User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 12:42:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: From my marxist company: "Hi, Your request for a religious accommodation to be exempt from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine has been reviewed and the request has been denied. Without making a determination regarding the sincerity of your religious beliefs it is our responsibility to protect our other employees to whom we owe a safe work environment. Granting your request to remain unvaccinated will cause an undue hardship because of the risk of transmission to fellow employees or customers potentially causing physical injury, hospitalization or death. All decisions are final unless you have additional accommodations to propose that were not already considered. Effective October 27th, all employees without an approved accommodation must provide proof of their first dose in the myHR system. Thank you for your understanding and anticipated cooperation." Apparently my sincere belief that murder is wrong via injection of aborted fetal cells into MY BODY is not my religious right. The 1st Amendment is supposed to guarantee religious freedom OR “the free exercise thereof." The 1st amendment means nothing in America anymore. Being vaccinated does not STOP the spread of infection. Masks do not work. Fk Fauci. Fk Biden. There aren't any fetal cells injected as part of the vax. The fetal cells lines, the actual fetal cells were decades ago, and the cells that were replicated from those fetal cells were used in testing the mRNA vaccines and in production of the J&J vaccine but none of those cells are in the shots. That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. Can you try again and articulate that the fetal cell lines from aborted babies were used in the testing and manufacture and that offends you and you consider that a sin. Or something like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 12:43:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Hmm? Join date, post count.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 12:46:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are they granting any in your company? Seen a couple of posters say they were accepted. I’m guessing the decision has already been made at most of these companies. Either accept or deny all of them. Arguing the merits of individual RE’s would be expensive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:13:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think I would try to continue that conversation by requesting clarification. At least force them to read it. I guess the next steps are dependent upon their ability to accommodate you, which is dependent on your specific circumstances. It never hurts to ask questions. It can hurt if you make statements that box yourself in. Worst case, they answer your request with the same legal argument they'll defend themselves with in court. Best case, they answer with something their lawyer wishes they'd never put in writing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:14:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Their reasoning to protect their workers and customers is total bullshit. It just doesn’t.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:16:59 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. But we have case law that says your beliefs don't have to be accurate, you just need to honestly believe them. Judging the accuracy instead of the sincerity of your beliefs is courtroom suicide, or was until we entered clown world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:22:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There aren't any fetal cells injected as part of the vax. The fetal cells lines, the actual fetal cells were decades ago, and the cells that were replicated from those fetal cells were used in testing the mRNA vaccines and in production of the J&J vaccine but none of those cells are in the shots. That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. Can you try again and articulate that the fetal cell lines from aborted babies were used in the testing and manufacture and that offends you and you consider that a sin. Or something like that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: From my marxist company: "Hi, Your request for a religious accommodation to be exempt from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine has been reviewed and the request has been denied. Without making a determination regarding the sincerity of your religious beliefs it is our responsibility to protect our other employees to whom we owe a safe work environment. Granting your request to remain unvaccinated will cause an undue hardship because of the risk of transmission to fellow employees or customers potentially causing physical injury, hospitalization or death. All decisions are final unless you have additional accommodations to propose that were not already considered. Effective October 27th, all employees without an approved accommodation must provide proof of their first dose in the myHR system. Thank you for your understanding and anticipated cooperation." Apparently my sincere belief that murder is wrong via injection of aborted fetal cells into MY BODY is not my religious right. The 1st Amendment is supposed to guarantee religious freedom OR “the free exercise thereof." The 1st amendment means nothing in America anymore. Being vaccinated does not STOP the spread of infection. Masks do not work. Fk Fauci. Fk Biden. There aren't any fetal cells injected as part of the vax. The fetal cells lines, the actual fetal cells were decades ago, and the cells that were replicated from those fetal cells were used in testing the mRNA vaccines and in production of the J&J vaccine but none of those cells are in the shots. That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. Can you try again and articulate that the fetal cell lines from aborted babies were used in the testing and manufacture and that offends you and you consider that a sin. Or something like that. This! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:24:21 PM EDT
