User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 4:42:53 PM EDT
[#1]
OP,
Do you have a documented history of protesting against abortion? Have you picketed any clinics? A history of posting Pro-Life messages on Social Media? Membership in any Pro-Life organizations? I am not questioning your sincerely held beliefs. I'm just wondering if you presented documentation to support your claims. 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 4:54:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Israel is one of the most vaccinated countries in the world and has already approved a 2nd booster shot for EVERYONE. They have 94% of people hospitalized with COVID whom are vaccinated. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Pick up those lego blocks and see if or how they fit. You know the vaccine won't flat out stop people from getting infected. You know it won't flat out stop people from having a bad case (most likely I suspect due to comorbidities making them the slow antelope of the herd). So, why expect that the vaccines would flat out stop (or mostly stop) people from being hospitalized? Don't let the fevered atmosphere mess up your head. Tribalism is messing with everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 4:56:04 PM EDT
[#3]
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.  and 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 4:56:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP, Do you have a documented history of protesting against abortion? Have you picketed any clinics? A history of posting Pro-Life messages on Social Media? Membership in any Pro-Life organizations? I am not questioning your sincerely held beliefs. I'm just wondering if you presented documentation to support your claims. Quote HistoryQuoted: OP, Do you have a documented history of protesting against abortion? Have you picketed any clinics? A history of posting Pro-Life messages on Social Media? Membership in any Pro-Life organizations? I am not questioning your sincerely held beliefs. I'm just wondering if you presented documentation to support your claims. 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. Fauci. Biden. You're "not questioning" his sincerity by asking him if he can prove it's sincere. Kinda weird. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 5:01:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP, Do you have a documented history of protesting against abortion? Have you picketed any clinics? A history of posting Pro-Life messages on Social Media? Membership in any Pro-Life organizations? I am not questioning your sincerely held beliefs. I'm just wondering if you presented documentation to support your claims. Quote HistoryQuoted: OP, Do you have a documented history of protesting against abortion? Have you picketed any clinics? A history of posting Pro-Life messages on Social Media? Membership in any Pro-Life organizations? I am not questioning your sincerely held beliefs. I'm just wondering if you presented documentation to support your claims. You saw this part right: Without making a determination regarding the sincerity of your religious beliefs... I think it's kind of a moot point since they didn't even consider it based on the merits of his stated religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 5:07:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Fart in a ziploc and mail it to the HR maggot
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 5:34:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, why expect that the vaccines would flat out stop (or mostly stop) people from being hospitalized? I was wondering about this and I think I understand why. When you are exposed to an antigen your immune system does two things, it builds antibodies to destroy it, and it builds memory B cells that know how to build those antibodies. It takes awhile to build these antibodies, like a week to a month. At this point you're in a race with the virus: will you develop antibodies fast enough to clear it? Or will it replicate fast enough to kill you? People mostly win this race but that's what happens. For awhile after you clear the disease these antibodies circulate in your blood and are at the ready to destroy the antigen if it comes back, but they wane, and over time you will have less and less of these antibodies. Therefore immediately after recovery you have strong immunity, but it doesn't last. Maybe six months, maybe a year. The memory cells however stick around for the long term. If later on the antigen reappears the memory cells will start producing antibodies again, but this isn't instant. It takes time, but less time than the first time you encountered the antigen. So what can happen is that the antibodies are no longer circulating in your blood, so you can get infected and develop a mild case. But, the memory cells then kick in and clear it before it becomes a severe case, so you avoid hospitalization: the memory cells juiced your odds of winning the race. Notice I didn't mention a vaccine. This is just how your immune system works and would be expected to be the same for both vaccine and natural immunity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 6:07:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP, Do you have a documented history of protesting against abortion? Have you picketed any clinics? A history of posting Pro-Life messages on Social Media? Membership in any Pro-Life organizations? I am not questioning your sincerely held beliefs. I'm just wondering if you presented documentation to support your claims. Quote HistoryQuoted: OP, Do you have a documented history of protesting against abortion? Have you picketed any clinics? A history of posting Pro-Life messages on Social Media? Membership in any Pro-Life organizations? I am not questioning your