With three conservatives dissenting, court declines to intervene on behalf of Air Force officer who won’t get vaccinated

Let it flow! Morning pick me up or biter condescension and superiority! Better than coffee…yehawww!

You also unlocked the achievement “Better than thou!” for resorting to the military card before 7am EST. Well done!

3 Likes

here are the guidelines to form a church. You can’t just wake up and claim you are a church.

Speaking from recent experience, you can’t just claim religious exemption for the vaccination. At least according to our lawyer. You have to provide specific information as to how it violates your faith and proof that you are a practitioner of that faith - ie: letter from a church official.

You don’t get to just throw your hands in the air and say “I’m a christian! I won’t do XYZ!”

you confuse a “church” with religeous conviction. one is an organization, the other an individual right. the scotus has been quite clear, it is not the business of government to question people’s faith.

In the long run, looking back with 20/20 vision, those pushing vaccinations over the wishes of the recipient, will be on the wrong side of history.

4 Likes

And yet the SCOTUS declined to issue a TRO preventing the Air Force from taking actions because he refused the vaccination based on a request for a religious exemption that was denied.

Haven’t read the court documents yet. But:

  • Has Lt. Col Dunn requested religious exemptions in the past for other vaccination requirements?
  • Did Lt. Col Dunn request a religious exemptions for only this vaccination? (For example, fetal testing.)
  • Did Lt. Col Dunn articulate specifically why a religious exemption was requested for this vaccine and not others?
  • Did Lt. Col Dunn request a broad exemption to ALL vaccinations and medical medications which confirm to the state reason that this specific vaccination violates his religious beliefs.

All go towards showing a priori indicators of whether Lt. Col Dunn is in fact requesting a valid religious exemptions (which even granted might preclude continued service by being placed in a non-deployable status) OR are they indicators that Lt. Col. Dunn is attempting to abuse the religious exemption process for non-valid reasons (political, personal preference, etc.).

WW

1 Like

Can you cite a case?

The Trump Vaccines helped turn the pandemic to an endemic and the mandates helped speed that process.

In another year, Covid 19 vaccines will be mandated for entry into schools, and all this nonsense bitching about it will be forgotten.

2 Likes

I hope you’re right and that there isn’t a medical problem that develops for many as a direct result of being vaccinated. There’s a lot of data being squelched and not being shown regarding the negative effects.

Around 2% of the world’s population is thought to be at risk of not responding well to Covid-19 vaccines, according to AstraZeneca.

If the info is being suppressed, you wouldn’t read about it on CNBC.com. Just sayin’…

Also, that’s a treatment, not a vaccine.

over 80% effective at preventing Covid

The vaccine doesn’t do that…now does it? It was claimed originally that it was 95% effective at preventing COVID but that turned out to be total bull feces. Now it’s down to, you won’t die if you get it. My friend…those in charge of leading this country through this pandemic have failed miserably and there’s no other way to describe this ■■■■■■■ mess.

2 Likes

Yo. Instead of frothing from the mouth, consider the fact the court’s majority is once again failing to do its duty and act like adults, and be faithful to the oath they took, by not applying strict scrutiny protection in a case which, without question, involves fundamental rights.

The fact is, under such circumstances one would expect our highest Court to resolve the issue once and for all and at the very least, apply “strict scrutiny” to the mandate:

(A) which must be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,

(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,

(C) and it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.

BTW your adolescent use of language, including your insults directed at those you disagree with, detracts from a productive and mature discussion.

JWK

My bad - they were testing it as a vaccine, but it was originally developed as a treatment I think. Pretty poorly written article really.

Re; the 2% - they aren’t people nefariously hurt by vaccines. They are people who don’t reposed well - as in, developing immunity - from the vaccines on the market. This new AZ treatment is a possible solution for them.

From your article -

Around 2% of the world’s population is thought to be at risk of not responding well to Covid-19 vaccines, according to AstraZeneca. This includes people receiving dialysis treatment, undergoing chemotherapy and those taking immunosuppressive drugs for conditions like rheumatoid arthritis

1 Like

True colors have come out.

2 Likes

Precisely…noticed only 3 justices would granted his request.
Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

Tells you court make up.

Remember during Kavanaugh selection…everyone was praising him while couple of us didn’t like him. This is reason why. Raymond Kethledge would have been much better pick IMO.

Amy Barrett is turning out to be big disappointment as well.

2 Likes

Supreme Court justices are like a game of Russian roulette. You don’t know if a bullet is in that cylinder until you squeeze the trigger.

The Kavanaugh and Barrett selection processes were nothing more than theater and further proof that the Democrats and Republicans all serve the same master. The only differences they have are in rhetoric. Major policies that are detrimental to Americans carry on regardless of who is in the White House. The media has to get both sides all riled up over petty ■■■■ to keep the low-information voters titillated.

1 Like

Don’t worry. They’ll come through for you in the clutch

Well, I’m new here but let me just say it’s your disgusting attitude that kept me from getting the vaccine. Now, a year later, I’m extremely glad I resisted. When you look at the data, it’s crystal clear that the vaccine just isn’t helping much, if any at all.

Let’s take stock of where we’ve been with this vaccine. We started by the drug companies saying these things were more than 90% effective at keeping you from GETTING Covid. Then they moved the goal posts and said it reduced your chance at spreading it, then it stopped 99% of the deaths, then it reduced your chance at death… Now, we look at the data and we have more than 90% of those 50+ vaccinated, yet that age group still represented 93% of the total deaths during the last spike and to be clear, the last spike in the US was HIGHER (per 100,000 people) than 2 of the previous 3 spikes.

So when you DEMAND that we get a vaccine that doesn’t work, it makes me question your motives. Is this about control, money or are you just not aware of the data? The same thing goes with the mask mandates. Are people just not aware of the actual data when they DEMAND that we all wear masks? If you look at the curve in each state, there would be no way of telling which state had a mask mandate and which one didn’t. If you overlay the mandate times over the chart, it’s clear there’s no correlation to a reduced rate of transmission or death. If these mandates made a difference, there should be some discernable impact on the Covid cases and deaths.

Anyway, you can keep your shot. I’m more concerned with the increase in heart attack deaths in 2021 than my risk of catching and dying of Covid. I actually had it like most of the rest of the country and I’ve had worse colds. When we started having symptoms, we stayed home and away from people, like we would do with the Flu or a cold. That’s the best solution in my opinion.

2 Likes

We declined the Anthrax shot during Desert Storm. Fortunately, we had a LTC backing us up. No one pushed it, they just accepted it. A good BN Commander is worth his weight in gold. :wink:

1 Like

You do understand that there’s a difference between a Church and religious beliefs, right? You don’t get to tell me what my religious beliefs are and so long as I’m not infringing on the rights of another, you have no right to force me to do something that’s against my religious beliefs.

1 Like