[#8]
The best reason I have seen to date is FU and all that should be needed to fill in the blanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:26:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But we have case law that says your beliefs don't have to be accurate, you just need to honestly believe them. Judging the accuracy instead of the sincerity of your beliefs is courtroom suicide, or was until we entered clown world. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. But we have case law that says your beliefs don't have to be accurate, you just need to honestly believe them. Judging the accuracy instead of the sincerity of your beliefs is courtroom suicide, or was until we entered clown world. I don't think that had anything to do with his rejection. They specifically said that it wasn't being based on an evaluation of his particular religious objection. They claimed that they didn't have the ability to make accommodations for him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:30:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Yes case law is clear. You don’t have to believe in any religion to get a religious exemption and the company cannot judge which are true and which are not. It’s a right that you can choose to exercise or not. They are opening themselves up to get sued into oblivion. Lawyer up op and hammer them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:33:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Under Title VII of the Civil right Act of 1964; employers have the right to deny employees’ religious accommodation requests (even is they are determined as “sincerely held”) if the employer can claim/prove that the request would cause their business “undue hardship”.
That’s where most of these companies are betting that they can mass deny the requests and bypass the religious accommodation route…. That’s what my (likely soon to be former) employer is doing. If anyone has any suggestions for a law firm (specifically employment law) taking on this kind of action, I’d really like to fight to keep my career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:42:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Ah, the intentionally vague “undue hardship” grey area crap that our legal history is filled with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 1:49:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes case law is clear. You don’t have to believe in any religion to get a religious exemption and the company cannot judge which are true and which are not. It’s a right that you can choose to exercise or not. They are opening themselves up to get sued into oblivion. Lawyer up op and hammer them. In OP's case, they aren't disputing his religion, they're claiming inability to work around his religion. It's like saying to the Muslim truck driver "We can't have you stopping the truck and kneeling on a rug on the shoulder of the interstate 5x a day", or "we haul beer, if you can't drive a truck full of beer, we don't have a job for you". But in the OP's case, they're saying "the accommodations we've had in place since March of 2020 are impossible to implement". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 2:07:25 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah, the intentionally vague “undue hardship” grey area crap that our legal history is filled with. Yep. My employer’s legal team reading the words “undue hardship” in Title VII:  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 2:10:45 PM EDT
[#15]
I just submitted mine today. My request for reasonable accommodation is to continue working from home. I know for a fact that there are people on my team who moved out of state, that are keeping their jobs and being allowed to work from home indefinitely.
Therefore, I truly dont see how requesting to do exactly what they have been approved to do will not be considered reasonable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 2:13:40 PM EDT
[#16]
I agree with everyone saying to file an EEOC. If their reason behind undue hardship is transmission of the virus, that doesn't seem to hold water since even those who have received shots can transmit the virus.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 2:15:03 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Through this Democrat mandate, the Gov't is conditioning employers to be an enforcement arm (of the gov't mandate) to evaluate employees religious beliefs and terminate their employment if their religious beliefs are not in line with the gov't vaccine mandate. Thus the Gov't has successfully partnered with private employers to diminish God and your religious beliefs for a higher gov't power and purpose. Yes and yes. The apropos term is fascism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 2:17:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That appears to be their rationale. It's much safer for vaccinated people to transmit the virus to other vaccinated people than it is for unvaccinated people to transmit the virus to vaccinated people. We're living in a period of mass psychosis. Nothing hyperbolic about it, it's legit mass psychosis. That hits the nail squarely on the head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 2:21:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But in the OP's case, they're saying "the accommodations we've had in place since March of 2020 are impossible to implement". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes case law is clear. You don’t have to believe in any religion to get a religious exemption and the company cannot judge which are true and which are not. It’s a right that you can choose to exercise or not. They are opening themselves up to get sued into oblivion. Lawyer up op and hammer them. But in the OP's case, they're saying "the accommodations we've had in place since March of 2020 are impossible to implement". Exactly. If that’s the case, all employees should be back to physically working in the office with zero COVID preventative measures. They won’t do it because they know the vaccines are garbage and they’ll have people out with COVID until it burns through the office. It’ll be hard to deny reasonable accommodations that are the exact same that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated are currently doing. Sounds like the denied employees need to pool their money and get a good attorney to file an EEOC complaint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 2:22:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a terrible analogy, unless you've been a lifelong anti-vaxxer whose never had a shot. You're dick analogy basically means you just won't suck this dick, but you have a history of sucking others. Might want to go back to the drawing board on this argument. Ok, he likes to fuck, but doesn’t want to be raped. If rape is having a foreign object inserted into one’s body without consent, what is it when the object is a needle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2021 11:02:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Under Title VII of the Civil right Act of 1964; employers have the right to deny employees’ religious accommodation requests (even is they are determined as “sincerely held”) if the employer can claim/prove that the request would cause their business “undue hardship”. That’s where most of these companies are betting that they can mass deny the requests and bypass the religious accommodation route…. That’s what my (likely soon to be former) employer is doing. If anyone has any suggestions for a law firm (specifically employment law) taking on this kind of action, I’d really like to fight to keep my career. The only way this would fly is if we had Australian style lockdowns, and vaxxed as we reopened. We didn't, and found interim solutions pre vaccine that could be continued as accommodations for those with exemptions. Also, covid can be passed and contracted by those vaccinated, especially those 6+months post vaccinated, and thise with J+J. Most workplaces included boosters as approved for EUA by FDA, so those who had J+J will need to reup by December 1st. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:15:38 PM EDT
[#22]
I had my religious exemption denied. So far, they haven't granted a single one and everyone received the exact same denial letter. Only 3 people were granted an interview as part of the "interactive process". When questioned about how come I was denied the "Interactive Process" they said - "you submitting the application and us denying it was the interactive process"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:20:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: From my marxist company: "Hi, Your request for a religious accommodation to be exempt from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine has been reviewed and the request has been denied. Without making a determination regarding the sincerity of your religious beliefs it is our responsibility to protect our other employees to whom we owe a safe work environment. Granting your request to remain unvaccinated will cause an undue hardship because of the risk of transmission to fellow employees or customers potentially causing physical injury, hospitalization or death. All decisions are final unless you have additional accommodations to propose that were not already considered. Effective October 27th, all employees without an approved accommodation must provide proof of their first dose in the myHR system. Thank you for your understanding and anticipated cooperation." Apparently my sincere belief that murder is wrong via injection of aborted fetal cells into MY BODY is not my religious right. The 1st Amendment is supposed to guarantee religious freedom OR “the free exercise thereof." The 1st amendment means nothing in America anymore. Being vaccinated does not STOP the spread of infection. Masks do not work. Fk Fauci. Fk Biden. That is a lawsuit. It is not for them to question your religious beliefs. Sue the piss out of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:25:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There aren't any fetal cells injected as part of the vax. The fetal cells lines, the actual fetal cells were decades ago, and the cells that were replicated from those fetal cells were used in testing the mRNA vaccines and in production of the J&J vaccine but none of those cells are in the shots. That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. Can you try again and articulate that the fetal cell lines from aborted babies were used in the testing and manufacture and that offends you and you consider that a sin. Or something like that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: From my marxist company: "Hi, Your request for a religious accommodation to be exempt from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine has been reviewed and the request has been denied. Without making a determination regarding the