Supreme Court Rejects Case Worker Denied Jobless Benefits After Refusing Vaccine

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Supreme Court rejects case from fired worker denied jobless benefits after refusing vaccine

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the appeal of a Minnesota woman who said she was wrongly denied unemployment benefits after being fired for refusing to be vaccinated for COVID-19 because of her religious beliefs.

The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development determined she wasn?t eligible for benefits because her reasons for refusing the vaccine were based less on religion and more on a lack of trust that the vaccine was effective.

The case shows that the vaccine debate continues to smolder after the pandemic and after the Supreme Court in 2022 halted enforcement of a Biden administration vaccine-or-testing mandate for large employers but declined to hear a challenge to the administration?s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care facilities that receive federal funding...

Goede's lawyers said her case presented a question that will reoccur: how to analyze a religious objection to an employer policy when those objections coincide with secular beliefs.

[jeremiah12]

She lost her case because her claim for refusual was based on religious beliefs.

She is a Catholic and her religious beliefs prohibit her from injecting foreign substances into her body, which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Another reason for rejecting the vaccine is it was tested on a fetal cell line that came from an aborted fetus several decades ago. She is opposed to abortions as a Catholic.

She voided those claims though when she admitted in court to having received vaccines, even after she was fired. So she has no problem with injecting foreign substances into her body.

All modern vaccines are tested on aborted fetal cell lines before they go into clinical trials, so she did not have a problem with that when she received her other vaccines. She also admitted to taking other prescription drugs that were tested on aborted fetal cell lines, so that also showed that she did not have a sincerely held religious belief.

She also admitted in court that she believed the COVID vaccine just plain did not work and she just was not going to take it even if she was not a Catholic.

The company she worked for had given a religious exemption to others that could clearly show a sincere religious belief, including not getting other vaccines. Those using the anti-abortiong religious belief could also demonstrate they did not use medications that are tested on fetal cell lines.

She lost because it was proven in court she did not have a sincerely held religious belief. If she wanted to work for the company, she had to get the vaccine or meet the Constitution standard of a sincerely held religious belief for the exemption. She failed on both accounts and was fired for cause.

So she was rightfully denied unemployment benefits. Why would SCOTUS take up the case?

You need to read the entire article and do a bit of research to find all the information to realize this is a huge waste of time.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...You need to read the entire article and do a bit of research to find all the information to realize this is a huge waste of time.

I did read the whole thing.

Remember, there were a whole lot of machinations at the time in terms of finding ways not to comply with vaccine mandates. Many of us who were still somewhat 'even tempered' about the whole thing objected to forced vaccination and having to go through such machinations to keep a job. Forced? While there is some debate, the reality is that many, even most, didn't have a perceived choice when it came to keeping their job and feeding their families. (You can go back and read the threads where it was 'debated.')

The point was the last one I quoted from the article...

Goede's lawyers said her case presented a question that will reoccur: how to analyze a religious objection to an employer policy when those objections coincide with secular beliefs.

This was the question actually presented in the appeal...

Where an unemployment applicant's religious beliefs are independently sufficient to cause her refusal to follow an employer policy, can a state deny her unemployment benefits by holding that philosophical and personal beliefs outweigh her religious beliefs?

It's a fine line at times. In fact, from the case linked in the OP...

Goede has held these beliefs for "20 years." App. 79a. For ten years, she has researched medical interventions she considers receiving and routinely verifies whether they involve materials derived from abortion before receiving them. See App. 82a-83a. In fact, she stopped taking over-the-counter painkillers ten years ago because she came to believe they were tested on cell lines from an aborted fetus. Id. Goede testified that she would only ever use a substance tested on or derived from aborted-fetal-cell lines to prevent her death. App. 80a.

So... By your and the judge's reasoning, it is all or nothing at all. By her reasoning, there is some nuance. As a result, the decision was a 'balancing act' vis interpolation setting her religious beliefs against what was deemed her secular reasoning.

Since you appear to have 'missed' it, that is the real question here. Take a look at the testimony...

The Court: Sure. So well, that one you said was okay to take, why, why would a COVID19 vaccine never be okay to take regardless of its development?

Tina Goede: Because the vaccine doesn't work.
. . . .

The Court: So it's just COVID vaccines just don't work period?

Tina Goede: The vaccine has killed more people than it's saving and I haven't had the vaccination and I had COVID once. More people that have been vaccinated have gotten COVID multiple times. It doesn't work. What's the point?

App. 92a-93a.

The Court: Sure. But if the vaccine worked, would you take it?

Tina Goede: No.

The Court: And why not?

Tina Goede: Because COVID is the flu, it's just like the flu, I never, I, I haven't had a flu shot since way before the days before I knew what was involved in that.

