The Religious Exemption is LOL

Here you go:

"There should be no religious exemptions as it is too frequently abused by liars.
Issue solved."

"I support women making their medical decisions on abortion and trumpers making their medical decision to remain unvaccinated and place themselves at heightened risk of death."

"If they don’t want to get vaccinated they can find a job that aligns with their beliefs. Choice."

First, no exemptions/no choice, then "I support choice" and finally heavy consequences compelling obedience, making "choice" not much of a choice. Having contradicted yourself, you are now resorting to personal attacks. How about keeping abortion legal, but those that have one can never work again unless they have a hysterectomy? That's choice, right?

 

That is a failed analogy — you are wanting to force private private companies to behave a certain way — I am an advocate for choice on the end of the employees and employers.

And let’s please not point fingers to personal attacks after “You have contradicted yourself and are now trying to change the subject. (The dance of the hypocrite)”. Just because you do not comprehend what choice is doesn’t make my position hypocritical.

 

Sorry, but you can no longer honestly claim to advocate for choice unless you retract your previous statements.

 

And you can no longer claim basic reading comprehension unless you retract yours.

 

You did not post anything difficult to comprehend. I quoted you, revealed the inconsistency, and gave you a chance to clarify. Here are your words:

"There should be no religious exemptions as it is too frequently abused by liars.
Issue solved."

"I support women making their medical decisions on abortion and trumpers making their medical decision to remain unvaccinated and place themselves at heightened risk of death."

"If they don’t want to get vaccinated they can find a job that aligns with their beliefs. Choice."

You flip flopped from no choice, to choice, to extreme consequences for the "wrong" choice. Please tell me what I am not comprehending?

 

There are exceptions of course. Like you say, Right to Quit (freedom of association). But there aren't many. Leftists figured out that they can curb free speech by forcing employers to fire a person or cancel their subscriptions via violence, protests, canceling etc etc. In topic with this thread, make a person quit or fire them for not getting a vaccine. All that they have to do is mandate an employer to have only vaccinated people working for them. It would be illegal to force people to get a vaccine if the government were to do it themselves. So....they found a loophole. Make the employer do it.

It's exactly this type of thing that I have previously advocated that Rights should be applied to businesses also. At least the ones in the BoR's. Leftists love to point out that Rights don't apply to businesses. And they're right. They don't. And now they are using that fact to take control in an authoritarian way.

 

False. My position has been for choice.
Choice of employees to refuse masks / vaccinations
Choice of employers to set policy
Choice of women to dictate their bodily autonomy

Maybe the word choice confuses you?

 

Where in this statement is there room for choice?

"There should be no religious exemptions as it is too frequently abused by liars.
Issue solved."

 

Such is the left. If you don’t obey their dictate, you don’t get to feed your family. Stalin would be proud!

 

You're wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Yes, an employee can choose to quit. We don't have slavery after all. But you act as if quitting will have no negative consequence. Although I'm sure that you would acknowledge that it could. But in this case you don't care about those negative consequences.

Let me ask you, do you know the reasoning behind anti-discriminate laws based on skin color? I'm sure you do. If 99% businesses discriminate against a person of color then that would make it to where a person of color would not be able to live even a basic life. Wouldn't be able find a home to live in, wouldn't be able to buy groceries to eat, wouldn't be able to have a job, and many other things.

Now, apply this same reasoning to businesses mandating a vaccine be had vs an employee. Who has the greater power? Who has the chance of being hurt more? Who has the chance of forcing people to do what is demanded? Particularly when it comes to folks who live paycheck to paycheck just to survive.

When thought of this way then there really is no choice allowed the employee. You're literally forcing them to choose between possible starvation and death, or follow the directives of an employer who is being mandated by the government to only have employee's who are vaccinated.

 

Apparently he Post Office is being treated as a private company for the purposes of this mandate, as is apparently pretty common for them in the past. The news coverage that they were exempt was hasty reporters unaware of the PO's particular situation. They have always had an unusual distinction from other federal agencies for some reason that I havn't committed to memory.