sincerely held beliefs. I'm just wondering if you presented documentation to support your claims. That has no bearing on this specific case, as they're arguing there are no reasonable accomodations they can make for any unvaccinated person, so no exemptions are being approved for any reason. But beyond that, it has no bearing on any case. This is taken directly from a Supreme Court Opinion: in Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida, supra, Florida's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to an employee discharged for her refusal to work on her Sabbath because of religious convictions adopted subsequent to employment was also declared to be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. It doesn't matter how long you've held a belief. If someone becomes pro-life after their 8th abortion that doesn't mean their belief isn't sincere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 6:37:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Fucking tyranny! What is this shit about providing proof of vaccines? That's none of their damn business, they have no right. Pretty sure that violates the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 7:37:35 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 8:13:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was wondering about this and I think I understand why. When you are exposed to an antigen your immune system does two things, it builds antibodies to destroy it, and it builds memory B cells that know how to build those antibodies. It takes awhile to build these antibodies, like a week to a month. At this point you're in a race with the virus: will you develop antibodies fast enough to clear it? Or will it replicate fast enough to kill you? People mostly win this race but that's what happens. For awhile after you clear the disease these antibodies circulate in your blood and are at the ready to destroy the antigen if it comes back, but they wane, and over time you will have less and less of these antibodies. Therefore immediately after recovery you have strong immunity, but it doesn't last. Maybe six months, maybe a year. The memory cells however stick around for the long term. If later on the antigen reappears the memory cells will start producing antibodies again, but this isn't instant. It takes time, but less time than the first time you encountered the antigen. So what can happen is that the antibodies are no longer circulating in your blood, so you can get infected and develop a mild case. But, the memory cells then kick in and clear it before it becomes a severe case, so you avoid hospitalization: the memory cells juiced your odds of winning the race. Notice I didn't mention a vaccine. This is just how your immune system works and would be expected to be the same for both vaccine and natural immunity. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So, why expect that the vaccines would flat out stop (or mostly stop) people from being hospitalized? I was wondering about this and I think I understand why. When you are exposed to an antigen your immune system does two things, it builds antibodies to destroy it, and it builds memory B cells that know how to build those antibodies. It takes awhile to build these antibodies, like a week to a month. At this point you're in a race with the virus: will you develop antibodies fast enough to clear it? Or will it replicate fast enough to kill you? People mostly win this race but that's what happens. For awhile after you clear the disease these antibodies circulate in your blood and are at the ready to destroy the antigen if it comes back, but they wane, and over time you will have less and less of these antibodies. Therefore immediately after recovery you have strong immunity, but it doesn't last. Maybe six months, maybe a year. The memory cells however stick around for the long term. If later on the antigen reappears the memory cells will start producing antibodies again, but this isn't instant. It takes time, but less time than the first time you encountered the antigen. So what can happen is that the antibodies are no longer circulating in your blood, so you can get infected and develop a mild case. But, the memory cells then kick in and clear it before it becomes a severe case, so you avoid hospitalization: the memory cells juiced your odds of winning the race. Notice I didn't mention a vaccine. This is just how your immune system works and would be expected to be the same for both vaccine and natural immunity. Generally speaking, if a dead/neutered virus is used in a vaccine, the immune system recognizes the whole virus and creates antibodies as well as t-cells and b-cells that remember how to make the antibodies that work against the virus. Since these gene therapy shots don't make the entire virus, there is some evidence that the antibodies are "mis-trained" and some evidence that t/b-cells may be mis-trained or not made at all, hence the waning of the effectiveness. A lot of that seems to be conjecture as the whole thing is a moving target and doing good studies takes more time than is available before conditions change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:10:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Generally speaking, if a dead/neutered virus is used in a vaccine, the immune system recognizes the whole virus and creates antibodies as well as t-cells and b-cells that remember how to make the antibodies that work against the virus. Since these gene therapy shots don't make the entire virus, there is some evidence that the antibodies are "mis-trained" and some evidence that t/b-cells may be mis-trained or not made at all, hence the waning of the effectiveness. A lot of that seems to be conjecture as the whole thing is a moving target and doing good studies takes more time than is available before conditions change. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, why expect that the vaccines would flat out stop (or mostly stop) people from being hospitalized? I was wondering about this and I think I understand why. When you are exposed to an antigen your immune system does two things, it builds antibodies to destroy it, and it builds memory B cells that know how to build those antibodies. It takes awhile to build these antibodies, like a week to a month. At this point you're in a race with the virus: will you develop antibodies fast enough to clear it? Or will it replicate fast enough to kill you? People mostly win this race but that's what happens. For awhile after you clear the disease these antibodies circulate in your blood and are at the ready to destroy the antigen if it comes back, but they wane, and over time you will have less and less of these antibodies. Therefore immediately after recovery you have strong immunity, but it doesn't last. Maybe six months, maybe a year. The memory cells however stick around for the long term. If later on the antigen reappears the memory cells will start producing antibodies again, but this isn't instant. It takes time, but less time than the first time you encountered the antigen. So what can happen is that the antibodies are no longer circulating in your blood, so you can get infected and develop a mild case. But, the memory cells then kick in and clear it before it becomes a severe case, so you avoid hospitalization: the memory cells juiced your odds of winning the race. Notice I didn't mention a vaccine. This is just how your immune system works and would be expected to be the same for both vaccine and natural immunity. Generally speaking, if a dead/neutered virus is used in a vaccine, the immune system recognizes the whole virus and creates antibodies as well as t-cells and b-cells that remember how to make the antibodies that work against the virus. Since these gene therapy shots don't make the entire virus, there is some evidence that the antibodies are "mis-trained" and some evidence that t/b-cells may be mis-trained or not made at all, hence the waning of the effectiveness. A lot of that seems to be conjecture as the whole thing is a moving target and doing good studies takes more time than is available before conditions change. It's not a sterilizing vaccine, especially not against delta. So yeah, once you achieve even 100% vaccinated status, you're still gonna see hospitalizations and deaths. And yes, the vaccine only works because your immune system works. That's why I have found this clown world stuff about "but it's better than natural immunity" stuff so hilarious. "You do realize the vaccine can only work because your immune system works????" If your immune system is so suppressed that it can't do it's job, the vaccine shots ... won't work either. DUH. As for mis trained? Not sure I'd call it mistrained, as much as "trained to see the wrong thing as the target" since (coronaviruses are gonna coronavirus - read, mutate) the virus has changed. If all your immune system gets to see is the spike, and the spike takes enough mutations but can still bind (or God forbid, changes binding targets) ... the immune system ONLY trained against the vaccine spike is up the creek without a paddle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:17:29 PM EDT
[#13]
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. They don’t care about your deeply held religious belief. Mostly they wish people like us would just die or go away. What a shame for them I plan on doing neither. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:23:54 PM EDT
[#14]
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. What a stupid idiot. Sounds like he doesn't even think about what's coming out of his month. He regurgitates narratives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2021 10:54:28 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So they reviewed it by not even considering it?  Clown world. What was fine last month now is causing undue hardship. These people are fucking nuts. Definitely a clown world. I fucking hate Biden. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2021 11:12:07 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They want to promote a safe work environment. Will they be mandating the vaccinated get tested? THE VACCINES DON'T STOP TRANSMISSION. Weekly testing got thrown out so there's that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2021 11:16:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP, Do you have a documented history of protesting against abortion? Have you picketed any clinics? A history of posting Pro-Life messages on Social Media? Membership in any Pro-Life organizations? I am not questioning your sincerely held beliefs. I'm just wondering if you presented documentation to support your claims. he doesn't need to. again, does a homosexual have to prove they are homosexual to not be discriminated against? Neither does someone who practices their faith |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2021 11:45:05 AM EDT
[#18]
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. I hope you all will not follow the directive to terminate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2021 2:29:44 PM EDT
[#19]