How many of us have argued exactly the same thing? (Bear in mind there are reasons I refer to it as a "so-called 'vaccine'" in that it doesn't appear to be based on the standard used for decades.) But, this "all or nothing" premise would leave us in the same boat...

Despite this Court's warning that reviewing courts have a narrow function in determining religious sincerity, the ULJ found a way around that. He couched his denial of benefits in Ms. Goede's credibility and then discounted her religious beliefs by determining that her secular beliefs outweighed them.

The ULJ went so far as to state, as a reason for decision, that Goede had a "notably broad view and appears disingenuous when looking at the facts as a whole." App. 35a. Then, as if charged with determining the validity of Goede's religious beliefs, as opposed to whether they are sincerely held, the ULJ decreed: "This is not a central tenant [sic] or unchangeable dogma. It is not a religious principle." Id.

As a result, the ULJ concluded that Goede did not have a credible religious reason to abstain from the vaccines and found that Goede's reasons were "a personal belief not rooted in religion." Id.

It's something we've discussed before on this site; i.e., the way the courts, employers, the government, et al. use "credibility determinations"...to determine sincerity of belief.

Is it strictly a religious belief case? Probably not. However, the sense I have is that what is being sought is 'guidance' even more than a 'favorable' decision...

Petitioner Goede thus respectfully asks this Court to grant certiorari to resolve this growing conflict and uncertainty and hold that the sincerity analysis under Thomas and the First Amendment stops where a court identifies a religious belief independently sufficient to motivate an unemployment-benefits applicant's vaccine refusal.

[jeremiah12]

This is the link to the Court of Appeals Minnesota Ruling that contains the full testimony of Goede which was highly contradictory.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mn-court-of-appeals/2204436.html

She explained that her “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, ․ so vaccines that contain neurotoxins, hazardous substances, viruses, animal parts, foreign DNA, any of that, blood carcinogens, chemical waste is very harmful to [her] body.” She testified that her religion prevents her from getting “[s]ome vaccines depending what they're made out of,” such as fetal cell lines or tissue. She testified that she has not had any vaccinations as an adult except the tetanus vaccination. Asked how she determines whether she can take a medication or vaccine, Goede testified that she researches it. But Goede also testified that she did not research whether fetal cell lines or tissue have been used in relation to the tetanus vaccination.

The tetanus vaccine does inject the tetanus neurotoxin into your body along with parts of the tetanus bacteria (I guess that is technically not an animal). But, she has no problem ingesting foreign DNA in the foods she eats, be it from plants or animals, unless she only eats things things likes rocks and dirt that were made from stuff that had never lived previously. Of course, she must be a vegan, she does not put animal parts into her Temple to the Holy Spirit (I doubt that very much--look at her picture--she is stuffing that temple with all sorts of garbage food and by the looks of it as often as she can).

FYI, the newer versions of the tetanus vaccines have been tested on fetal cells that came from a fetus aborted in the early 70s. It is the same cell line that that nearly all modern vaccines and 99% of all pharmaceuticals are tested on. It is much safer than starting out on humans. It is called the HEK-293 cell line. It is a standardized practice.

I read an article from an attorney that specialized in defending workers seeking religious exemptions when the vax mandates were just starting. He wrote that one had to be very careful with using the religious belief of being anti-abortion because if your employer provides your health insurance, they also have access to the list of medications your have been prescribed and any previous vaccinations you have had. The insurance company hands that information over at least once a year when they are negotiating rates for the upcoming year. If there are employees that are costing the insurance company more than their overall average, they will raise rates higher than they do for other employers or just drop coverage all together. If they are paying out less than average, then they will not raise rates as much.

The employers do retain this information and can use it when deciding to grant a religious waiver. Most of the time, they do not because their is only one or two asking for it. With the COVID vaccine, a significant number of employees were expected to ask for it and there were lots of sites on the Web telling people what to say to get it and what religious group to become a member of if they were not religious so they could claim the exemption. So expect employers to follow previous guidance that SCOTUS had set down and look for evidence of sincerely held beliefs.

There can be some discrepancies, but overall, not so many that it appears you are only rejecting the COVID vax because you just do not want it but have accepted other vaccines and other mainstream medical treatments that contradict the religious beliefs you now claim prevent you from getting the COVID vax.

Goede explained that she would use medications that had been developed using fetal cell lines if it were a matter of “life or death.” She testified that she has a blood-clotting disorder that caused her to have a pulmonary embolism. She stated that she has taken Eliquis regularly for the last 20 years to prevent another embolism. She acknowledged she did not research whether Eliquis involved the use of fetal cell lines because taking Eliquis was “necessary.” She stated:

Wait, so she will use pharmaceuticals developed or tested using aborted fetal cell tissues if it is a matter of her life or death. So, she would kill a baby if it meant she could live or the belief is not as strong as she claims. It turns out the Pope stated their are moral exceptions since the deed was already done. It is a good thing also, over 99% of all medications, even aspirin which has been around for nearly 200 years, has been tested more recently on aborted fetal cells.

