LAPD Still Won't Get Vaccinated (contractors, college, requirements)

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by markg91359

When courts are called upon to consider whether a religious exemption to vaccines should be allowed they focus on whether the belief is bonafide or legitimate. The easy cases are the ones where someone has no record of ever having opposed vaccination before. A sudden "belief" that they oppose a particular vaccine would virtually never qualify for the religious exemption. Judges would be looking for "longstanding" evidence of the belief. For example, if you could show that back in 2011, you were writing posts on different forums opposing all vaccination that might be sufficient to get you an exemption based upon religious reasons. If you could show that plus membership in a religious organization that had anti-vax beliefs it would get you there. What is clearly insufficient is a recent belief that is clearly not a belief coming from an organization that you belong too. That would not get you a valid exemption, no matter how adamant that belief was.

Courts plan on taking religious exemption cases on an individual basis and determine themselves if that exemption is legitimate? Good luck with that.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

Courts plan on taking religious exemption cases on an individual basis and determine themselves if that exemption is legitimate? Good luck with that.

Here's a recent case where a federal court denied a religious based exemption to vaccination. What will control the number of these cases is the cost involved in bringing such a lawsuit.


https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sive=1&title=1

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

Courts plan on taking religious exemption cases on an individual basis and determine themselves if that exemption is legitimate? Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by markg91359

Here's a recent case where a federal court denied a religious based exemption to vaccination. What will control the number of these cases is the cost involved in bringing such a lawsuit.


https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sive=1&title=1

I’m under the impression with your previous post that those who qualify for a religious exemption being sued for the legitimacy of their religious exemption. If so, That will bog down the court system. All for what?

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Eye-rolling report reflecting one of the mentalities resisting the vaccines:

Anti-Vaccine Cartoonist Ben Garrison Says He's Got Covid-19, Won't Go to Hospital
“ … Garrison insists that the entire covid-19 pandemic response is really about government control, not public health—a recurring mantra in the covid hoaxer community. He repeated his false claim that vaccines don’t prevent covid-19, ad nauseam. “This is about vaccine passports, tracking, government control and tyranny,” Garrison added.
https://gizmodo.com/anti-vaccine-car...vid-1847749901

Never heard of this individual, but I understand an individuals skepticism of our government. They haven’t demonstrated trustworthiness lately.

Here is another eye rolling report reflecting the mentalities of those who can’t accept not everyone wants the jab.

“An Antifa member with a long history of posting far-left extremist content online has been arrested and charged with the shooting of an anti-vaxxer in Olympia, Wash.

Benjamin Anthony Varela, 36, of Olympia, was arrested on Thursday and charged with first-degree assault while armed with a deadly weapon.

On Sept. 4, a couple dozen Antifa from around the Pacific Northwest traveled to the Washington state Capitol building to try to shut down an anti-COVID vaccine mandate protest. The black-clad group was met by the rally’s volunteer right-wing security, who included Proud Boys members. When the Antifa group ran to the Intercity Transit Station, one of their masked members turned around and fired five 9mm pistol rounds in the direction of the right-wing group, which was about 50 feet behind, according to security footage. Proud Boys member Tusitala Toese was injured in the shooting.

Varela, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, deleted most of his social media accounts before his arrest, but posts still available on Twitter show he corresponded back and forth with the Spokane and Olympia DSA chapters as well as Libcom.org, an anarchist-Communist website. Prior to deleting his Twitter account, his bio read, “professional anarchist, thug, and paid protester.”


https://nypost.com/2021/09/27/antifa...ing-protester/

[(901)]

Originally Posted by markg91359

When courts are called upon to consider whether a religious exemption to vaccines should be allowed they focus on whether the belief is bonafide or legitimate. The easy cases are the ones where someone has no record of ever having opposed vaccination before. A sudden "belief" that they oppose a particular vaccine would virtually never qualify for the religious exemption. Judges would be looking for "longstanding" evidence of the belief. For example, if you could show that back in 2011, you were writing posts on different forums opposing all vaccination that might be sufficient to get you an exemption based upon religious reasons. If you could show that plus membership in a religious organization that had anti-vax beliefs it would get you there. What is clearly insufficient is a recent belief that is clearly not a belief coming from an organization that you belong too. That would not get you a valid exemption, no matter how adamant that belief was.

Or if you have a history of never getting a vaccine in your adult life.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by (901)

Or if you have a history of never getting a vaccine in your adult life.

That would be difficult to prove. Years of healthcare records required, and even then someone could've gotten vaccinated at a business that no longer exists and didn't go through insurance.

[Kid Ashbury]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

If the others are vaccinated, they are safe; unless you’re questioning the efficacy of the vaccine?

Most of the vaxx rats are utterly incapable of squaring this in their heads. When faced with the fact that the "vaccines" do not prevent infection or prevent transmission to others, and are thus not actual effective vaccines, they lash out angrily.

When you realize the vax rat's argument is basically "the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn't protect the protected" it's clear as day that these are not people capable of thinking for themselves.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

85% efficacy isn’t bad. It’s pretty good. Then if you’re safe, why do you care if someone else isn’t vaccinated? The vaccinated employees are safe from the unvaccinated, no?

1) The pandemic will not end if the virus is constantly spreading to many people. That means collective 'punishment' with things like face mask requirements in non-medical settings.
2) No vaccine that I know of is 85% effective against the Delta variant 6 months in. I think only Moderna peaks at that level, a few months in.

[(901)]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

That would be difficult to prove. Years of healthcare records required, and even then someone could've gotten vaccinated at a business that no longer exists and didn't go through insurance.

When did businesses start administering vaccines? Regardless I've never worked for anyone but myself

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by Kid Ashbury

Most of the vaxx rats are utterly incapable of squaring this in their heads. When faced with the fact that the "vaccines" do not prevent infection or prevent transmission to others, and are thus not actual effective vaccines, they lash out angrily.

When you realize the vax rat's argument is basically "the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn't protect the protected" it's clear as day that these are not people capable of thinking for themselves.

Yup, pretzel logic. It’s baffling.