Court grants Preliminary Injunction preventing Florida from enforcing Section 381.00316 against plaintiffs NCL, et. al.

[DCGuy64]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This has been my stance against this law from the beginning.  Unless the "unvaccinated" are declared a "protected class" in Florida (which they have the right to do), then any business can refuse service to someone who doesn't meet that business's standards, whatever they may be.

 

It also did not prevent businesses from requiring other documentation, like a negative covid test.  A test result is just as much a "medical privacy" issue as a vaccination card.

I would tend to agree with you, however the USA is a veritable minefield when it comes to regulations. Among them is the "disparate impact" notion, so if, for example, NYC's vaccine requirement has a disparate impact on a particular racial, ethnic or religious group, it'd be ripe for being challenged in court. I'm not saying it will, or even should, but I'm just saying it might be. In my humble, non-legal opinion, it's way too soon to be predicting the legality of vaccine passports or other instruments being required to live our daily lives. I can see their potential benefit, but also the potentially dangerous precedent they may set (even unintentionally).

[DCGuy64]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

So..........wouldn't proof of vaccination be considered a "screening protocol"?

No.

[BermudaBound2014]

1 hour ago, bkrickles1 said:

What does everyone think they'll do after Oct. 31?.

 

You are asking for opinions so I'll offer up mine. I have always been of the belief that resuming sailing with 100% vaccinated is the safest way. Initially I was more afraid of press response to covid onboard, but that hasn't turned out to be an issue since many sailings have several covid positive passengers with no extreme negative response from the press .

 

With that said, I don't see how NCL can sustain long term without allowing children onboard and even if vaccines are approved for young children, only 25% of parents said they would comply. Not to mention the USA hasn't even reached 50% vaccinated yet, so that's a lot of alienation of passengers. Del Rio did state in the earnings conference call that he feels this policy will give NCL an initial edge. He may very well be correct, especially in the short term. The booking rate will be an obvious indicator. 

 

Bottom line: IMO,  100% vaccination out of the gate makes perfect sense, but I don't think it is a  sustainable policy. I expect changes on October 31st.

[RumRunner2021]

1 hour ago, bkrickles1 said:

NCL's current policy of 100% vaccinated cruises expires October 31, if I understand it correctly.

What does everyone think they'll do after Oct. 31?

I can't imagine they'll want to continue to exclude families with children under age 12.

It's such a large portion of their clientele and revenue.

I'm booked on Joy for 1/15/2022 and this doesn't affect me but my sister in law just booked to join us and she has an 8 &7 year old. She knows it might not happen, but we're hopeful this spike in cases will be much more under control by the end of October or November and protocols will start to reflect that.

Such difficult times.....

I would wager that they'll extend the 100% requirement.  Probably until at least Jan 1.

[dswallow]

4 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

You are asking for opinions so I'll offer up mine. I have always been of the belief that resuming sailing with 100% vaccinated is the safest way. Initially I was more afraid of press response to covid onboard, but that hasn't turned out to be an issue since many sailings have several covid positive passengers with no extreme negative response from the press .

 

With that said, I don't see how NCL can sustain long term without allowing children onboard and even if vaccines are approved for young children, only 25% of parents said they would comply. Not to mention the USA hasn't even reached 50% vaccinated yet, so that's a lot of alienation of passengers. Del Rio did state in the earnings conference call that he feels this policy will give NCL an initial edge. He may very well be correct, especially in the short term. The booking rate will be an obvious indicator. 

 

Bottom line: IMO,  100% vaccination out of the gate makes perfect sense, but I don't think it is a  sustainable policy. I expect changes on October 31st.

 

85% of the US population has never been on a cruise ship, ever, even once.

93% of the US population hasn't been on a cruise ship in the last 4 or so years.

There's plenty of people to market a cruise ship vacation to for the short period of time before vaccination of kids under 12 begins.

 

Considering that well over 90% of the passengers on board many ships who are allowing unvaccinated adults as well are still vaccinated, there seems simply a general realization and acceptance that vaccination is better for one's health overall among those actually buying a cruise, too.

And sometimes you're better off not having certain types of customers in your business at all.

 

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, jrapps said:

If FL was truly interested in preventing discrimination, they would have made the law more robust on those claims. Part of why the injunction was approved was that the law did not prevent businesses from requiring vaccines from employees, contractors, suppliers...only customers. It also did not prevent business from requiring vaccines, just from requiring documentation. The disparity was the method of information transmission, not the information itself.