In her testimony, she stated that she researches if a vaccine is made from or tested on fetal cell lines before she decides if she will get it. This is why she will not get the COVID vax. She admitted under oath also she has not gotten any other vaccine except the tetanus vaccine and she had not researched the tetanus vaccine.

Had I been on the court, I would have asked three other questions. Why have you not gotten any other vaccines besides the tetanus vaccine? Why did you get the tetanus vaccine? Why did you not research the tetanus vaccine?

Here answers might have swayed me to her side but they way she answered other questions and per poor reasoning to the other questions leads me to believe my conclusion is correct, she was attempting to use the religious exemption to avoid the covid vax, not because she had a real religious conviction that it was wrong.

If it was a real secular reason, that is great and more power to her. She can protest by not getting it. But she also has to suffer the consequences, if it is a job requirement, then her employer can fire her. Her employer needed her to be vaxxed because her job duties required her to go to different hospitals and medical facilities to do what a sales rep does. She could not enter these places without being vaccinated. She was not an employee of the businesses she was entering and they had every right to deny her entry. So, her employer was being asked to pay her to sit in the office and do nothing.

Even the ADA does not require an employer to accommodate that.

My sincerely held religious belief makes it extremely difficult for me to work with those of the Muslim faith. I am a teacher working at a school that has a significant number of refugees from Pakistan and Afghanistan (LGB) but I cannot get a religious exemption that allows me to exclude them from my classroom. I could legally be fired if I asked for it. So I have to decide, can I do my job in spite of my religious beliefs. I can.

With the COVID vax, I was able to a medical exemption due to an allergy. My religious belief allows vaccines so I could not ask for that. But, I had to do a COVID test every day before school in the office with an administrator present. This was even after I contracted COVID, twice. My district required all students to be vaccinated and those that were had to stay at home and do distance learning. No parents sued and it was generally accepted. This lasted for a year until Newscum rescinded the order that all had to be vaccinated.

Goede sealed her fate with this exchange:

At one point during the hearing, the ULJ asked whether Goede would ever be willing to take a COVID-19 vaccine if it was “developed without the use of fetal cells in any way.” Goede answered no and stated: “I don't take vaccinations.” The ULJ reminded her that she has received the tetanus vaccination and asked, “[W]hy would a COVID-19 vaccine never be okay to take regardless of its development?” Goede responded: “Because the vaccine doesn't work.” She continued: “The vaccine has killed more people than it's saving and I haven't had the vaccination and I had COVID once. More people that have been vaccinated have gotten COVID multiple times. It doesn't work. What's the point?” And she said: “If I was on my deathbed I wouldn't take it because it doesn't work.” The following colloquy between the ULJ and Goede then ensued:

So, even if the vaccine had been developed without using fetal cells, and even if she were on her deathbed, she would still not take it.

She would not get it because it was developed with fetal cells, but she is willing to get the tetanus vaccine not knowing if it was developed or tested on fetal cells (it is) presumably because for her, it is a matter of life or death. She takes her medication to prevent another embolism not knowing if it was testing on fetal cells (it was) but that does not matter because it is a matter of her life or death. But she will not ever get the Covid vax even on not tested on fetal cells, even one shown to be safe and effective, even if it was a matter of life and death, because they do not work, none of them do, even any future ones that might be developed.

Wow, she is psychic and can see the future. She also knows that the vaccine has killed more people than it has saved.

Wow, if that were true, over 40% of the US population would have died by now because about 80% of the US population received the vax. I know the number of COVID related deaths reported by the CDC was over reported as a scare tactic and the severity and extent of the side effects were under reported to hide the truth from the public. There is no way to hid the death of 40% of the US population though; that would have a huge economic impact.

There were many other glaring inconsistencies in Goede's testimony.

This was a bad case. She made a fatal error, she did not keep her mouth shut.

If you read her attorney's reply supporting certiorari, he even admits she suffered diarrhea of the mouth. He brought up another case before the same Minnesota Appeals Court in an unpublished ruling (Benish) where the court overturned the ULJ and awarded unemployment benefits because Benish did not testify to any personal reasons for refusing the COVID vax. He consistently testified that his reasons for refusing it were religious. The ULJ had ruled Benish had made his decision based on personal reasons and not religious reasons.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-665/303364/20240319112740284_240307a%20Reply%20for%20efiling.pdf

So, had Goede stayed on topic and strayed to the vax does not work and will never work so I will never get it no matter what, she would have prevailed.