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. Is he a pilot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2021 2:35:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is he a pilot? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Is he a pilot? Civ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2021 2:39:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Civ It was an idiocracy joke 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 3:30:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is he a pilot? Quote HistoryQuoted: Is he a pilot?  Attached FileQuoted: Quoted: 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. I’m merchant marine so I’m not employed in the state of Maine. The company I work for has offices all over the country and I’m not sure which state they are flying with as far as legal is concerned. But as an update, my exemption got denied and I’m scheduled for termination. Same story as others here- a bunch of us got the same legal letter… undue hardship, losses, outbreaks, all the same nonsensical shit that happens to a fleet whether it’s all jabbed or not. And now, it seems like there can’t be a solid legal path forward because “science” and “the narrative” are all mangled up together in an incomprehensible mess. I might reach out to that firm- thanks for the suggestion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 3:40:53 AM EDT
[#23]
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. Plus I'm sure there was a time once people started going back more, if remote, but before the mandate. What sort of accommodations were made? I think the "undue hardship" is a bunch of bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 3:51:21 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 Companies wanting to fight and lose employees over this then hopefully face legal consequences are being stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 4:05:49 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How has their business been functioning this entire time. Plus I'm sure there was a time once people started going back more, if remote, but before the mandate. What sort of accommodations were made? I think the "undue hardship" is a bunch of bullshit. I work on a ship, so remote was never an option for us. They changed crew change protocols, no shore leave, testing prior to joining vessel, and claim they have had contractors and inspectors that must come on board “socially distanced at all times” it’s all been theatrical BS unless you’re under a captain that has “the fear”. Everyone knows it’s a boat. If someone gets sick, everyone gets sick. No matter how much you scrub up, clean handrails, and change HVAC filters, a ship is a small ecosystem. That argument goes two ways. They just seem to want to be able to go to clients (big .gov contract too) and say “hey look, our entire fleet is jabbed” |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 4:19:36 AM EDT
[#26]
These companies are going to get their pants suited off for arbitrarily determined the merit of people's religiosity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 4:58:39 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny letter though "We can't risk you being non injected, around the other injected people, as you might make them sick" I thought the injection made them safe? But they admit it doesn't. Lawyer up. Until enough of you folks out there in corporate america start walking en mass, they are going to abuse you. When it hurts their stock price, they relent. #southwest @BDA you need to educate yourself a little more on the vaccine, as it only lowers your chance of becoming critically ill and hospitalized. does not stop you from contracting it nor spreading it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 5:01:30 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mike drop? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Here is what I told my brother when he said to just take the vaccine. Here is the analogy: I said, I am going to bring a serial rapist to you, you MUST suck his D$CK and SWALLOW. If you don't he could possibly rape someone in the near future. He said "that's not the same" I said it is exactly the same. You don't want to put that guys D$CK in your mouth, and swallow a substance you don't want in your body. I don't want a needle put into my body and I don't want a substance injected into my body. He said, but the vaccine helps prevent infection. I replied, and once you suck his D$CK he probably won't rape someone. I ended the conversation with, "Oh I forgot to mention the D$CK you suck and the semen you ingest may expose you to life altering STD's. But remember, you are doing it to save your job and for the greater good. Don't forget to wear knee pads" mike drop Mike drop? lol, maybe his brothers name is mike? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 5:03:30 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hmm? Join date, post count. @BlueDrewT and?? what does that matter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 7:00:26 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: These companies are going to get their pants suited off for arbitrarily determined the merit of people's religiosity. Or they will just grant everyone's religious exemption request and tell you how sorry they are that they are unable to make accommodation's for you without creating undue hardship for the company and their other employee's. You will win the battle but still lose your paycheck. How many people will then have a change in their sincerely held religious beliefs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 7:42:05 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or they will just grant everyone's religious exemption request and tell you how sorry they are that they are unable to make accommodation's for you without creating undue hardship for the company and their other employee's. You will win the battle but still lose your paycheck. How many people will then have a change in their sincerely held religious beliefs? So they are going to lie? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 7:45:24 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or they will just grant everyone's religious exemption request and tell you how sorry they are that they are unable to make accommodation's for you without creating undue hardship for the company and their other employee's. You will win the battle but still lose your paycheck. How many people will then have a change in their sincerely held religious beliefs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 7:59:10 AM EDT
