HB 60: Ban on “Immunity Passports” for Private Businesses

This bill passed the House 51-23 and did not receive a vote in the Senate. 

The government’s response to Covid-19 has largely been a problematic overreach, featuring business shutdowns, quarantines, restrictions on the movement and gathering of people, limitations on religious worship, mask mandates, and more. Immunity or vaccine passports (requirements to publicly divulge your health status) are a very problematic addition to these legal problems.

It is wrong for the government to mandate vaccines as a condition of commerce, transportation, employment, etc. We support efforts that limit the government from imposing such mandates, and for that reason supported a bill last year that prohibited the government from directly or indirectly requiring a Covid-19 vaccine.

However, we do not believe it is the proper role of government to prohibit private business owners from imposing a “vaccine passport” requirement for an employee or patron. We strongly object to these mandates from business owners but recognize and defend business owners to exercise their property and free association rights to specify the terms under which another person can engage with them.

For that reason, we must oppose House Bill 60, sponsored by Representative Walt Brooks. The bill does contain some important elements — for example, a limitation on government-mandated “vaccine passports”:

A governmental entity may not refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual any local or state service, good, facility, advantage, privilege, license, educational opportunity, health care access, or employment opportunity based on the individual’s vaccination status, including whether the individual has an immunity passport.

We support limiting the government’s ability to impose such criteria on individuals. And Rep. Brooks is trying to walk the fine line of protecting individuals and business owners. But if a business owner wishes to (wrongly, in our view) stipulate that their employees or customers must be vaccinated as a condition of employment or commerce, we believe that is their right. The employees do not have a right to their job, nor do customers have a right to shop in a certain store. The property or business owner’s rights are what need legal protection here—even if such rights are used to demand something unreasonable or unnecessary.

Our position is that such circumstances should be left up to a free market; if a business owner requires this of their employees, then those who object can protest, boycott, leave negative reviews, or pursue similar avenues to create conversation and social pressure. Using the force of law to compel these business owners violates their property and free association rights by compelling them to associate with individuals they prefer not to.

Government exists to secure our rights. In this case, it is the right of the business owner that must be protected — even if we emphatically disagree with how such rights are exercised in the current political and social environment. For that reason, while we oppose vaccine passports in general, we also must oppose HB 60.