Had she answered yes, I would get it if one was developed without using fetal cells and was also proven safe and effective and not made of mRNA. she would have prevailed, even had she testified I would make an exception in the case of life or death.

Her attorney was not very good. He did not prepare her at all.

When I had a legal issue and had to appear before an administrative law judge to challenge an action brought against me by a principal, I was well prepared.

I did not use the attorney provided by the union. I hired the best and most experienced attorney in the field. There are two attorneys in my family and they made it clear, you hire the best as the money spent is well worth it.

I knew what I would be asked and how to answer to stay on topic. I knew to also not volunteer extra information. I also knew if I was unsure exactly of what was being asked, I could ask for clarification or to ask for the question to be rephrased. I also waited at least 10 seconds before answering. That gave me think time and gave me time to look at my attorney and see if she was going to say something first. Once she nodded at me, then I knew it was okay to answer.

I prevailed because I showed she did not have just cause to fire me for insubordination and I had followed state education code and state law in how I handled the situation with the student. I did not spend a lot of time explaining my story. I just provided the facts.

The ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals summed it up nicely, her testimony in its totality, made it clear that her objection was clearly based on secular reasoning and had very little to do with her religious beliefs. She was quick to compromise her religious beliefs for just about every other thing in her life.

As a Christian, but not a Catholic, there are many things I do not do and many things I do. I am much more consistent that she is.

Finally, something not mentioned in any of the briefs but it would take a little Google-fu and a few contacts. My son currently works for the FDA as an inspector. But Tina Goede is currently working for Colgate Oral Pharmaceuticals in Hannover, Minnesota. She had to get the vax in order to get hired for that job because she is a rep that visits dental offices. The job description for her position required the vax. Since it was part of the job description to apply and be hired for, a religious exemption is not allowed. Religious exemptions are only for jobs that you already have and then a new regulation is put in place or you convert to a new religious view.

She obviously changed her mind about the vax. She also has contacts in the FDA and would need proof of vaccination to enter their lab facilities.

That would be something hard to hide if SCOTUS took the case. I really do not know what she is thinking.

[AWE]

Disturbing how anyone can support medical rape. The entire system was exposed by the fraudulent pandemic. Displaying it is flawed and failing the rights of the people. Questioning a person's faith is not allowed in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Nothing you stated was factual only biased and based on what people in power want other people to read.

In fact, here is proof of how you should not rely on facts search "COVID 666" in Google images to display the Luciferian code of news outlets and numbers that display their stats.

Those stats are 99.9% printed worldwide and flip that percentage number upside down you should get the point.

You can't bite your tongue on judgment day I respect anyone who stands for their faith over wicked rulers in power who want to be higher than the most high. Which is one of the devil's sins. Even a company was started by a high-ranking power Higher Ground Productions. Wonder why!

You can be religious and also have a view of the vaccine and COVID being more about power and politics. It appears the court and people are finding a way to make an excuse to run over your rights and say you can't be religious and have a personal view.

High-powered attorneys bought and paid for using black and white letters won't save your soul in an argument with the father. In fact, I hope you get on your knees and ask for forgiveness in these last days. Make it quick you may not have another chance after the boat sails its all about your works after that.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...The ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals summed it up nicely, her testimony in its totality, made it clear that her objection was clearly based on secular reasoning and had very little to do with her religious beliefs. She was quick to compromise her religious beliefs for just about every other thing in her life.

As a Christian, but not a Catholic, there are many things I do not do and many things I do. I am much more consistent that she is.

Finally, something not mentioned in any of the briefs but it would take a little Google-fu and a few contacts. My son currently works for the FDA as an inspector. But Tina Goede is currently working for Colgate Oral Pharmaceuticals in Hannover, Minnesota. She had to get the vax in order to get hired for that job because she is a rep that visits dental offices. The job description for her position required the vax. Since it was part of the job description to apply and be hired for, a religious exemption is not allowed. Religious exemptions are only for jobs that you already have and then a new regulation is put in place or you convert to a new religious view.

She obviously changed her mind about the vax. She also has contacts in the FDA and would need proof of vaccination to enter their lab facilities.

That would be something hard to hide if SCOTUS took the case. I really do not know what she is thinking.

So... She didn't use an 'expensive' lawyer. She's not the best 'witness' in her own defense. She chose to continue 'making a living' instead of holding firm. (Remember what I said about "forced.") Therefore, she's not 'entitled' to... Uh...

As I said, it likely isn't, strictly, a religious belief case. However, the sense I have is that what is being sought is 'guidance' even more than a 'favorable' decision. Guidance? Where is the line to be drawn between making a living and mandated vaccination?