sincerity of your religious beliefs it is our responsibility to protect our other employees to whom we owe a safe work environment. Granting your request to remain unvaccinated will cause an undue hardship because of the risk of transmission to fellow employees or customers potentially causing physical injury, hospitalization or death. All decisions are final unless you have additional accommodations to propose that were not already considered. Effective October 27th, all employees without an approved accommodation must provide proof of their first dose in the myHR system. Thank you for your understanding and anticipated cooperation." Apparently my sincere belief that murder is wrong via injection of aborted fetal cells into MY BODY is not my religious right. The 1st Amendment is supposed to guarantee religious freedom OR “the free exercise thereof." The 1st amendment means nothing in America anymore. Being vaccinated does not STOP the spread of infection. Masks do not work. Fk Fauci. Fk Biden. There aren't any fetal cells injected as part of the vax. The fetal cells lines, the actual fetal cells were decades ago, and the cells that were replicated from those fetal cells were used in testing the mRNA vaccines and in production of the J&J vaccine but none of those cells are in the shots. That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. Can you try again and articulate that the fetal cell lines from aborted babies were used in the testing and manufacture and that offends you and you consider that a sin. Or something like that. It really has nothing to do with sin, or religion for that matter. An atheist can file under a religious exemption, as the courts for decades have held that "religious exemption" is more correctly applied as moral conscience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:29:46 PM EDT
[#25]
 Sermon: A Christian Response to Mandatory "Cookies" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:33:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Under Title VII of the Civil right Act of 1964; employers have the right to deny employees’ religious accommodation requests (even is they are determined as “sincerely held”) if the employer can claim/prove that the request would cause their business “undue hardship”. That’s where most of these companies are betting that they can mass deny the requests and bypass the religious accommodation route…. That’s what my (likely soon to be former) employer is doing. If anyone has any suggestions for a law firm (specifically employment law) taking on this kind of action, I’d really like to fight to keep my career. Contact Robert Barnes @ https://www.barneslawllp.com/ While not practicing employment law specifically, he is involved in civil rights litigation and is one of the attorneys involved with and filling lawsuits across the country over this exact issue. He has a particular distaste for the courts in Maine, might be worth seeing if you have a case that he would take on or if he could recommend an another attorney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:42:56 PM EDT
[#27]
"Undue hardship" in a just court, is gonna be a hard row to hoe for companies that have has us all working together since this all began.
And regarding safety I see where EEOC guidelines on exemptions cite an OSHA rule where they won't cite employees/employers that won't wear a hard hart due to religious reasons. But they do require signage about the dangers of not wearing a hard hat... Not 100% related but it's certainly an example of freedom of religious expression trumping safety concerns |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:44:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Contact Robert Barnes @ https://www.barneslawllp.com/ While not practicing employment law specifically, he is involved in civil rights litigation and is one of the attorneys involved with and filling lawsuits across the country over this exact issue. He has a particular distaste for the courts in Maine, might be worth seeing if you have a case that he would take on or if he could recommend an another attorney. He's certainly the most reasoned voice I've heard speak on the matter. He would be my choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:49:01 PM EDT
[#29]
You can sift thru these "Viva Frei" videos for solid, on point, recent, relevant, and realistic content from Barnes on the mandate and other interesting matters.
Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/c/VivaFrei/videos |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 3:56:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My company has mandated the vaccine. I will not be asking for their permission (through a religious exemption) to not put something I do not want in my body. When they get around to asking me, I will tell them "No", and that they do not have that authority. I exchange my time, effort, intellect, and skill sets for their money. That is the contract we agreed upon, and I will not be altering it. If they no longer want me to work for them because of this, so be it. @Killface Exactamundo. You are not a slave. He that shows the mark to buy and sell removes his name from the book of life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 4:00:29 PM EDT
[#31]
So you can decide your gender but not your religion. Murica.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 4:02:04 PM EDT
[#32]
I have a family member who works in HR in a large global healthcare supplier. She is on a commitee granting the exeptions... The corporate lawyers in her company told her to grant EVERY religious exception, even if it doesn't hold any water or lists pastafarianism... they don't want any legal battles.
