You can still use your vax status to avoid 'protocols' if you choose to do so.

I hope you are right. We are vaccinated and would prefer no mask required. We are now going out and to dinner and on rides with people unvaccinated. No mask. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by M8VER3

[jrapps]

Just now, M8VER3 said:

Obviously, this is your opinion. I respect that. I just disagree. 

You believe that FL law has jurisdiction on the cruise after it has left FL? how? (not trying to be rude, I am legitimately curious as to your opinion.)

 

There are a lot of things the cruise lines do as soon as they hit international waters (duty free, gambling, etc) Why is this different?

[M8VER3]

34 minutes ago, cubsfan1129 said:

This opt in/opt out procedure is what some of the employers in Chicago are asking of their employees so it is a voluntary option. You can be vaccinated and opt out because you don't want to share medical information with a company. You would just then have to follow their specific COVID protocols. If you opt in, voluntarily, you get to not wear a mask and not get tested. Simple. Effective. It's what should be done and probably will be done. 

Florida is not Chicago. 

[M8VER3]

1 minute ago, jrapps said:

You believe that FL law has jurisdiction on the cruise after it has left FL? how? (not trying to be rude, I am legitimately curious as to your opinion.)

 

There are a lot of things the cruise lines do as soon as they hit international waters (duty free, gambling, etc) Why is this different?

But don’t those return to a Florida port?  

[jrapps]

Just now, M8VER3 said:

But don’t those return to a Florida port?  

Yes, but when you return to the port they don't then tax the duty free you bought in international waters. They don't make you give back your gambling winnings.

 

If there was something about the docking and disembarking process that changes then yeah I can see the point of view. But what is done in international waters is done in international waters. I just don't see how FL law applies there.

[CI66774]

14 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Regardless, the law does not make it illegal to ask for proof, and does not make it illegal for proof to be shown. It is illegal to REQUIRE proof. That is all.

 

If the FL legislature would like to change the language of the law to cover more, that is their right.

I’ve read the Bill and this seems correct. Businesses can’t condition receipt of goods or services upon vax proof.  If business says - you get a free donut if you provide proof of vax - that’s okay. However, if you say - you only can come into my place of business and buy donuts if you have proof - not okay.

[boatseller]

11 minutes ago, M8VER3 said:

We got to agree to that we have different opinions. Peace

This is not a difference of opinion.  The law is very clear.

 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML

 

Section 18.

[firefly333]

12 minutes ago, CI66774 said:

Not so fast. It governs any public OR private entity that has received one dime of taxpayer money - think Port of Galveston.

Guess again. Carnival announced vaccinated  cruises from Galveston. Vista will depart still july 3rd as a vaccinated cruise. So it must not be a issue. As you said think again.

 

Florida it says still discussing.  .carnival delayed information until june 11 for florida.

 

https://www.carnivalcorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/carnival-cruise-line-confirms-plans-july-restart

 

 

 

 

[CI66774]

10 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Yes, but when you return to the port they don't then tax the duty free you bought in international waters. They don't make you give back your gambling winnings.

 

If there was something about the docking and disembarking process that changes then yeah I can see the point of view. But what is done in international waters is done in international waters. I just don't see how FL law applies there.

I think once out of territorial waters, FL law doesn't apply.

[M8VER3]

6 minutes ago, boatseller said:

This is not a difference of opinion.  The law is very clear.

 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML

 

Section 18.

What, we are no longer allowed to have a different opinion?

[crewsweeper]

Article in print edition of Tallahassee Democrat this AM (unfortunately behind a paywall and doesn't recognize my log in) argues that there are all sorts of loop holes in the FL statute.  So all these ambulance chasers spending $$$$ on advertising can surely find something where proof to cruise can be asked for.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

50 minutes ago, cubsfan1129 said:

This opt in/opt out procedure is what some of the employers in Chicago are asking of their employees so it is a voluntary option. You can be vaccinated and opt out because you don't want to share medical information with a company. You would just then have to follow their specific COVID protocols. If you opt in, voluntarily, you get to not wear a mask and not get tested. Simple. Effective. It's what should be done and probably will be done. 

 

Got it. Set up two classes of peeps. Punish all until they say, 'uncle' and volunteer to submission.  Sounds like extortion to me. 

 

[jrapps]

7 minutes ago, boatseller said:

This is not a difference of opinion.  The law is very clear.

 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML

 

Section 18.

Well laws can be interpreted, and those interpretations are in fact opinions. Laws are rarely clear, if they were we'd have a lot less lawsuit and judges.

 

I think M8VER3 and I can both agree we have different opinions on the matter.

[CI66774]

20 minutes ago, M8VER3 said:

I hope you are right. We are vaccinated and would prefer no mask required. We are now going out and to dinner and on rides with people unvaccinated. No mask. 