If you want to make it about 'absolutes,' then what you really need to be talking about is where the line needs to be drawn in terms of government/employer demands in relation to an indeterminate (such as COVID was a couple of years ago), an individual's right to choose, and how that is arrived at. As I also said, that seems to be as much what the appeal was asking for as it was about a 'favorable' ruling. It's also something which SCOTUS 'punted' on, deferring to what, at best, were 'questionable' determinations being put out and what many feel were 'coercive' machinations on the part of Government to implement them.

One of the key aspects you are ignoring is that mRNA vaccines were never approved for use, even with COVID. They were put out as part of an EUA. So...

There can be some discrepancies, but overall, not so many that it appears you are only rejecting the COVID vax because you just do not want it but have accepted other vaccines and other mainstream medical treatments that contradict the religious beliefs you now claim prevent you from getting the COVID vax.

...as I also noted, there were a whole lot of machinations at the time in terms of finding ways not to comply with vaccine mandates; machinations which should not have needed to have been employed.

For me, that is the crux of this case. It's not so much whether it was a 'bad case' insofar as religious exemptions and 'sincerely held belief.' It was about whether such a rationale should have been 'forced' on individuals as a means to an end.

I get that many, including yourself, prefer 'concrete or bright lines.' Truth be told, so do I. However, this is one of those times when such was not viewed by many as available. Unlike actual Science, the options in this circumstance were not as clear as they should have been. Some of that was deliberate, which is why I have continually observed the 'muddled messaging.' Some of that was the nature of the beast.

It's comforting to 'judge' from your own perspective as to what someone else should or shouldn't do. But, that was the nature of the question being asked. When determining the 'credibility' and 'sincerity' of a belief, how far can an employer go? When it comes to something like 'religion,' it's not difficult to establish 'contradictions' as belief is a nebulous term in that it is solely based on the individual's acceptance of something as true or the level of confidence the individual has that it is.

As a result, 'inconsistency' is an imprecise metric in that someone's level of confidence, even a true scientist's, can ebb and flow over time. So too can a rationale. Just like her current employment circumstance. She may not have 'changed her mind about the' so-called 'vaccine.' What she may have changed her mind about is 'risk vs. reward.' Why? Because if you're not making money, you're not able to 'properly' tend to your needs. If 'everywhere' you go seeking employment, you are being asked about your vaccination status, there comes a point where one can feel compelled to comply.

This comes under the same heading as...

My sincerely held religious belief makes it extremely difficult for me to work with those of the Muslim faith. I am a teacher working at a school that has a significant number of refugees from Pakistan and Afghanistan (LGB) but I cannot get a religious exemption that allows me to exclude them from my classroom. I could legally be fired if I asked for it. So I have to decide, can I do my job in spite of my religious beliefs. I can.

There are many who could not reconcile their religious beliefs with their secular duties. You can. Okay. But, what if...???

With the COVID vax, I was able to a medical exemption due to an allergy. My religious belief allows vaccines so I could not ask for that. But, I had to do a COVID test every day before school in the office with an administrator present. This was even after I contracted COVID, twice. My district required all students to be vaccinated and those that were had to stay at home and do distance learning. No parents sued and it was generally accepted. This lasted for a year until Newscum rescinded the order that all had to be vaccinated.

There are actually few denominations which don't 'allow' for certain things which individuals find objectionable. There are many individual beliefs which are 'inconsistent' with denominational tenets. Such is not the metric used for being part of a denomination. However, it is the source of many debates within the memberships.

You had an avenue (or two) allowing you an 'out.' Did she? What the ADA requires is 'reasonable accommodation.' Could what you didn't quote be worked into such? From the link you provided...

[I]t's necessary in my view [because] if I don't do anything and I can have another clot and die tomorrow․ Because I know there's nothing natural that I can take to prevent this from happening. I always go the natural route first, and if there isn't anything [then] I have a conversation, and I make sure that what the conversation that I have is, is worth doing what I either need to do or have to do, then that's the only time that I would ever go against my religion.

Not everyone has a 'bright line' in terms of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Certainly, she didn't appear to. However, 'consistency' isn't necessarily tied to 'bright lines' in terms of the decisions ultimately made. It would seem that she was attempting to be consistent in terms of how she was making decisions, not in what the decisions were. As I said, by your and the judge's reasoning, it is all or nothing at all; i.e., a case of black and white. By her reasoning and metric, there is some nuance.

Can both be 'sincerely held beliefs?'

