Wife got religious exemption from the Clot Shot

I am so happy for your wife!!!!

A year or two from now when they go through a round of layoffs, guess who will have a target on their back?

Praise God.

Only the ones that are still alive !

Which airline? So I know which airline is safe to fly.

Yes, I got one too! It was easy, because I truly do put Jesus as my Great Physician!

Got one here too. OP and others have it right.

You don't have to be a lawyer, but you do need to understand the law and your rights. Good resources have been posted. Use them!

God bless her!

The reason you got denied is because federal law isn’t a religious belief.

Move to a more human friendly place.

That would be my guess.

Talking about the law won't help... except the 1964 civil rights act, title seven. So cite the constitution, blah blah, bill of rights blah blah, federal code blah blah blah - they don't care. Start citing the 64 CRA and watch the ears perk up.

This can't be about legal wrangling, or justification of why you should not be forced. Can't be about you think it's unsafe, can't be about how it's useless, doesn't work, who knows what's in it, your personal sovereignty... in one ear and out the other.

But - you keep it STRICTLY worded to your religious belief (independent from any church or religious leader, your PERSONAL religious belief) - no matter how loony it sounds, if you can convince them you sincerely hold it, AND come up with a REASONABLE accommodation they can easily accord you - that should do the trick unless they are just begging for an EEOC lawsuit. You don't have to prove your belief is TRUE in an objective sense, but you do have to convincingly persuade them that it is your belief and that it is sincerely held.

And if you make the gubmint your religious belief, as many unfortunately do, that means you get the jab.

Last Edited by Weyoun on 02/11/2022 12:33 PM

It comes down to her job performance and her value to the company.

Did your sincere beliefs involve anything about risks to mRNA or safety concerns? That will disqualify you.

Only focus on your long held persistent beliefs about your religion; not safety.

Citing laws saying you don't need to respond or provide information is not going to work anywhere.

It typically also hinges on whether a reasonable accommodation is possible.

If you work in a bowling alley fixing the automatic pinsetters, an employer can stipulate that you are only in the building when the venue is closed (after hours) and you're the only one in the building. That's an inconvenience for the worker, but not a show-stopper for either the employer or employee.

However, if you are a dental technician, it's impossible for you to do your job without being in close physical proximity to the clients, your face literally inches from theirs. That's a situation where an employer might plausibly have grounds to reject that would hold up in court. If you tend nursing home patients up close and personal, an employer might deem that too much risk to highly vulnerable clients with no real satisfactory work-around. A lot of this will depend on how accommodating the employer wants to be (or is capable of being) and what a court is or isn't likely to decide. Businesses retain lawyers to advise them on such things, and judge the odds of risk to the business. Sometimes they will risk it if they think the odds are in their favor, but nearly always take the least-risk path. What are the odds of that nursing home getting sued because a resident died, because the family things allowing unvaccinated workers is what led to gramma's death? Can they get a sympathetic audience in court? "It depends" is the usual answer there.

Actually - by law your sincerity is not to be questioned unless they ALREADY HAVE evidence to question it. However, even in that case you simply need to say you changed your mind -- you belief needs only to be sincere, but it could have been arrived at at 12:00 midnight

Questions to your sincerity are considered religious harassment and will be construed as such if the case goes to court

Thank you Bump. :)

That's crazy.

Isn't there a 'Smart Person Exception' or a 'Philosophical/Logic Exception' or an Exception for "Hey fuckers, I actually have relevant expertise in this field, and I am eminently qualified to analyze and judge the logic/reasoning/argumentation that underlies these mandates, and I deem them to be invalid and unsound"?

If not, that's unthinkable.

But that all presupposes that the vaccines actually are effective, which they aren't.

Their entire line of reasoning is undermined by the fact that the vaccines don't stop transmission, and don't even inhibit it. In point of fact, the vaccinated actually remain contagious longer than the unvaccinated, which means that it's better for dental assistants and nursing home workers to be unvaccinated.

Do facts just not matter anymore?

And also, I hate to beat a dead horse, but it needs beaten: overweight/fat/obese people are at a higher risk to contract covid, to spread covid, and to suffer severe outcomes. So where is the serious talk about banning overweight people from working in dentist offices or nursing homes????

Most Karens who support vax mandates are overweight.

It is easily within their power to self-impose draconian rules to their diet and exercise regiments to get them down to their ideal BMI and able to pass a litany of stringent fitness tests.

By not getting themselves into ideal physical condition, they are putting everyone else at risk, since overweight people are at increased risk of contracting and spreading covid, and of suffering severe outcomes.

Karens want to self-righteously impose vax mandates on other people on the basis that unvaxxed people supposedly present increased risk for the people around them.

But the Karens do not apply this exact same reasoning toward people who are overweight (probably since most Karens are themselves overweight)

Therefore, most Karens who support vax mandates are hypocrites.

If there is any justification for a war against unvaccinated people, then that same justification should apply for a war against fat people.