 

Discrimination may have been an intent, but if so it was a very poorly implemented intent.

That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Just asking if one is vaccinated does not work in our society when the honor system is unheard of. Documented proof must accompany the "asking".

[coffeebean]

45 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Seems to be topic of debate, but many believe if another line wanted to, all they would have to do is petition the court to be added to the injunction. If another line wanted to sail this way, this ruling would pave the way for them to do so, just perhaps with some legal hoops to jump thru first.

My goodness, you are quick. I deleted that question because it was answered withing the first couple of posts in this thread. LOL.

[jrapps]

4 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

My goodness, you are quick. I deleted that question because it was answered withing the first couple of posts in this thread. LOL.

LOL..yeah, I should probably get back to work....

[chengkp75]

35 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Other Florida businesses do not have a "captured audience", if you will. As a crew member, I would imagine you already know that. Anyone who walks into a land based business can just as easily walk out if they feel their health and safety is not assured.

This is not about the customer feeling safe, it is about the business ensuring that their employees and all customers are safe, and that the company does not incur any liability pursuant to those customers.  A cruise customer has just as much ability to choose not to cruise on a ship if they feel their safety will not be ensured.  That is before they even board.

[coffeebean]

46 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The law was not about public health, and transmission, but about "medical privacy", so the travel industry is no different from WalMart.

This "medical privacy" that this law is based on goes against what has been done in the past with respect to having to show proof of vaccinations. Kids could not attend school without proof of childhood vaccines. Why is this Covid vaccine any different than those mandated childhood vaccines? 

 

 

[chengkp75]

38 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Cruise ships should be exempt from that Florida law and everything feasible should be done to assure passengers and crew are safe.

I agree that cruise ships should be exempt from the law (though I believe the law to be unconstitutional for all businesses in Florida), but not because the passengers are in a different "environment" than other customers, but because it is international commerce, and not subject to Florida law.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

This "medical privacy" that this law is based on goes against what has been done in the past with respect to having to show proof of vaccinations. Kids could not attend school without proof of childhood vaccines. Why is this Covid vaccine any different than those mandated childhood vaccines? 

 

 

Exactly the judge's point, and further that the law does not prohibit businesses from requiring other medical information like negative test results.

[coffeebean]

50 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This has been my stance against this law from the beginning.  Unless the "unvaccinated" are declared a "protected class" in Florida (which they have the right to do), then any business can refuse service to someone who doesn't meet that business's standards, whatever they may be.

 

It also did not prevent businesses from requiring other documentation, like a negative covid test.  A test result is just as much a "medical privacy" issue as a vaccination card.

The Florida law certainly is flawed. 

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I would tend to agree with you, however the USA is a veritable minefield when it comes to regulations. Among them is the "disparate impact" notion, so if, for example, NYC's vaccine requirement has a disparate impact on a particular racial, ethnic or religious group, it'd be ripe for being challenged in court. I'm not saying it will, or even should, but I'm just saying it might be. In my humble, non-legal opinion, it's way too soon to be predicting the legality of vaccine passports or other instruments being required to live our daily lives. I can see their potential benefit, but also the potentially dangerous precedent they may set (even unintentionally).

But what NCL wants is no regulation.  If a store posts "no shoes, no service", and this is shown to adversely affect a protected class, does that mean the business cannot enforce that?  I don't think that would hold water.

[chengkp75]

35 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

No.

Why not?  What is different from a vaccination card or a negative covid test result?

[jrapps]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

But what NCL wants is no regulation.  If a store posts "no shoes, no service", and this is shown to adversely affect a protected class, does that mean the business cannot enforce that?  I don't think that would hold water.

NCL does not want "no regulation", in fact they came out publicly to support the CDC in their lawsuit with FL. They didn't want the CSO to be nullified. How is that no regulation?

[DCGuy64]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Why not?  What is different from a vaccination card or a negative covid test result?

The question I was asked by @coffeebean was whether documentation is the same as screening, to which I replied "no." They're not the same thing.

Screening could involve questioning "have you been sick in the past 14 days, been to one of the countries on this list, have you been vaccinated.." It could also involve getting your temperature taken or even a nasal swab. None of those things are written documentation. That's what I was talking about.

 

[D C]

24 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I agree that cruise ships should be exempt from the law (though I believe the law to be unconstitutional for all businesses in Florida), but not because the passengers are in a different "environment" than other customers, but because it is international commerce, and not subject to Florida law.