[#33]
The choice seems very simple to me. Choose life or money. Which will it be?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 8:08:29 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL, lawyer up they cry. If he could afford that, he could probably afford to quit over the mandate. That written, quit whining about the shot. If you are Catholic, Pope said ok to get pfizer or maybe others if you really need it. Go away |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 8:11:37 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If they were pointing a gun at me. Which metaphorically, they are, at many. I'm sure there are lots of bridges near you. Instead of posting here, maybe you could go find one |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 8:21:00 AM EDT
[#36]
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. J&J. And there is no FDA 'approved' shot available in the USA, so they are forcing an unapproved EUA drug under threat of termination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 10:06:56 AM EDT
[#37]
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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Here is what I told my brother when he said to just take the vaccine. Here is the analogy: I said, I am going to bring a serial rapist to you, you MUST suck his D$CK and SWALLOW. If you don't he could possibly rape someone in the near future. He said "that's not the same" I said it is exactly the same. You don't want to put that guys D$CK in your mouth, and swallow a substance you don't want in your body. I don't want a needle put into my body and I don't want a substance injected into my body. He said, but the vaccine helps prevent infection. I replied, and once you suck his D$CK he probably won't rape someone. I ended the conversation with, "Oh I forgot to mention the D$CK you suck and the semen you ingest may expose you to life altering STD's. But remember, you are doing it to save your job and for the greater good. Don't forget to wear knee pads" mike drop 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. Did you jsut judge the apply hetero normative sexuality standards to the argument?? Potentially the poster identified as a woman while going down on various prior serial rapist but doesnt feel like it for THIS serial rapist.. (CLOWN WORLD, we arnt supposed to judge any more).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 10:13:18 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stop and think. Pick up those lego blocks and see if or how they fit. You know the vaccine won't flat out stop people from getting infected. You know it won't flat out stop people from having a bad case (most likely I suspect due to comorbidities making them the slow antelope of the herd). So, why expect that the vaccines would flat out stop (or mostly stop) people from being hospitalized? Don't let the fevered atmosphere mess up your head. Tribalism is messing with everything. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Pick up those lego blocks and see if or how they fit. You know the vaccine won't flat out stop people from getting infected. You know it won't flat out stop people from having a bad case (most likely I suspect due to comorbidities making them the slow antelope of the herd). So, why expect that the vaccines would flat out stop (or mostly stop) people from being hospitalized? Don't let the fevered atmosphere mess up your head. Tribalism is messing with everything. At the expense of sounding insensative, isreal is a mostly Jewish nation(duh) but Judaism has a fairly strong tradiation of marrying other followers. Could there potentially be a genetic component? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 10:17:31 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @BDA you need to educate yourself a little more on the vaccine, as it only lowers your chance of becoming critically ill and hospitalized. does not stop you from contracting it nor spreading it. @AROKIE You need to educate yourself on sarcasm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 10:21:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: 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... The purpose of you filing to exercise the accommodation is for it to be considered on its merits. Not doing so may mean that you are being discriminated against based on religion. They can not simply "not consider the sincerity of your beliefs" and simultaneously impose something that goes against those beliefs. Claiming undue hardship is fine, if you accept that maybe your accommodation would create an undue hardship. If you don't, I believe they then must prove that an undue hardship was created, and good luck with that since the data is going to show that even before the vaccine, no hardship existed. Further data, as your accommodation request goes on will show that vaccinated people are transmitting in that workplace, and that accommodating you will not likely be additional "undue hardship" over and above the existing hardship of managing a close working area during flu, cold or COVID. SCOTUS and other lower courts have decided these things. How much is this worth to you? I'd bet a competent lawyer could really tie them up with the language they chose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 10:31:15 AM EDT
[#41]
Time for Lawyer
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 10:44:48 AM EDT
[#42]
So now you have to PROVE the sincerity of your faith to faithless MOTHERFUCKERS?