I'm glad I didn't have the same pressures in terms of the decision I made. Were there personal costs involved for me? Yes. Do you and the rest of the readers need to know what they were? No. Were they as significant to me as those she was confronted with? I'm not in a position to make that evaluation. Let's just say that I would rather not have had to make the decision and live with the consequences, especially given that there continues to be legitimate questions as to whether the 'decision' to get the so-called 'vaccine' was even necessary given the likelihood that I had contracted COVID before testing was even available and, thus, had a certain level of natural immunity.

There's also the fact that the machinations continue, on both sides, in terms of 'vaccine mandates.' For instance, an 82 year old woman I know in long-term care had what was likely COVID (along with her husband) at roughly the same time I did; i.e., before testing was available. When she was placed in long-term care, her husband authorized giving her a COVID 'vaccine' as it was purported to be the best case scenario; natural immunity coupled with 'vaccine' induced immunity.

Long story, shorter... The reason she is in long-term care is that she lost her competency. She doesn't have dementia and isn't senile, but she has trouble holding on to things at times; including whether it is morning or evening. Her husband died and the son is, supposedly, here medical/legal proxy. When he denied the facility's request to give her a 'booster,' believing that she had the 'best' protection, that she had tested 'positive' a couple of times, but had been asymptomatic, and that a 'booster' was not necessary so soon. The facility had the doctor declare her 'competent,' ran in, explained things rapidly (which she couldn't follow), hauled her off, gave her the booster, and she ended up in the hospital a few days later with an 'infection' which took away most of her cognition for awhile. (From what I can observe, she's never gotten back to where she was at before the 'booster.' But, that could be tied to a variety of things.)

According to the son, she didn't know what she'd been given or why and when he confronted staff, they got 'huffy' until they found out he had not been informed (and neither had she) that the doctor had declared her competent. That's not 'informed consent.' I never got the end story as to whether she is still deemed 'competent' or if they will be asking the son about any further 'boosters;' but, she is now 'paranoid' about ANY medications, particularly injections, and it's not helping in terms of her comfort levels with the care she requires. Neither is it instilling 'confidence' in her family; but, they don't have a lot of options in terms of exploring alternatives.

So... When you say that you don't know what she was thinking in this case, bear in mind that many don't get the 'thought process' behind a lot of what has been going on. Even some of those involved in the decision-making don't entirely get it either. But, to my way of thinking, that begs the question as to whether this was a case of 'poor reasoning' and whether she should have had to seek a 'religious' exemption or if the 'mandates' should have been allowed in the first place?

You want a black & white introduced into something which, to this day, is a 'grey area.'

[stonefly-2]

Very astute observations on the Supreme Courts specific rationale for rejecting the case.

The fact remains though that it was an opportunity for them to render justice and they did not.

Hopefully they just want a cleaner case.

[AWE]

It is an unfortunate outcome due to the pandemic nonsense worldwide which are "Crimes against humanity".

Religious freedom is absolute in our U.S. laws. Even if they resurrect an old word "Mandate" to attempt the application of eugenics and evil powers to overrule business and health rules globally. Nothing has stopped SCOTUS from applying religious freedom until COVID and they need to step in to stop the madness.

Those in power will continue the nonsense to override written religious scriptures written 2000 years ago such as the mark of the beast in Revelation 13:18

Congress is already at it here today with H.R.666 - 118th Congress (2023-2024). Setting up the infrastructure and funding to control those with and without the mark.

Simple math and religious scriptures in the best-selling book of all time. can elaborate. Some say it holds the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth (BIBLE).
3/3 = 1 (Mind, Body, Holy Spirit in soul).
2/3 = .666 (Mind, Body, No Holy Spirit in soul).


It is a miracle that a 2000-year-old book tells us the future today and tomorrow.

[Dan_Eastvale]

I still believe private industry should have been forced to stop mandating that vax. Get it voluntarily if one likes but do nothing when an employee refuses it.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I still believe private industry should have been forced to stop mandating that vax. Get it voluntarily if one likes but do nothing when an employee refuses it.

It wasn't just about 'private industry' and its requirements. It was about how the Government fed and even 'compelled' the requirements in some ways.

From 2020... Can COVID-19 Vaccines Be Mandatory in the U.S. and Who Decides?

2021... Executive Order on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees

2022... Vaccine Mandates: What to Know

2022... Ethics and Effectiveness of US COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Vaccination Passports: A Review

2022... Who Calls the Shots? A Legal and Historical Perspective on Vaccine Mandates

The short version is that government can't necessarily hogtie you and force an injection. However, it can make your life very complicated if you don't get one; particularly at the state and local levels. SCOTUS has been on differing sides of the argument over time; but, did attempt a 'compromise' of sorts...

2022... A Look at the Supreme Court Ruling on Vaccination Mandates

Let's just say it's a complicated issue, which is why I feel the case this thread is discussing was intended as much to achieve 'guidance' as it was to attain a 'favorable outcome.'