Quoting you, but a general question on the same topic for anyone:

 

Did the arguments address the constitutionality of the law, specifically Florida's right to enact law that regulates commerce? 

[jrapps]

2 minutes ago, D C said:

Quoting you, but a general question on the same topic for anyone:

 

Did the arguments address the constitutionality of the law, specifically Florida's right to enact law that regulates commerce? 

Yes. From the court order:

 

Because Plaintiffs have shown that Section 381.00316 is likely an unconstitutional statute under the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause, the balance of harm and the public interest weigh in their favor.

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

You are asking for opinions so I'll offer up mine. I have always been of the belief that resuming sailing with 100% vaccinated is the safest way. Initially I was more afraid of press response to covid onboard, but that hasn't turned out to be an issue since many sailings have several covid positive passengers with no extreme negative response from the press .

 

With that said, I don't see how NCL can sustain long term without allowing children onboard and even if vaccines are approved for young children, only 25% of parents said they would comply. Not to mention the USA hasn't even reached 50% vaccinated yet, so that's a lot of alienation of passengers. Del Rio did state in the earnings conference call that he feels this policy will give NCL an initial edge. He may very well be correct, especially in the short term. The booking rate will be an obvious indicator. 

 

Bottom line: IMO,  100% vaccination out of the gate makes perfect sense, but I don't think it is a  sustainable policy. I expect changes on October 31st.

I agree with you but surely hope NCL will surprise us with record bookings of 100% vaccinated cruises.

[jrapps]

Just now, JamieLogical said:

 

This is why vaccine passports would be much better. They are much harder to fake than a paper card. When I got my Excelsior Pass in NYS, they were able to access the state's/county's department of health records for my vaccination, getting the information directly from the source, instead of requiring me to upload a scan of my CDC card or some other easily counterfeited measure.

To add to this, now that the injunction is in place, NCL is free to require ANY proof of vaccine they wish. They don't have to accept just the CDC card, but likely will because it is the simplest choice. They could legally say you must have a state-issues vaccine passport, but then no one but NY residents would be able to sail. They could say you need a printout from your vaccine provider (CVS, etc). heck they could say you cant board without a signed affidavit from the FL dept of health...the card is just the easiest way to go.

[BermudaBound2014]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I agree with you but surely hope NCL will surprise us with record bookings of 100% vaccinated cruises.

 

Exactly 🙂. In the end consumers will dictate the policy NCL adopts. Right now it's a mixed bag. Alaska has decent numbers booking, but the Gem does not. I bet more would book the gem if things weren't so up in the air with the lawsuit, so we can't tell just yet.

 

Of course, people could book NCL over other cruise lines thinking they won't have to wear masks, but we now know that rule can change mid-voyage. Take a look at Carnival Vista. This ship is reported as 100% vaccinated but had a 'small number' of positive cases detected mid-voyage last week. Immediately the Captain initiated a mandatory mask rule and changed all the social distancing requirements.

 

If recent happenings on board Carnival Vista tell us anything, it's that no ship is guaranteed to be mask free the entire voyage and those booking cruises should accept this risk. In return, it sure does look like NCL is rolling out the red carpet for the first cruisers! 

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, jrapps said:

LOL..yeah, I should probably get back to work....

Just want to let you know, I really appreciate your postings. Thank you.

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

This is not about the customer feeling safe, it is about the business ensuring that their employees and all customers are safe, and that the company does not incur any liability pursuant to those customers.  A cruise customer has just as much ability to choose not to cruise on a ship if they feel their safety will not be ensured.  That is before they even board.

Absolutely agree with both points you made. I usually include "crew" when discussiong the health and safety of all on board a cruise ship. And.....you do have an excellent point that passengers can make the decision not to cruise if they feel their health and safety is in jeopardy.

 

Having said that.......if too many people make that decision not to cruise, then the cruise lines have every right to prove their business has been harmed by not being able to provide the safest environment as possible for their passengers and crew. So, there is always THAT argument.

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

I agree that cruise ships should be exempt from the law (though I believe the law to be unconstitutional for all businesses in Florida), but not because the passengers are in a different "environment" than other customers, but because it is international commerce, and not subject to Florida law.

I also believe businesses should have the ability to conduct their businesses as they see fit. Surely, this Florida law is hindering businesses from doing that.

 

If cruise lines are "International commerce", then why are "they" jumping through all these hoops of fire? Why bother with these law suits if this is so "cut and dry"? Let's just get on with it and let the cruise lines do what they feel is necessary to run a safe operation for all on board their ships.