I agree. As we've seen, only the unvaccinated die anyway, and if they don't die, chances are they'll suffer the lingering effects of the virus, which remain in their bodies and causes all kinds of complications.
No, we should allow these fools to contract future viruses, so as to guarantee maximum reduction in their numbers.
Also, Texas should enact another law prohibiting these "freedom fighters" from clogging up hospitals, especially ICUs, which were needed, and will in be needed in the future, by people who didn't bring down upon themselves their serious medical conditions.

@Storm1752 mine is for different reasons. Besides, even the experts are saying that lockdowns have largely been ineffective and it would be better for the virus to exhaust its host reservoirs. There have people that have died from the virus being fully vaccinated. It is largely useless since new variants crop up.

"Get along little Texarse Doggies, get along to Church, catch the Covid and feel much worse, we'll bury ya on boot hill, with narry a tear shed, then we'll take your all money then your missus to bed."

But that's the whole point: they aren't just threatening others who choose to ignore safety measures. They threaten the rest of society with immediate contagion, and they propagate more dangerous variants which keep the pandemic in play.

While I agree with you under normal circumstances, I think the rules should change during pandemics, which is why I voted that we be allowed to restrict access to a non-necessary place like church during periods of contagion.

Right. I'm cool with this because it's likely they will die. Doesn't affect me except for how TX votes in a national election. If enough twits die maybe it turns blue? I hope so.

@Lauren It's non-necessary to folks like us but not them. If a free society we can't choose their priorities for them. As for the greater population, most of us survived this one and we will the next so it's a price we have to pay. I don't imagine those who survive their Church disease will be obstinate much after that.

@rainmanjr A society by its very nature is group endeavor, and we don't allow people to do things which threaten the lives of others. A contagious illness certainly threatens others, and to a degree that's not negligible, even if a majority survives. So, yes, we can choose priorities for them.

It's not like they can't practice their religion, they just can't practice it in close proximity during plague conditions. I know people who "attended" church throughout through internet services, or by attending parking lot services.

I think YOUR stupidity is coming through loud and clear, but who's going to protect us from you?
Libertarianism is a ridiculous dodge for people who don't want to deal with reality.

@Lauren I’m saying they lose political power because it’s them that die. Both sides lose lives in war and that’s where we are. Democrats win coming out of this one.

While I'm not their biggest fan, wishing death upon them is a little over the top, don't you think?

@echosam that’s how evolution works. They are not willing to sacrifice showing how dedicated they are to their god a few days to stop the spread of disease in their community. The quicker they go, the better chance of other people not being exposed to them.

@echosam See, this is an example of where liberals go too far. They are wishing death on us so NO. I don't think allowing their suicide is over the top.

@rainmanjr LIBERALS go too far,? And dorkhead "conservatives" are shining beacons of restraint, while they destroy our democracy. Just stop your hypocrisy.

@Storm1752 I didn’t say that and one doesn’t imply the other isn’t so.