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

[TexasCNC]

That’s correct, which is why I reject it when people suggest I can’t claim religious exemption from mandated vaccines because it’s not a “recognized religion”.
Thanks!!

[TexasCNC]

Might want to spend some time looking at the CDC data.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku/data
https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/COVID-19-Vaccination-and-Case-Trends-by-Age-Group-/gxj9-t96f/data

[tnt]

Yes, fair point.

But this proves my initial claim.

You can’t just wake up and say “I’m a church!”. You have to meet the requirements set out for a 501c3.

[tnt]

Sorry - meant vaccination. All I see is 18-65.

Maybe I missed it?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@tnt

You can’t just wake up and say “I’m a church!”

Sure you can. But you’ll still have to pay taxes.

[johnwk2]

@Sknyluv

@TexasCNC

When you look at the data, it’s crystal clear that the vaccine just isn’t helping much, if any at all.

This is extremely inaccurate.

Maybe to you.

But the truth is, had we following the “science” as was known a year into this outbreak ____ protect those most vulnerable, made available known treatments and simply educated people on how to deal with the virus ___ we would have done far better than following the political clap trap propaganda put out by the CDC and the hysterical MSM.

JWK

[Piper]

@Safiel

Anti-vaxxers should get it through their thick skulls, a 6 to 3 Supreme Court majority doesn’t CARE about their bull ■■■■■

They aren’t going to come to the rescue.

Stop being a ■■■■■ and get your ■■■■■■■ shots.

I’m not impressed with the bossiness coming from the left.

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf

"In various stages of vaccine development and manufacturing, some of the COVID-19 vaccines used cells originally isolated from fetal tissue (often referred to as fetal cells), some of which were originally derived from an aborted fetus.

The use of fetal cell lines is a very sensitive and important topic within some faith communities and among individuals with concerns about the ethics of using materials derived in this way."

You know what you can do with your vaccine?

[TexasCNC]

Second link.

[tnt]

nice - thanks.

[WorldWatcher]

@Piper

@Safiel

Anti-vaxxers should get it through their thick skulls, a 6 to 3 Supreme Court majority doesn’t CARE about their bull ■■■■■

They aren’t going to come to the rescue.

Stop being a ■■■■■ and get your ■■■■■■■ shots.

I’m not impressed with the bossiness coming from the left.

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf

"In various stages of vaccine development and manufacturing, some of the COVID-19 vaccines used cells originally isolated from fetal tissue (often referred to as fetal cells), some of which were originally derived from an aborted fetus.

The use of fetal cell lines is a very sensitive and important topic within some faith communities and among individuals with concerns about the ethics of using materials derived in this way."

You know what you can do with your vaccine?

Did the Lt. Col. have objections to other vaccines that may have used fetal cells in testing or manufacture?

How about documented use of: acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.

A simple review of medical records will quickly show whether this individual has been fine with other vaccines/medications and that a sudden objection to THIS vaccine isn’t a religious objections, it is an objection where abuse of the religious exemption is being used.

WW

[TexasCNC]

This vaccine is against my religion. Who are you to say otherwise?

[Ben_Natuf]

its the military. different animal, its governed by the ucmj, not federal statutes. you cannot equate decisions under the ucmj to statute law

[Piper]

@WorldWatcher

Did the Lt. Col. have objections to other vaccines that may have used fetal cells in testing or manufacture?

How about documented use of: acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.

A simple review of medical records will quickly show whether this individual has been fine with other vaccines/medications and that a sudden objection to THIS vaccine isn’t a religious objections, it is an objection where abuse of the religious exemption is being used.

WW

A simple reading on the label of the medicines you listed will inform you of what is in the medicine. Plus, you can always call your Pharmacist.

Not so with the vaccine. We have no label. It is still “an experiment.” Nobody can sue the makers, or the pushers.

Asprin.

c3000 – 1500 BC: Willow is used as a medicine by ancient civilisations like the Sumerians and Egyptians. The Ebers papyrus, an ancient Egyptian medical text, refers to willow as an anti-inflammatory or pain reliever for non-specific aches and pains.

c400 BC: In Greece, Hippocrates administers willow leaf tea, which contains the natural compound from which aspirin is derived, to women to ease the pain of childbirth.

1763: The Royal Society publishes a report detailing five years of experiments on the use of dried, powdered willow bark in curing fevers, submitted by Edward Stone, a vicar in Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire.

1828: Joseph Buchner, professor of pharmacy at Munich University, Germany, succeeds in extracting the active ingredient from willow, producing bitter tasting yellow crystals that he names salicin.

etc

God created all kinds of herbs and things to make medicine for our ailments.

[Piper]

@TexasCNC

This vaccine is against my religion. Who are you to say otherwise?

Welcome to Hannity!

[Ben_Natuf]

fowler v ri

Beason, 133 U. S. 333, it is no business of courts to say that what is a religious practice or activity for one group is not religion under the protection of the First Amendment.

Redmond v GAF Corp

we note that to restrict the act to those practices which are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the religion, would involve the court in determining not only what are the tenets of a particular religion, which by itself perhaps would not be beyond the province of the court, but would frequently require the courts to decide whether a particular practice is or is not required by the tenets of the religion. We find such a judicial determination to be irreconcilable with the warning issued by the Supreme Court in Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 70, 73 S.Ct. 526, 527, 97 L.Ed. 828 (1953), “[I]t is no business of courts to say . . . what is a religious practice or activity . . …”

EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF OREGON, et al., Petitioners v. Alfred L. SMITH et al.

It is no more appropriate for judges to determine the “centrality” of religious beliefs before applying a “compelling interest” test in the free exercise field, than it would be for them to determine the “importance” of ideas before applying the “compelling interest” test in the free speech field. What principle of law or logic can be brought to bear to contradict a believer’s assertion that a particular act is “central” to his personal faith? Judging the centrality of different religious practices is akin to the unacceptable “business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims.” United States v. Lee, 455 U.S., at 263 n. 2, 102 S.Ct., at 1058 n. 2 (STEVENS, J., concurring). As we reaffirmed only last Term, “[i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds.” Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S., at 699, 109 S.Ct., at 2148. Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim. See, e.g., Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S., at 716, 101 S.Ct., at 1431; Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Eliza beth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S., at 450, 89 S.Ct., at 606-07; Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602-606, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 3024-3027, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979); United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 85-87, 64 S.Ct. 882, 885-87, 88 L.Ed. 1148 (1944).4

tons of cites in the last one

EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF OREGON, et al.,...

Search Results For: " :: redmond v gaf corp :: "

Section 12: Religious Discrimination

over and over again

[gooddad409]

@Piper

@TexasCNC

This vaccine is against my religion. Who are you to say otherwise?

Welcome to Hannity!

I second that. Welcome aboard Tex.

[gooddad409]

@Ben_Natuf

its the military. different animal, its governed by the ucmj, not federal statutes. you cannot equate decisions under the ucmj to statute law

As much as the woke libs would love to force us to take the shots it’s not happening.

The military and civilians is 2 entirely different animals. I took 2 shots because i chose to. They can take the boosters and shove them up their collective rears.

Kind of wish i hadn’t taken any of them at this point.

[WuWei]

@tnt

@WuWei

Yep. It’s one of things you kind of need to experience to understand. Watching movies just don’t quite do it.

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!

I am better than you. Objectively.

[WuWei]

@tnt

@Smyrna

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.

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.

Will you be happy?

[WuWei]

@conan

Raymond Kethledge would have been much better pick IMO.

Hear! Hear!