How to be exempted from mandatory vaccinations

soli.deo.gloria

Woodpecker
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
I had success with my affidavit. PM me if you want a copy.
Are you exempted from testing as well or just vaccination? If you aren't testing how does that play out on their end with respect to the penalities for non-compliance? Is it enough that they asked and you refused or do they still get dinged?
 

inthefade

Robin
Orthodox Inquirer
Are you exempted from testing as well or just vaccination? If you aren't testing how does that play out on their end with respect to the penalities for non-compliance? Is it enough that they asked and you refused or do they still get dinged?
Not exempt from testing. They wouldn't budge on that one. Got them to take at-home saliva testing instead of their in-office swab test. If you're talking about the fines and such, I don't see how that that will stand in court.
 

soli.deo.gloria

Woodpecker
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
Not exempt from testing. They wouldn't budge on that one. Got them to take at-home saliva testing instead of their in-office swab test. If you're talking about the fines and such, I don't see how that that will stand in court.
I was told by the HR person I spoke to they would be getting fined $14k per week (or was it day?) if they don't test. I forget exactly. She said the testing was non-negotiable as well.
 

budoslavic

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member




New York Governor Denies Legitimacy Of Religious Exemptions To Vaccine​

  • Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul denied Monday that there are “legitimate religious exemptions” to the COVID-19 vaccine.
  • “There are not legitimate religious exemptions because the leaders of all the organized religions have said there’s no legitimate reason,” the governor said.
  • Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. employers are required to accommodate their employee’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs.
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul denied Monday that there are “legitimate religious exemptions” to the COVID-19 vaccine.

“There are not legitimate religious exemptions because the leaders of all the organized religions have said there’s no legitimate reason,” the governor told reporters during a Monday morning briefing, “and we’re going to win that in court in a matter of days.”

The governor was referring to a lawsuit filed by a group of 17 health professionals represented by the Thomas More Society against New York and Hochul. The lawsuit accused the state of violating Title VII and Constitutional rights through its vaccination mandate and by disavowing religious exemptions.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted a temporary restraining order to the medical workers Sept. 14, barring the New York Department of Health “from interfering in any way with the granting of religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination going forward.”

“What New York is attempting to do is slam shut an escape hatch from an unconstitutional vaccine mandate,” Thomas More Society Special Counsel attorney Christopher Ferrara said in a Sept. 14 statement. “And they are doing this while knowing that many people have sincere religious objections to vaccines that were tested, developed, or produced with cell lines derived from aborted children.”

Thousands of Americans are seeking religious exemptions to vaccine mandates, citing reports that some of the vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cell lines. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. employers are required to accommodate their employee’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs — including potential religious objections to a vaccine.

Earlier in September, Hochul told reporters that she was unaware “of a sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion,” dismissing the idea that healthcare workers could be religiously exempt from the state’s vaccine mandate.



“To the extent that there’s leadership of different religious organizations that have spoken, and they have, I’m not aware of a sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion,” Hochul said. “In fact, they’re encouraging the opposite. They’re encouraging their members, everybody from the Pope on down, is encouraging people to get vaccinated. So people will say what they choose.”

Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Roger Severino told the Daily Caller News Foundation at the time that neither the governor of New York nor or any employer has the authority to tell an individual what he or she believes.

If an employer rebutted the religious objection of a Catholic employee by pointing out that the pope urged Catholics to get vaccinated, Severino told the DCNF, that would amount to religious discrimination.

“For employers to say, ‘you are wrong’ about your own beliefs is a) arrogant and b) discriminatory because people are entitled to their own religious beliefs,” Severino said. “Even if they disagree with their own religious leaders.”

“Public institutions should not act like inquisitorial boards, quizzing people’s religious beliefs and trying to find holes because somebody has a different view of things,” said Severino, who is the former director of the Office of Civil Rights at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “If separation of church and state means anything, it means that state institutions don’t second guess to try to resolve religious truths.”

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance warns that “whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held by an applicant or employee is rarely at issue in many types of Title VII religious claims.

