If that isn't coercion to take an experimental vaccine i don't know what is.
> You appear to be mad that your “exemption” wasn’t enough to make them pretend you were vaccinated?
I had blood test proof of antibodies but its just about "feel goods".
And they didn't require boosters, just the first 2 doses from over a year ago, so yes its non-sensical and purely political (not based on science).
b) It sounds like your employer did the right thing to balance your rights versus those of the people you work with.
that just means we're experimenting on hundreds of millions in real time. That was the whole point of the "emergency use".
> your rights versus those of the people you work with
no, employees don't have a legal "right" to work in a fully vaccinated office. That would imply that even if an employer wanted to give someone an exemption, then any employee could veto it.
The wording is a telltale sign that the exemption is pure BS.
So yeah, I would prefer beliefs not garner you special privileges
The exemption
> What should be the limit on someone's divine communication and the restrictions upon the government they live under?
None. But your definition of divine communication should not override otherwise unrelated rules.
I would suggest looking into the EEOC regulations mentioned by someone else in this thread and Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act.
Taking covid-related "religious" beliefs seriously only undercuts societal respect for actual religious belief.
You don't understand any of the religious arguments if you think its just because it's a vaccine. It could be because fetal tissue was used in manufacturing these vaccines (they were). There are many other such examples.
Saying "fetal tissue" and "manufacturing" paints rather a different picture.
Also, to be more specific, when we speak of covid vaccines, we're largely talking about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Those specific vaccines did NOT use fetal cell lines in their manufacturing. So now you've gone from being misleading to being flat out wrong.
I understand the pseudo-religious arguments quite well, actually. To that point:
"The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were found to be ethically uncontroversial by the pro-life policy organization the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Further, the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, a committee within the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has stated: "neither Pfizer nor Moderna used an abortion-derived cell line in the development or production of the vaccine. However, such a cell line was used to test the efficacy of both vaccines. Thus, while neither vaccine is completely free from any use of abortion-derived cell lines, in these two cases the use is very remote from the initial evil of the abortion...one may receive any of the clinically recommended vaccines in good conscience with the assurance that reception of such vaccines does not involve immoral cooperation in abortion."
https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20...
It may be that some people aren't professing sincerely held religious beliefs, but if they say they do then as the law is written then it must be respected by their employer. The employer is able to ask some clarifying questions about the religious belief and they only have to provide what would be considered a reasonable accommodation.
The law can certainly be changed but besides the difficulty of the process the implications of allowing the government to gain additional control over what is an acceptable religion sounds like a great way to lead to additional religious pogroms.
[1]: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-1...