So it varies there |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 4:03:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There aren't any fetal cells injected as part of the vax. The fetal cells lines, the actual fetal cells were decades ago, and the cells that were replicated from those fetal cells were used in testing the mRNA vaccines and in production of the J&J vaccine but none of those cells are in the shots. That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. Can you try again and articulate that the fetal cell lines from aborted babies were used in the testing and manufacture and that offends you and you consider that a sin. Or something like that. First off fetal cells alone are not why I would reject. 1 Corinthians 6 15 Do you not know that your bodies are parts of Christ? ................... 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought for a price: therefore glorify God in your body. 1 Corinthians 3 16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple. And for those of you who think you need to justify your faith to your employer. No such justification is needed. Does the homosexual have to justify their homosexuality, nope, why do you need to justify your religious belief? https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-monday-october-4e1 [snip]Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) (“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”). It’s not just sincerely-held religious beliefs either. Atheists aren’t left out. Title VII’s protections also extend nonreligious beliefs if they are related to morality, ultimate ideas about life, purpose, and death. See EEOC, Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace (June 7, 2008), (“Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs”). [/snip] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 4:05:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can sift thru these "Viva Frei" videos for solid, on point, recent, relevant, and realistic content from Barnes on the mandate and other interesting matters. Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/c/VivaFrei/videos Definitely one of my favorite channels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 4:40:12 PM EDT
[#35]
These mandates are blatant religious and political persecution at this point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2021 7:47:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And to say it's for safety. The fucking fake vaccine doesn't prevent transmission!!! I would counter with this. And then lawyer up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:13:28 AM EDT
[#37]
It can't be more than a de minimus cost to the employer. So whatever they've been doing thus far, it seems they can keep doing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:15:21 AM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:30:38 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: From my marxist company: "Hi, Your request for a religious accommodation to be exempt from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine has been reviewed and the request has been denied. Without making a determination regarding the sincerity of your religious beliefs it is our responsibility to protect our other employees to whom we owe a safe work environment. Granting your request to remain unvaccinated will cause an undue hardship because of the risk of transmission to fellow employees or customers potentially causing physical injury, hospitalization or death. All decisions are final unless you have additional accommodations to propose that were not already considered. Effective October 27th, all employees without an approved accommodation must provide proof of their first dose in the myHR system. Thank you for your understanding and anticipated cooperation." Apparently my sincere belief that murder is wrong via injection of aborted fetal cells into MY BODY is not my religious right. The 1st Amendment is supposed to guarantee religious freedom OR “the free exercise thereof." The 1st amendment means nothing in America anymore. Being vaccinated does not STOP the spread of infection. Masks do not work. Fk Fauci. Fk Biden. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:32:25 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There aren't any fetal cells injected as part of the vax. The fetal cells lines, the actual fetal cells were decades ago, and the cells that were replicated from those fetal cells were used in testing the mRNA vaccines and in production of the J&J vaccine but none of those cells are in the shots. That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. Can you try again and articulate that the fetal cell lines from aborted babies were used in the testing and manufacture and that offends you and you consider that a sin. Or something like that. Under the law, does a specific belief even need to be stated? Why not just claim that "my sincerely held beliefs would be violated if I were to consent to receiving any of the COVID vaccines"? Since the employer cannot make a judgement on the validity of one's sincerely held beliefs, what is the purpose in stating what those beliefs are? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:39:12 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That appears to be their rationale. It's much safer for vaccinated people to transmit the virus to other vaccinated people than it is for unvaccinated people to transmit the virus to vaccinated people. We're living in a period of mass psychosis. Nothing hyperbolic about it, it's legit mass psychosis. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So they are forcing you to get vaxed and still pass the virus to employees or customers? Versus not getting vaxed and doing the same as above? That appears to be their rationale. It's much safer for vaccinated people to transmit the virus to other vaccinated people than it is for unvaccinated people to transmit the virus to vaccinated people. We're living in a period of mass psychosis. Nothing hyperbolic about it, it's legit mass psychosis. Add in the application of requiring the vaccine to people who work 100% from home to amplify the psychosis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:41:41 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They want to promote a safe work environment. Will they be mandating the vaccinated get tested? THE VACCINES DON'T STOP TRANSMISSION. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: From my marxist company: "Hi, Your request for a religious accommodation to be exempt from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine has been reviewed and the request has been denied. Without making a determination regarding the sincerity of your religious beliefs it is our responsibility to protect our other employees to whom we owe a safe work environment. Granting your request to remain unvaccinated will cause an undue hardship because of the risk of transmission to fellow employees or customers potentially causing physical injury, hospitalization or death. All decisions are final unless you have additional accommodations to propose that were not already considered. Effective October 27th, all employees without an approved accommodation must provide proof of their first dose in the myHR system. Thank you for your understanding and anticipated cooperation." Apparently my sincere belief that murder is wrong via injection of aborted fetal cells into MY BODY is not my religious right. The 1st Amendment is supposed to guarantee religious freedom OR “the free exercise thereof." The 1st amendment means nothing in America anymore. Being vaccinated does not STOP the spread of infection. Masks do not work. Fk Fauci. Fk Biden. It's almost like it's not about a virus at all.....  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:44:53 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Under the law, does a specific belief even need to be stated? Why not just claim that "my sincerely held beliefs would be violated if I were to consent to receiving any of the COVID vaccines"? Since the employer cannot make a judgement on the validity of one's sincerely held beliefs, what is the purpose in stating what those beliefs are? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There aren't any fetal cells injected as part of the vax. The fetal cells lines, the actual fetal cells were decades ago, and the cells that were replicated from those fetal cells were used in testing the mRNA vaccines and in production of the J&J vaccine but none of those cells are in the shots. That is probably why it was denied, because you objected to something that isn't actually there. Can you try again and articulate that the fetal cell lines from aborted babies were used in the testing and manufacture and that offends you and you consider that a sin. Or something like that. Under the law, does a specific belief even need to be stated? Why not just claim that "my sincerely held beliefs would be violated if I were to consent to receiving any of the COVID vaccines"? Since the employer cannot make a judgement on the validity of one's sincerely held beliefs, what is the purpose in stating what those beliefs are? There was a Supreme Court case in the 80s that said you do not have to justify your belief. You only have to request the exemption. The only legal way for them to deny it is if they can prove your belief is not sincere which is nearly impossible or if it imposes an undue burden on the company to accommodate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 1:04:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was a Supreme Court case in the 80s that said you do not have to justify your belief. You only have to request the exemption. The only legal way for them to deny it is if they can prove your belief is not sincere which is nearly impossible or if it imposes an undue burden on the company to accommodate it. Per many earlier posts in this thread, the basis for undue burden that's likely going to be (or is) used is the idea that vaccinated people will not spread or contract the virus and therefore a population of vaccinated people possess no (or lessened) risks from the virus. Ergo allowing unvaccinated people to be present within that population increases risk and hardship, and the elimination of their presence reduces hardship. I am not sure how they are going to substantiate this basis given the multitude of evidence, to include statements from the CDC itself, confirming that the vaccine does not prevent the transmission of the virus. Is the basis going to be that: "one is less likely to become gravely ill if vaccinated"? Will the common argument used be based on insurance actuary tables or something? Because we're still not sure if that's actually true in the long term or not. Maybe not even in the medium term. Perhaps there is some statistical anecdotes that can be pointed to at this moment in time to suggest a reduction in overall severity, however, what if it becomes undeniable that that idea is in fact not true? Or is everyone, including courts, going to just cling to the idea that vaccination equals the inability to contract or become ill from covid regardless of what happens? That seems to be what's been going on thus far, so I guess what remains to be seen is to what extreme can that narrative withstand reality, should reality become extremely disparate from the narrative? What a weird time to be alive.