My personal view?

As I have said previously, if you feel better/safer getting the so-called 'vaccine,' more power to ya.

Just don't compel me to do likewise.

[jeremiah12]

So... She didn't use an 'expensive' lawyer. She's not the best 'witness' in her own defense. She chose to continue 'making a living' instead of holding firm. (Remember what I said about "forced.") Therefore, she's not 'entitled' to... Uh...

As I said, it likely isn't, strictly, a religious belief case. However, the sense I have is that what is being sought is 'guidance' even more than a 'favorable' decision. Guidance? Where is the line to be drawn between making a living and mandated vaccination?

If you want to make it about 'absolutes,' then what you really need to be talking about is where the line needs to be drawn in terms of government/employer demands in relation to an indeterminate (such as COVID was a couple of years ago), an individual's right to choose, and how that is arrived at. As I also said, that seems to be as much what the appeal was asking for as it was about a 'favorable' ruling. It's also something which SCOTUS 'punted' on, deferring to what, at best, were 'questionable' determinations being put out and what many feel were 'coercive' machinations on the part of Government to implement them.

One of the key aspects you are ignoring is that mRNA vaccines were never approved for use, even with COVID. They were put out as part of an EUA. So...



...as I also noted, there were a whole lot of machinations at the time in terms of finding ways not to comply with vaccine mandates; machinations which should not have needed to have been employed.

For me, that is the crux of this case. It's not so much whether it was a 'bad case' insofar as religious exemptions and 'sincerely held belief.' It was about whether such a rationale should have been 'forced' on individuals as a means to an end.

I get that many, including yourself, prefer 'concrete or bright lines.' Truth be told, so do I. However, this is one of those times when such was not viewed by many as available. Unlike actual Science, the options in this circumstance were not as clear as they should have been. Some of that was deliberate, which is why I have continually observed the 'muddled messaging.' Some of that was the nature of the beast.

It's comforting to 'judge' from your own perspective as to what someone else should or shouldn't do. But, that was the nature of the question being asked. When determining the 'credibility' and 'sincerity' of a belief, how far can an employer go? When it comes to something like 'religion,' it's not difficult to establish 'contradictions' as belief is a nebulous term in that it is solely based on the individual's acceptance of something as true or the level of confidence the individual has that it is.

As a result, 'inconsistency' is an imprecise metric in that someone's level of confidence, even a true scientist's, can ebb and flow over time. So too can a rationale. Just like her current employment circumstance. She may not have 'changed her mind about the' so-called 'vaccine.' What she may have changed her mind about is 'risk vs. reward.' Why? Because if you're not making money, you're not able to 'properly' tend to your needs. If 'everywhere' you go seeking employment, you are being asked about your vaccination status, there comes a point where one can feel compelled to comply.

This comes under the same heading as...



There are many who could not reconcile their religious beliefs with their secular duties. You can. Okay. But, what if...???



There are actually few denominations which don't 'allow' for certain things which individuals find objectionable. There are many individual beliefs which are 'inconsistent' with denominational tenets. Such is not the metric used for being part of a denomination. However, it is the source of many debates within the memberships.

You had an avenue (or two) allowing you an 'out.' Did she? What the ADA requires is 'reasonable accommodation.' Could what you didn't quote be worked into such? From the link you provided...



Not everyone has a 'bright line' in terms of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Certainly, she didn't appear to. However, 'consistency' isn't necessarily tied to 'bright lines' in terms of the decisions ultimately made. It would seem that she was attempting to be consistent in terms of how she was making decisions, not in what the decisions were. As I said, by your and the judge's reasoning, it is all or nothing at all; i.e., a case of black and white. By her reasoning and metric, there is some nuance.

Can both be 'sincerely held beliefs?'

I'm glad I didn't have the same pressures in terms of the decision I made. Were there personal costs involved for me? Yes. Do you and the rest of the readers need to know what they were? No. Were they as significant to me as those she was confronted with? I'm not in a position to make that evaluation. Let's just say that I would rather not have had to make the decision and live with the consequences, especially given that there continues to be legitimate questions as to whether the 'decision' to get the so-called 'vaccine' was even necessary given the likelihood that I had contracted COVID before testing was even available and, thus, had a certain level of natural immunity.

There's also the fact that the machinations continue, on both sides, in terms of 'vaccine mandates.' For instance, an 82 year old woman I know in long-term care had what was likely COVID (along with her husband) at roughly the same time I did; i.e., before testing was available. When she was placed in long-term care, her husband authorized giving her a COVID 'vaccine' as it was purported to be the best case scenario; natural immunity coupled with 'vaccine' induced immunity.