Given another poster's example of how easy it is to get a religious exemption (literally just check a box on a form) in some federal agencies (the VA was cited), it might actually be harder now to be exempted as a postal worker than other federal agencies...

 

The employee does not have the ability to force an employer to act a specific way. That is force.

The employer gets to choose the terms of employment for their business and the employee gets to make a choice to make their own medical decisions. If they both agree then they partner together. If they disagree they find someone wanting to partner with them.

I don’t understand what you are not comprehending.

 

The freedom of choice does not mean freedom of consequence. Should employers be forced to hire and keep employers that do not represent their values, yes or no?

There is no choice with skin color.

There are tons of anti-vax employers. And many more that do not care one way of the other. It is fascinating to watch Republicans side with employers on one item of discrimination but then turn against them when it impacts their base.

That is false. I do not agree with government mandates to private businesses but I also do not support government mandates that business be forced to hire specific people.

 

So long as that job doesn't have a hundred or more employees or contracts with the government, unless that job also accepts religious exemptions, in which case, depending on the state, non-religious vaccine opposers will have to lie... or 'convert', I suppose.

 

Here's something interesting.

Pastor Offers to Sign Religious Vaccine Exemptions for Church Donations (businessinsider.com)

 

People are already lying. There is no religious justification for not getting a vaccine.

 

When it comes to keeping them.... What does it matter so long as they do the work? You think every employee of every employer holds the same values as each other? Of course not. And it would be foolish to even think so. Indeed most don't have the same values. But they do the work anyways. Because that is what they're paid to do. Indeed 99.9% of employers DON'T care about their employee's values. They only care that the work gets done. The only time they actually act against an employee because of that employee's values is when the the loud minority screams for them to do something.

As for the part in bold....that is a convenient excuse to ignore whether or not the "consequences" are commiserate with the "crime". One of the Rights that people hold is the Right to not have cruel or unusual punishments inflicted. If you lose your job because of some mandate by an employer, forced upon them by the government (which means the employer has no choice), and as a result you lose your home and can't go shopping at your local grocery store for food...would you consider that "cruel and unusual"? Or does it not matter?

Not able to see the tree's through the forest? Try looking past the words "skin color" and see the actual substance. Insert any other protected class that you want. Religion for example. Then re-read that part and look for the actual substance. Or was this just an attempt to not address it?

1: I'm not Republican. So don't associate me with them. 2: Every situation is different. A person screaming that their employer should die because of a slight should be fired by that employer. A person screaming that there are only two genders should not be fired just because the employer or someone else is offended by it.

And what about firing people? Or forcing them to quit? I can actually agree with you on the hiring part. But firing someone or forcing them to quit? That is a different story.

And while you may not agree with the government mandating its happening. Yet I do not hear a single word from you about it beyond small blurbs like here. You've been awfully silent on Biden issuing this mandate. Indeed, you were completely silent on it here: Joe gets serious | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

 

Because they are not a federal agency and their employees are not Fed employees.

 

My point was that if the po is exempt why not UPS or FedEx or Amazon or other private companies?

 

.

Its not.

 

And yet all but 5 states recognize a religious exemption, and around half or more of those that do extend them to include non-religious philosophical reasons as well. At least for the school vaccines. Time will tell whether those exemptions are similarly applied to employment. This justification you say doesnt exist has been recognized by the law to exist for quite a long time by the majority of the nation.

 

There should be no government because it is too frequently controlled by special interests and criminals.

The government has no lawful authority to tell the citizen what he may not ingest or what he must inject into his body ESPECIALLY when the science shows in this case the injected substance to be poison.

 

My justification is based on logic.
Either everyone should be able to have a “I don’t want to” exemption or no one should — fictional belief in the supernatural should not be given special credibility especially when it is as abused as it currently is.

 

Can you name a single place on Earth that doesn’t have some form of government?

 

That is a fancy way of repeating yourself. You have confused comprehension with agreeing. Your position is not complicated. I am not a religious man, but ones religious beliefs should never be used to deny employment, housing, goods, or services. We will just have to part ways on supporting this type of discrimination.

I suppose an armed robber supports choice as well. "Your money or your life"