Neither the commission nor the courts should “be in the business of deciding whether a person holds religious beliefs for the ‘proper’ reasons,” the guidance said, but they may examine whether the individual’s motives or reasons for holding the belief.
 

budoslavic

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member

Vaccine Inquisitions? As COVID Vaccination Mandates Increase, Religious Exemptions Come Under Fire​

  • Thousands of Americans are seeking religious exemptions to vaccine mandates.
  • Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. employers are required to accommodate their employee’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs — including potential religious objections to a vaccine.
  • “Public institutions should not act like inquisitorial boards, quizzing people’s religious beliefs and trying to find holes because somebody has a different view of things,” said Roger Severino, former director of the Office of Civil Rights. “If separation of church and state means anything, it means that state institutions don’t second guess to try to resolve religious truths.”
Columbia University’s Robert Klitzman shared a tragic story with CNN Saturday of a woman riddled with cancer who reportedly refused to undergo medical procedures, relied on the power of prayer, and ultimately died.

“Her religious belief contributed to her death, unfortunately,” he said.

Klitzman, who directs Columbia’s bioethics masters program, stressed that employees should not be able to easily obtain religious exemptions from President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates, pointing to the extreme beliefs of jihadists and noting, “there are limits in our society to how far religious beliefs can go.”

He also suggested that the Biden administration should create “guidelines” to decide whether Americans’ religious objections measure up.

“The problem is a lot of religious exemptions that people are claiming…are based on myths,” he said. “People saying, for instance, ‘all vaccines are made using fetal cells, and I’m pro-life.’ That’s simply not true.”

A Biden administration official told the Daily Caller News Foundation Tuesday afternoon that protecting religious Americans “will be part of the policy process,” but did not further explain the remark. From the briefing room, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed that some individuals may receive religious exemptions from the Biden mandate.

But pressure from activists and mandate-minded lawmakers suggests that the religious objections of Americans may face more serious inquisition in the coming weeks.

“How much can we ask? How far can we push? Do we have to accommodate this? Those are the questions employers are trying to figure out,” Society for Human Resource Management adviser Barbara Holland told the New York Times. “How do I tease out who’s not telling the truth?”

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul told reporters in early September that she was unaware “of a sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion,” dismissing the idea that healthcare workers could be religiously exempt from the state’s vaccine mandate.

“To the extent that there’s leadership of different religious organizations that have spoken, and they have, I’m not aware of a sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion,” Hochul said. “In fact, they’re encouraging the opposite. They’re encouraging their members, everybody from the Pope on down, is encouraging people to get vaccinated. So people will say what they choose.”

But neither the governor of New York nor or any employer has the authority to tell an individual what he or she believes, Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Roger Severino told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Should an employer rebut the religious objection of a Catholic employee by noting that the pope had encouraged Catholics to get vaccinated, Severino told the DCNF, that would amount to religious discrimination.

“For employers to say, ‘you are wrong’ about your own beliefs is a) arrogant and b) discriminatory because people are entitled to their own religious beliefs,” Severino said. “Even if they disagree with their own religious leaders.”

Many thousands of Americans are seeking religious exemptions to vaccine mandates, citing reports that some of the vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cell lines. Objectors also cite concerns over the haste with which the vaccines were made, anxieties over the vaccines’ effects on fertility, and distaste for the authoritarian government mandates.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. employers are required to accommodate their employee’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs — including potential religious objections to a vaccine.

“Public institutions should not act like inquisitorial boards, quizzing people’s religious beliefs and trying to find holes because somebody has a different view of things,” said Severino, who is the former director of the Office of Civil Rights at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “If separation of church and state means anything, it means that state institutions don’t second guess to try to resolve religious truths.”

Workplace Religious Accommodations: What Are They?

There is longstanding legal precedent for workplace religious accommodations to be taken as sincere, Religious Freedom & Business Foundation President Brian Grim told the DCNF.

“They are viewed as personal religious convictions rather than ecclesiastical, in other words, matters of conscience rather than doctrine per se, given that there is wide variety in how people put to practice their faiths,” Grim said. “The question then becomes whether the accommodation request puts an undue burden on the employer, who is also protected by law and responsible for the health and well-being of all employees.”

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance warns that “whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held by an applicant or employee is rarely at issue in many types of Title VII religious claims.

“For example,” the guidance said, “with respect to an allegation of discriminatory discharge or harassment, it is the motivation of the discriminating official, not the actual beliefs of the individual alleging discrimination, that is relevant in determining if the discrimination that occurred was because of religion.”

Neither the commission nor the courts should “be in the business of deciding whether a person holds religious beliefs for the ‘proper’ reasons,” the guidance said, but they may examine whether the individual’s motives or reasons for holding the belief. (RELATED: Archdiocese Of Philadelphia Orders Priests Not To Give Catholics Vaccine Exemptions)

An individual would not be deemed insincere in his belief just because he is not scrupulous in his observance, the guidance notes, but an employee’s credibility could be undermined by behaving “in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief,” if the accommodation the individual is seeking would have a “particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons,” if the timing of the religious objection is suspect, or the employer has other reasons to believe the “accommodation is not sought for religious reasons.”