Yeah, God, you really need to destroy this whole corner of the universe like yesterday. You dun fucked up and need to burn this shit out! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 11:10:57 AM EDT
[#43]
There was a group in VA waiting to file lawsuits over this crap. They were on Tiktoc and Youtube.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 11:12:25 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At the expense of sounding insensative, isreal is a mostly Jewish nation(duh) but Judaism has a fairly strong tradiation of marrying other followers. Could there potentially be a genetic component? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Pick up those lego blocks and see if or how they fit. You know the vaccine won't flat out stop people from getting infected. You know it won't flat out stop people from having a bad case (most likely I suspect due to comorbidities making them the slow antelope of the herd). So, why expect that the vaccines would flat out stop (or mostly stop) people from being hospitalized? Don't let the fevered atmosphere mess up your head. Tribalism is messing with everything. At the expense of sounding insensative, isreal is a mostly Jewish nation(duh) but Judaism has a fairly strong tradiation of marrying other followers. Could there potentially be a genetic component? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 11:47:28 AM EDT
[#45]
Our friend @LawyerUp gives some advice linked below.
If you're seeking exemption, you might want to read his suggestions. https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2021/10/20/current-status-of-exemption-requests-for-employer-mandates/ Yes, you need to make the request even if your employer says they are not taking or accepting them. Yes you should do so even if your employer is requiring a pastor note and you cannot get one. The buzz word is that you have a “sincerely held religious belief.” You should document the what and why of that belief. The employer can require you to answer questions about the request to determine if it is sincere. Including asking questions about prior vaccines (if your request is based on aborted fetal cells, be prepared to answer the question on your having received prior vaccines — and answering it that you didn’t know when you received them but now do is an acceptable answer). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 11:53:17 AM EDT
[#46]
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. Yeah, that’s what I was getting at. Hahaha. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 12:33:22 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our friend @LawyerUp gives some advice linked below. If you're seeking exemption, you might want to read his suggestions. https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2021/10/20/current-status-of-exemption-requests-for-employer-mandates/ Yes, you need to make the request even if your employer says they are not taking or accepting them. Yes you should do so even if your employer is requiring a pastor note and you cannot get one. The buzz word is that you have a “sincerely held religious belief.” You should document the what and why of that belief. The employer can require you to answer questions about the request to determine if it is sincere. Including asking questions about prior vaccines (if your request is based on aborted fetal cells, be prepared to answer the question on your having received prior vaccines — and answering it that you didn’t know when you received them but now do is an acceptable answer). "I do not believe in taking the vaccine because of strongly held religious or philosophical beliefs". No need for religion to even me involved. You could be an atheist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 12:36:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @AROKIE You need to educate yourself on sarcasm Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: @BDA you need to educate yourself a little more on the vaccine, as it only lowers your chance of becoming critically ill and hospitalized. does not stop you from contracting it nor spreading it. @AROKIE You need to educate yourself on sarcasm @BDA Or maybe I need better glasses because I didn't see an ounce of sarcasm in your post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 12:44:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "I do not believe in taking the vaccine because of strongly held religious or philosophical beliefs". No need for religion to even me involved. You could be an atheist. Our form says religious, and further states that it cannot be a political or personal philosophy. Struck me as odd in the context of what I know about the EEOC. Also odd in that I can’t imagine how anyone with religious beliefs would be able to separate them. I probably scored some extra points by pointing that out in my response
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2021 1:10:30 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here is what I told my brother when he said to just take the vaccine. Here is the analogy: I said, I am going to bring a serial rapist to you, you MUST suck his D$CK and SWALLOW. If you don't he could possibly rape someone in the near future. He said "that's not the same" I said it is exactly the same. You don't want to put that guys D$CK in your mouth, and swallow a substance you don't want in your body. I don't want a needle put into my body and I don't want a substance injected into my body. He said, but the vaccine helps prevent infection. I replied, and once you suck his D$CK he probably won't rape someone. I ended the conversation with, "Oh I forgot to mention the D$CK you suck and the semen you ingest may expose you to life altering STD's. But remember, you are doing it to save your job and for the greater good. Don't forget to wear knee pads" mike drop You're not nearly as clever as you think you are, and your analogy is terrible. Also, it's "mic" as in "microphone", not "Mike" as in "the name of the guy whose dick you sucked". |
|
|
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.
Attached File