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 3:21:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was a Supreme Court case in the 80s that said you do not have to justify your belief. You only have to request the exemption. The only legal way for them to deny it is if they can prove your belief is not sincere which is nearly impossible or if it imposes an undue burden on the company to accommodate it. Anyone know what case this is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 3:51:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Per many earlier posts in this thread, the basis for undue burden that's likely going to be (or is) used is the idea that vaccinated people will not spread or contract the virus and therefore a population of vaccinated people possess no (or lessened) risks from the virus. Ergo allowing unvaccinated people to be present within that population increases risk and hardship, and the elimination of their presence reduces hardship. I am not sure how they are going to substantiate this basis given the multitude of evidence, to include statements from the CDC itself, confirming that the vaccine does not prevent the transmission of the virus. Is the basis going to be that: "one is less likely to become gravely ill if vaccinated"? Will the common argument used be based on insurance actuary tables or something? Because we're still not sure if that's actually true in the long term or not. Maybe not even in the medium term. Perhaps there is some statistical anecdotes that can be pointed to at this moment in time to suggest a reduction in overall severity, however, what if it becomes undeniable that that idea is in fact not true? Or is everyone, including courts, going to just cling to the idea that vaccination equals the inability to contract or become ill from covid regardless of what happens? That seems to be what's been going on thus far, so I guess what remains to be seen is to what extreme can that narrative withstand reality, should reality become extremely disparate from the narrative? What a weird time to be alive.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There was a Supreme Court case in the 80s that said you do not have to justify your belief. You only have to request the exemption. The only legal way for them to deny it is if they can prove your belief is not sincere which is nearly impossible or if it imposes an undue burden on the company to accommodate it. Per many earlier posts in this thread, the basis for undue burden that's likely going to be (or is) used is the idea that vaccinated people will not spread or contract the virus and therefore a population of vaccinated people possess no (or lessened) risks from the virus. Ergo allowing unvaccinated people to be present within that population increases risk and hardship, and the elimination of their presence reduces hardship. I am not sure how they are going to substantiate this basis given the multitude of evidence, to include statements from the CDC itself, confirming that the vaccine does not prevent the transmission of the virus. Is the basis going to be that: "one is less likely to become gravely ill if vaccinated"? Will the common argument used be based on insurance actuary tables or something? Because we're still not sure if that's actually true in the long term or not. Maybe not even in the medium term. Perhaps there is some statistical anecdotes that can be pointed to at this moment in time to suggest a reduction in overall severity, however, what if it becomes undeniable that that idea is in fact not true? Or is everyone, including courts, going to just cling to the idea that vaccination equals the inability to contract or become ill from covid regardless of what happens? That seems to be what's been going on thus far, so I guess what remains to be seen is to what extreme can that narrative withstand reality, should reality become extremely disparate from the narrative? What a weird time to be alive.... They have 94% of people hospitalized with COVID whom are vaccinated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 4:19:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Our Chief of Staff just announced that we are seeing more workplace, person-to-person transmissions than we have ever seen, AND that 100& of the people involved are vaccinated.
He also announced that we need to begin the process of firing the unvaccinated -to keep everyone safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 4:22:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our Chief of Staff just announced that we are seeing more workplace, person-to-person transmissions than we have ever seen, AND that 100& of the people involved are vaccinated. He also announced that we need to begin the process of firing the unvaccinated -to keep everyone safe.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 4:22:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our Chief of Staff just announced that we are seeing more workplace, person-to-person transmissions than we have ever seen, AND that 100& of the people involved are vaccinated. He also announced that we need to begin the process of firing the unvaccinated -to keep everyone safe. Clown world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 4:26:04 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our Chief of Staff just announced that we are seeing more workplace, person-to-person transmissions than we have ever seen, AND that 100& of the people involved are vaccinated. He also announced that we need to begin the process of firing the unvaccinated -to keep everyone safe. How can they even know transmission occurred in the work place? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
