NCL suing Florida over vaccine law.

[smplybcause]

53 minutes ago, sunonfire said:

The law allows you to ask if a person was vaccinated but cannot require a person to show proof of the vaccination. You can volunteer to show the proof that you had the vaccine but they cannot require it.

 

Except everyone except royal is requiring it for at least 95% of their passengers. Saying they're volunteering is semantics if the person who makes it 5.0001% unvaccinated isn't allowed on board. 

[RedIguana]

3 minutes ago, smplybcause said:

Except everyone except royal is requiring it for at least 95% of their passengers. Saying they're volunteering is semantics if the person who makes it 5.0001% unvaccinated isn't allowed on board.

This is true outside of Florida.  As was pointed out to me earlier, all the lines out of Florida at this time are allowing unvaxed, just with additional requirements and costs, in order to comply with the law.

[Iamcruzin]

1 hour ago, Sam Ting said:

 

Better yet, if Karen got the vaccine in the first place, this would have never happened. 

I don’t know if I would have rushed to get the vaccine had I had Covid only 3 months prior. However, I wouldn’t have booked a cruise until I was comfortable being vaccinated.

[4774Papa]

2 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

I didn't see a thing about antibodies, or antibody testing, in that post. Could you point it out for me?

You are right, but I did read about this somewhere recently, but can't find it now.  

[smplybcause]

2 minutes ago, RedIguana said:

This is true outside of Florida.  As was pointed out to me earlier, all the lines out of Florida at this time are allowing unvaxed, just with additional requirements and costs, in order to comply with the law.

 

Celebrity and Carnival are only allowing 5% of their passengers be unvax.

 

Let's say there's 1000 people on the ship - both Celebrity and Carnival are refusing to allow the 51st person that that shows up unvax to board. Carnival is doing it by requiring pre-approvals and only giving it to a certain amount. 

[orkaren1]

1 hour ago, Sam Ting said:

 

Better yet, if Karen got the vaccine in the first place, this would have never happened. 

My name is Karen and I actually volunteered for the vacinne trial to make things safer for everyone else.  Please don't make blanket statements using a person's name that doesn''t apply to everyone.

 

[Iamcruzin]

11 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

As a resident of Florida, I have second hand embarrassment for our state government.

As a US citizen I have been embarrassed many times over the years that I have been eligible to vote and It didn’t matter who the party in office was at the time. Im sure the same can be said world wide about their leaders.

[Iamcruzin]

4 minutes ago, orkaren1 said:

Sure he is, he is passing laws forbidding protests and trying to restrict social media posts that say anything negative against him.  Not permitting businesses from having their own policies is very much what a dictator does.  He is terrible for the state.

I’m still going with the half right comment.

[sr4mjc]

7 minutes ago, orkaren1 said:

Sure he is, he is passing laws forbidding protests and trying to restrict social media posts that say anything negative against him.  Not permitting businesses from having their own policies is very much what a dictator does.  He is terrible for the state.

 

Forbidding violence, rioting and looting. Not protesting peacefully.  I for one wouldn't like my state burned down, thanks

 

He limited his own emergency powers, which is pretty anti-dictator. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by sr4mjc

[sr4mjc]

2 minutes ago, orkaren1 said:

... The whole point of this is to instill fear in Floridians.”

 

Didn't work on me then.  What a biased take.

Edited July 14, 2021 by sr4mjc

[4774Papa]

1 minute ago, orkaren1 said:

It is actually just an excuse to arrest anyone protesting against anything Desantis is for.

“The problem with this bill is that the language is so overbroad and vague ... that it captures anybody who is peacefully protesting at a protest that turns violent through no fault of their own,” said Kara Gross, the legislative director at ACLU Florida. “Those individuals who do not engage in any violent conduct under this bill can be arrested and charged with a third-degree felony and face up to five years in prison and loss of voting rights. The whole point of this is to instill fear in Floridians.”

Please cut out the politics

[sr4mjc]

14 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

As a US citizen I have been embarrassed many times over the years that I have been eligible to vote and It didn’t matter who the party in office was at the time. Im sure the same can be said world wide about their leaders.

 

Absolutely true there

[bucfan2]

30 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

As a resident of Florida, I have second hand embarrassment for our state government.

Congratulations, again...(how many are you looking for?).

[firefly333]

1 hour ago, RedIguana said:

It may seem like a long time to those of us who have been frustrated by no cruising for so long, but it was filed less than 2 weeks after the law went into effect:) The executive order was in place before then, but no real reason to challenge that as it is limited in duration and enforcement.

 

If they lose there is nothing stopping them from following any of the other cruise line practices. But if they do lose expect Florida to be emboldened and start fining the lines requiring vaccinations.

 

Law suits do take time. I suspect they will be asking for an injunction while the suit progresses.

The governor had a order long before it was passed into law. If I knew about it, surely ncl knew.

 

Saying well they waited until it was passed into law a while back .. why not file when it was a order? 

