Sigh. Extremes are used in analogies because it's easier for people to get the point. I am juxtaposing the normal against something decisively abnormal to highlight my positions. It's an analogy, man. Let me show you how easy it is to avoid using your brain in a debate: "That you can't understand a basic analogy shows the weakness of your position. It's ok to take the L friend." Notice how there is no intellectual integrity there? Did I use any logic to address you?

Where are the employer's right to hire unvaccinated employees? Does that exist? AdventHealth, the Cleveland Clinic, HCA Healthcare, Intermountain Healthcare, and Tenet Healthcare canceled vaccination requirements after the Supreme Court put a hold on Biden's mandate, specifically to help with labor shortages. Once the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the mandate, what "rights" do they have? They have to comply with the government or go under. 

When you tell a business they can no longer exist, if they don't regulate their employees the way you want, you remove this "employer's rights" thing you keep yammering on about. They are not making that decision without coercion, which is then passed onto their employees. The employees now have no alternative place for them to find employment in a similar field. 

What I am trying to do is make a distinction between the free market, in which employees have power to shape the terms of employment via seeking employment elsewhere, and a regulated industry, in which that becomes impossible. You are conflating the two. Not me.

You can't have employer's right to hire AND a government that is regulating who they hire. Those things don't go together. If it's the former, employees do have a "choice," because even though their employer may voluntarily choose to have a hiring requirement, the employee can go somewhere else. When the place of employment doesn't have a voluntary requirement because it's mandated by the government, the employer is no longer the one setting the terms AND the employee can no longer shape the free market.

This is logic. Now, do we have a government that sometimes dictates certain requirements for employers? Yes. HOWEVER, when they do, it's government compulsion, and free market principles are no longer in play. It doesn't change the FACT that force is a perfectly acceptable word to use for any regulation that is unilaterally brought on by the government. This is logic.

You are avoiding reconciling these ideas. You can have either, but not both. And, since we've arrived at this point, I have to go full Mikesez argument mode with you and get into semantics.

Definition of force: Noun: violence, COMPULSION, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing

Without a doubt, the word force fits with what I've said when we're using it as a noun. You're hiding behind the verb use of the word in which one of the definitions is: to do violence to. Do you think that any of us are suggesting this? If that's the game you want to play, congrats, you win. You're [BLEEP] brilliant. 

If you're a normal human being, you can use almost any other verb choice that makes sense in this context, but it's this one: to COMPEL, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something. Are you going to FORCE me to define the words compulsion or compel? Oops, I said force, and you're not tying me up... I must have used the wrong word. Oh, what's that? The English language is complex and it takes someone not being a simpleton to understand context? Silly me.  

You're being either disingenuous or blind. You pick.

---

That you're trying to limit the word to a narrow, unrelated definition shows the weakness of your position. It's ok to take the L friend. Am I doing this right?

---