None of these factors are final, however: an individual may inconsistently practice his faith but still hold sincerely held beliefs, or an individual may have “Forgone his or her sincerely held religious practice” out of fear of discrimination, according to the EEOC guidance.

How Far Can The Biden Administration Go?

Legal experts at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) are evaluating what the Biden administration mandates mean for religious employers and churches.

“Should these mandates encroach on the First Amendment freedoms and autonomy of religious institutions, ADF stands ready to challenge the administration in federal court,” ADF President and CEO Michael Farris and General Counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement.

Some have already taken the mandates to court.

In early September, a group of 17 health professionals represented by the Thomas More Society sued New York and Hochul, accusing the state of violating Title VII and Constitutional rights through its vaccination mandate and by disavowing religious exemptions.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted a temporary restraining order to the medical workers Sept. 14, barring the New York Department of Health “from interfering in any way with the granting of religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination going forward.”

Hochul, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF, has until Sept. 22 to respond in court.

“What New York is attempting to do is slam shut an escape hatch from an unconstitutional vaccine mandate,” Thomas More Society Special Counsel attorney Christopher Ferrara said in a Sept. 14 statement. “And they are doing this while knowing that many people have sincere religious objections to vaccines that were tested, developed, or produced with cell lines derived from aborted children.”

Vaccines And Abortion-Derived Cell Lines

Analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) released in December 2020 found that the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson use abortion-derived cell lines in development, production, and lab testing.

Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Novavax, and Inovio use abortion-derived cells in some tests but do not use abortion-derived cells in other tests, the analysis found, but these four do not use abortion-derived cell lines in development or production of the vaccine.

CLI Vice President Dr. David Prentice previously told the DCNF that when abortion-derived cell lines are used in the production of a vaccine, that means the cells are “directly involved in making the final product, the vaccine that is injected in our arms.”

“It is an essential element for the final vaccine,” Prentice said. “Although the connection is distant both in time and space, since the abortion occurred decades ago and the cells have been grown in the lab ever since, that connection to abortion remains and is of concern to many Americans. ”

Laboratory testing using abortion-derived cell lines is potentially less morally problematic, since it is “anther step removed” Prentice said.

“When an abortion-derived cell line is used in laboratory testing, that is not done within the production line,” he explained. “It’s a confirmatory test done on the final vaccine, to validate what the scientists believe they’ve produced.”
 

JustinHS

Sparrow
Orthodox

Vaccine Inquisitions? As COVID Vaccination Mandates Increase, Religious Exemptions Come Under Fire​



This is why I maintain that the fetal cell line route is dumb for religious exemptions. Religion deals with the transcendent and spiritual. If you believe the vac to be a mark, they can’t question your belief about it. If you make falsifiable claims about fetal cell lines, they will falsify it and claim their science supersedes yours.

They can’t falsify that which isn’t a scientific question: religious beliefs. Fetal cell lines is a scientific question and that plays right into their game because you have to remember: They (claim to) f$&@4!g love science.

Drop some prophesies on them. Some Revelation. Some Galatians. Try keeping it religious and you are able to share the Gospel, too.

Also, it’ll help greatly if your employer already knew you are a devout believer. If you act like a vulgar secular person at work, then it would be incongruent to claim to be religious now that these mandates are out.
 
Last edited:

slothpiece

Woodpecker
I am still in DEP awaiting my BMT ship date. At this point of my realized black pill, I await my future with the mandated military jab (among other jabs where I will be used as a subject for test purposes). Thankfully, I have trained for more than a year-and-half for a SW pipeline. My fitness level at 40 surpasses whatever fitness level I was at at 18. If I die, so be it. I was already saved many years ago. I just want to relive my youth in combat while serving my country and enjoy my new fitness level away from a cubicle. Good luck to all of you fighting this bs virus hoax.
 
Last edited:

C-Note

Hummingbird
Gold Member
The globalists and the left are going to go after religious exemptions harder in the future. The globalists don't like it that so many people are requesting them and the left doesn't like it that it's giving renewed validity to religious belief.

As someone pointed out, one of the problems with requesting a religious exemption is that you're indirectly acknowledging that the vaccine mandate is valid and legal. However, requesting religious exemptions does attack the fascists in a different way in that it forces them to acknowledge religious belief as valid and legal.
 

