Originally Posted by Sini
This might as well be the case, but in this specific example we are discussing, the behaviour is clearly a civil disobidience against unreasonble infractions of personal freedoms. Which is anti-authoritorian behaviour.

How is not being allowed to wander about unmasked and unvaccinated in a private establishment either an infraction of their personal freedom, or unreasonable?

Originally Posted by Sini
In this specific example, the American Museum of Natural History would likely be considered public space. More so, your argument presupposes that any property owner neccessary agrees with mandates and enforces them without being compelled to do so by the state.

It does not, it only requires that the establishment chooses to enforce said mandates in compliance with what they believe are their legal obligations. The reasons are immaterrial, even if the sole reason for enforcing restrictions were based on compliance with percieved legal obligations. There are caveats there if said obligations were inhumane, immoral, etc. But that isn't the case here.

Had said protestors been arrested for standing outside of City Hall with signs and/or chanting, etc, I'd possibly share in the outrage. Instead they chose to trespass repeatedly and make life difficult for others and put them at risk. Even if their cause were just, and they had moral high ground - which they can claim neither - they are still targetting the wrong people, and appear to be doing so in a manner of which they would be asked to leave and then forcibly removed no matter the nature of their complaint.

So again, looking at it from the side of the poor folks working at the establishments they target - how are they supposed to deal with it? Change the rules, or neglect to enforce them simply because people show up and refuse to comply? Because they yell and get nasty?

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)