 

Waste of money. I still say by the time it goes to court, cruising will be well along. Nclh shareholders should file against them for wasting money. Honestly. How many here really think florida will change their law to suit ncl better? If not it's a frivolous law suit.

[coffeebean]

18 hours ago, Tree_skier said:

Other lines have found ways to work around the law.  That's not the same as Florida not enforcing the law.  IMHO this is a bad decision by NCL.  When they lose this lawsuit, which is quite possible, they can't exactly just move forward with plan B after litigating that there is no plan B for them. They'll have to cancel another big round of cruises and wait for lessening restrictions to justify their restart.  

Couldn't NCL sail with 95% vaccinated just like Celebrity and Carnival? They will be making a compromise but at least they can still offer their passengers and crew a safe environment and a cruise experience that does not mandate masking and distancing. Sounds like a win win to me.

[3kidsncats]

1 hour ago, sunonfire said:

The law allows you to ask if a person was vaccinated but cannot require a person to show proof of the vaccination. You can volunteer to show the proof that you had the vaccine but they cannot require it.

But you can’t alter the services provided based on the vaccine status, which is happening on Royal — numerous venues are not available to unvaccinated passengers.

[mauraoel]

3 minutes ago, 3kidsncats said:

But you can’t alter the services provided based on the vaccine status, which is happening on Royal — numerous venues are not available to unvaccinated passengers.

Actually I believe the cruise contract protects them on this.

[Tree_skier]

6 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Couldn't NCL sail with 95% vaccinated just like Celebrity and Carnival? They will be making a compromise but at least they can still offer their passengers and crew a safe environment and a cruise experience that does not mandate masking and distancing. Sounds like a win win to me.

They could but they chose to instead sue the state of Florida.  Their call, I just think it is a bad one based on the evidence that other cruise lines are able to successfully offer sailings.  Their argument that they can't offer an acceptable product when others can looks weak.

[Tree_skier]

7 minutes ago, 3kidsncats said:

But you can’t alter the services provided based on the vaccine status, which is happening on Royal — numerous venues are not available to unvaccinated passengers.

Apparently you can.

[At Sea At Peace]

A couple of interesting tidbits about the case, counsel and the Judge.

 

The case is in U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami).

 

NCL, the Plaintiff, is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (from multiple offices).

 

 

QE is a well known, large firm.

 

Team assigned appear well educated, skilled and experienced.

 

They can take the limelight, note briefly that Derek Shaffer was the court litigator for Robert Kraft (NE Patriots owner), warned of 'over reach' (probably not a good choice of words at the time 😟) of the 'police state' secretly video taping private settings.

 

The Judge, Judge Kathleen M. Williams, and Obama appointee, is also the presiding Judge for the Trump v. Facebook, Inc (1:21-cv-22440) case (District Court, S.D. Florida). Date Filed: July 7, 2021.

 

If the litigation doesn't go well and NCL's financial situation doesn't improve, it is also noteworthy that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is one of the largest "reorganization and bankruptcy" law firms in the country.  😲

Edited July 14, 2021 by At Sea At Peace

[Sam Ting]

57 minutes ago, orkaren1 said:

My name is Karen and I actually volunteered for the vacinne trial to make things safer for everyone else.  Please don't make blanket statements using a person's name that doesn''t apply to everyone.

 

Okay Karen.  Is it okay to say “Murphy’s law” Karen?

[smplybcause]

The thing I'm confused by is DeSantis not going after Celebrity or Carnival. By only allowing 5% or less to be unvax they're still requiring vax even though they're calling it volunteering. Their ships can't sail without 95% "volunteering" so it's not entirely optional like the wording wants you to believe. 

 

So I figure one of two things is going on: either DeSantis and his team figure he can still hang his hat on the law because the cruise lines are calling it "volunteering" so most non cruise people will see it as that and still gets to say he got the cruises up and running or someone in the team doesn't think the fines and/or law would hold up so they don't want to rock the boat so they're going along with saying it's "volunteering proof" so it's ok. 

 

The only other option is the cruise lines are doing what he wants with the law but I don't think there's any way that's true. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by smplybcause

[Tree_skier]

7 minutes ago, At Sea At Peace said:

If the litigation doesn't go well and NCL's financial situation doesn't improve, it is also noteworthy that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is one of the largest "reorganization and bankruptcy" law firms in the country.  😲

hmm the plot thickens 🙂 

[RedIguana]

37 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

The governor had a order long before it was passed into law. If I knew about it, surely ncl knew.

 

Saying well they waited until it was passed into law a while back .. why not file when it was a order? 

The order had no consequences for being violated unless you were receiving state funds. Any cruise line could ignore the order with no consequences. The actual law is where the impositions of fines occurred.

[Tree_skier]

1 hour ago, Iamcruzin said:

As a US citizen I have been embarrassed many times over the years that I have been eligible to vote and It didn’t matter who the party in office was at the time. Im sure the same can be said world wide about their leaders.

I know that feeling oh too well.