GSlayer09

Chicken
From Robert Barnes website, here is a letter you can send to your employer - rooted in facts:

Dear Boss,

First, I request a religious exemption. "Each of the manufactures of the Covid vaccines currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) For example, each of the currently available Covid vaccines confirmed their vaccine by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-c ovid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. In addition, any coerced medical treatment goes against my religious faith and the right of conscience to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.

Equally, compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns: first, informed consent is the guiding light of all medicine, in accord with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their perceived medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment, education or public accommodations upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment. As one federal court just recently held, the availability of reasonable accommodations like accounting for prior infection, antibody testing, temperature checks, remote work, other forms of testing, and the like suffice to meet any institution’s needs in lieu of masks, public shaming, and forced injections of foreign substances into the body that the FDA admits we do not know the long -term effects of.

For instance, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?

This right to refuse forced injections, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is.



Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/...ance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.

Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,

Employee of the Year,

__________"
 

Mike_Key

Woodpecker
I haven't been given an internet portal or method by which to apply for an exemption. Yet, the bosses will begin asking next week employee's status on the vaccine whether they've had it or not. So there's a deadline looming and the front end system/process is not established. They are unethically squeezing people into a bad position. They are thugs, for sure.

Many companies have legal counsel holding meetings boldly stating that they will soon be releasing documentation on requirements, just to turn around and issue nothing. They are fearful. They know that once they release documentation - many eyes will see and read it. Hopefully this portends (i.e. forecasts) your buying of time after the deadline; should you not be given an exemption. I'm sitting, waiting and prepared for my Office's requests for exemptions by employees. I have prepared a short form and long form version. Also, I'm prepared to get legal representation immediately afterward if they balk at my request.

John 3:16
 

Mike_Key

Woodpecker

Federal Workers, U.S. Service Members Sue Biden Admin Over Vaccine Mandates​

Filed: September 23, 2021


https://www.dailywire.com/news/fede...members-sue-biden-admin-over-vaccine-mandates

"Ten plaintiffs filed a suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington on September 23, seeking for the judge to place an injunction on President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates that cover all federal workers and contractors, as well as all members of the U.S. military."

First that I'm hearing of this lawsuit, hopefully good news follows.

"The lawsuit argues that the mandates violate religious freedom protections in the First Amendment. Both orders grant exemptions for religious and medical reasons if one can qualify, according to the Post.

“Besides its constitutional and statutory claims, the lawsuit, prepared by attorneys in Virginia and San Diego, contains vituperative language for a legal filing, citing the administration’s ‘authoritarian grip’ on the nation and the country’s ‘forty-seven year subjugation’ to Biden’s ‘vapid political career,’” the Post reported."



John 3:16
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
Can't it be won on the basis that Congress (and even that would be challenged) should be the only body that attempts to "mandate" something related to privacy, religion, or protection? Not an EO by a demented president?
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Can't it be won on the basis that Congress (and even that would be challenged) should be the only body that attempts to "mandate" something related to privacy, religion, or protection? Not an EO by a demented president?
Supposedly, the issue with it is that OSHA guidelines fall under a the bureaucratic machinery that the executive branch sets policy and guidelines for thus they can push this sort of malarkey.

While i don't think that logic will hold up, my understanding is that's where this push is being justified from.

Though frankly I would consider this a Tax... But hey... What do i know.
 

JustinHS

Sparrow
Orthodox
Supposedly, the issue with it is that OSHA guidelines fall under a the bureaucratic machinery that the executive branch sets policy and guidelines for thus they can push this sort of malarkey.

While i don't think that logic will hold up, my understanding is that's where this push is being justified from.

Though frankly I would consider this a Tax... But hey... What do i know.

Funny you mention tax. The stamp act was exactly the sort of ‘tax’ that kicked off the first fed post. I recommend this channel. It’s really good:
 

Elipe

Pelican
It’s almost like the Nuremberg Code only applies to the now non-existant governments that lost WW2.
Considering that the Nuremberg Code was literally invented by the prosecutors at the trials, it was never worth anything more than a flimsy excuse to persecute the losers of the war. That's like if you were prosecuted for looking at a black guy wrong and the prosecutor invents a new law during the trial that says that it's illegal to look at black people the wrong way, and the judge allows it and has you convicted under that new law.

If the Code was law, that would make it an ex post facto law, which is outright prohibited by the US Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. The use of the Code by American prosecutors at Nuremberg was literally anti-American in the fullest sense.
 
Top