I agree with this interpretation. Company can’t deny you access or any good or service upon the ship but there’s nothing in the law prohibiting a company from mandating masks for the unvaxxed but not the vaxxed, etc. moreover, I think cruise lines could create incentives for vaccination - say an enhanced onboard credit, etc.

[jrapps]

12 minutes ago, boatseller said:

This is not a difference of opinion.  The law is very clear.

 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML

 

Section 18.

Maybe I am opening pandoras box here..but @boatsellersince you feel the law is very clear, what is your interpretation of the law on this one? (the bolding is my add)

 

A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.

 

Is what the cruise ship does in international waters considered "in the state"?

[boatseller]

4 minutes ago, M8VER3 said:

What, we are no longer allowed to have a different opinion?

Sure, but sometimes the sky is just blue.

 

There is practically no ambiguity in how that section is written.  So long as no one is denied entry or denied services, the proprietor is all good.

[harkinmr]

4 minutes ago, crewsweeper said:

Article in print edition of Tallahassee Democrat this AM (unfortunately behind a paywall and doesn't recognize my log in) argues that there are all sorts of loop holes in the FL statute.  So all these ambulance chasers spending $$$$ on advertising can surely find something where proof to cruise can be asked for.

Loopholes abound.  And the high-priced legal counsel for the cruise lines will find and use them.  The vaccine ban will be dropped one way or another.  We just have to wait to see how.

[CI66774]

9 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

Guess again. Carnival announced vaccinated  cruises from Galveston. Vista will depart still july 3rd as a vaccinated cruise. So it must not be a issue. As you said think again.

 

Florida it says still discussing.  .carnival delayed information until june 11 for florida.

 

https://www.carnivalcorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/carnival-cruise-line-confirms-plans-july-restart

 

 

 

 

I’m not saying Texas will interpret Port of Galveston to be a part of any cruiseline, I’m just saying the law seems to govern the Port - but it’s just a facility and not Part and parcel to any business

 

 

[John&LaLa]

39 minutes ago, jrapps said:

I don't know that I agree with that...those without the vaccine are not being denied service, but the people who voluntarily offer it are getting additional services.

 

Those who book a concierge room are voluntarily giving the cruise line something (money) and getting additional services in return, access to areas of the ship that others don't have access to (lounges, etc). Same here, if you voluntarily give them proof of vaccine (which IS LEGAL TO DO) then you get something in return.

 

Your opinion is noted.

 

Still not sure about legality of being able to give them proof of vaccinations.  

[John&LaLa]

37 minutes ago, ArthurUSCG said:

We don't know the spirit of the law, some my argue the spirit of the law was to solidify his base for reelection.

 

You do realize that the law was passed by the FL legislators, only signed by Desantis 

[Goodtime Cruizin]

3 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Maybe I am opening pandoras box here..but @boatsellersince you feel the law is very clear, what is your interpretation of the law on this one? (the bolding is my add)

 

A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.

 

Is what the cruise ship does in international waters considered "in the state"?

 

Well I guess one could be helicoptered on the ship while it's in international waters. 

[M8VER3]

3 minutes ago, boatseller said:

Sure, but sometimes the sky is just blue

As clear as our weather person in Florida prediction of 50% rain. 

[John&LaLa]

34 minutes ago, jrapps said:

The other perspective here is jurisdiction. FL has argued that they have jurisdiction on controlling who can get on the ship based on vax status. Fair enough, I know some argue against this but there is at least some logic to this argument.

 

They most certainly have no jurisdiction as to what a cruise line asks for, and what services they provide or deny while onboard as soon as that ship is 12 miles out at sea.

 

People can argue letter of law, intent of the law all they want. Once you have left FL, there is nothing that law can do.

 

Jurisdiction is indeed a concern. Personally, I'd love to hear someone say FL doesn't have Jurisdiction.  Works for me

[CI66774]

1 minute ago, jrapps said:

Maybe I am opening pandoras box here..but @boatsellersince you feel the law is very clear, what is your interpretation of the law on this one? (the bolding is my add)

 

A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.

 

Is what the cruise ship does in international waters considered "in the state"?

Not that I’m part of this discussion but I don’t think it’s considered in the state. The only part in the state is the check in process at the Port. Lines can’t require proof to gain access to the ship. Once in international waters, it’s conceivable the ship could ask for proof and require any unvaxxed to disembark at the next Port. However, that would be a public relations nightmare, etc.

[boatseller]

1 minute ago, jrapps said:

Maybe I am opening pandoras box here..but @boatsellersince you feel the law is very clear, what is your interpretation of the law on this one? (the bolding is my add)

 

A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.

 

Is what the cruise ship does in international waters considered "in the state"?

Embarkation is in the State.

 

While in port, the ship is operating in the State, that's why the casino is closed and you have to pay taxes on drinks even with the beverage package.