Long story, shorter... The reason she is in long-term care is that she lost her competency. She doesn't have dementia and isn't senile, but she has trouble holding on to things at times; including whether it is morning or evening. Her husband died and the son is, supposedly, here medical/legal proxy. When he denied the facility's request to give her a 'booster,' believing that she had the 'best' protection, that she had tested 'positive' a couple of times, but had been asymptomatic, and that a 'booster' was not necessary so soon. The facility had the doctor declare her 'competent,' ran in, explained things rapidly (which she couldn't follow), hauled her off, gave her the booster, and she ended up in the hospital a few days later with an 'infection' which took away most of her cognition for awhile. (From what I can observe, she's never gotten back to where she was at before the 'booster.' But, that could be tied to a variety of things.)

According to the son, she didn't know what she'd been given or why and when he confronted staff, they got 'huffy' until they found out he had not been informed (and neither had she) that the doctor had declared her competent. That's not 'informed consent.' I never got the end story as to whether she is still deemed 'competent' or if they will be asking the son about any further 'boosters;' but, she is now 'paranoid' about ANY medications, particularly injections, and it's not helping in terms of her comfort levels with the care she requires. Neither is it instilling 'confidence' in her family; but, they don't have a lot of options in terms of exploring alternatives.

So... When you say that you don't know what she was thinking in this case, bear in mind that many don't get the 'thought process' behind a lot of what has been going on. Even some of those involved in the decision-making don't entirely get it either. But, to my way of thinking, that begs the question as to whether this was a case of 'poor reasoning' and whether she should have had to seek a 'religious' exemption or if the 'mandates' should have been allowed in the first place?

You want a black & white introduced into something which, to this day, is a 'grey area.'

Ultimately, we all have to make choices. The one Constitutional Right we do not have is the right to work for someone under our rules. If you want to dictate the terms of your employment, then you need to become self-employed.

If you read her testimony and answers, she made it very clear, she absolutely refused the vax because it did not work. She would not take it even if one was available that was developed and tested on a cell line that was not derived from aborted fetuses. There is such a cell line available, it is called HeLa cells, for the person they came from, Helen Lack, in 1947. They are cancerous cells and not the best to use for doing non-cancer research but many do use them. When I worked in a genetics lab of a professor who was a Christian in the early 80's, he did very successful gene research using HeLa cells. He did not use the HEK-293 line because it was derived from an aborted fetus. That was when I first learn about human cell lines.

She claimed she researched everything she put into her body but then admitted the only thing she researched was the COVID vaccine. She was not sincere.

In my situation, I did suffer a consequence for not being able to have the COVID vax. I needed nasal surgery and a shoulder surgery. I had to wait until last year to get them done. Because I had to wait, my shoulder damage was severe enough that it could not be completely repaired.

[jeremiah12]

I still believe private industry should have been forced to stop mandating that vax. Get it voluntarily if one likes but do nothing when an employee refuses it.

Private companies has broad discretion on what they can mandate. They tell you when to start work. If you are a health care worker, they can mandate you get your flu shot every year and that you are current on all your vaccines as a requirement for a job offer. For every teacher in CA, public or private, you have to be tested for TB every three years. In my school district, before you will be hired, you have to show proof of hepatitis B vaccination. You cannot get a religious exemption because that has to be submitted as part of the application process. My district has a large number of immigrants and hepatitis is an issue so they can mandate that vaccine as a health and safety measure. They are not violating a First Amendment Right because those who have a religious reason for not getting it can go to another district to apply. Many nearby districts do not have a large immigrant population and so do not have that requirement.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Ultimately, we all have to make choices. The one Constitutional Right we do not have is the right to work for someone under our rules. If you want to dictate the terms of your employment, then you need to become self-employed.

As I have now noted a couple of times, this was and continues to be part of the problem. It's not about working for someone based on 'our' rules. It's about how government 'compelled' (directly or indirectly) employer mandates where employees were often confronted with an 'impossible choice;' get the shot and continue to be able to feed your family or don't get the shot and try to find a way to afford to continue feeding your family.

I and many others waited as long as possible before definitively making the choice, hoping for some clarity. Once again, the government and the media so 'muddled the messaging,' that most ended up having to pays their money and takes their chances one way or another. Most chose to get the shot. Some of us chose not to and paid a price.

If you read her testimony and answers, she made it very clear, she absolutely refused the vax because it did not work. She would not take it even if one was available that was developed and tested on a cell line that was not derived from aborted fetuses. There is such a cell line available, it is called HeLa cells, for the person they came from, Helen Lack, in 1947. They are cancerous cells and not the best to use for doing non-cancer research but many do use them. When I worked in a genetics lab of a professor who was a Christian in the early 80's, he did very successful gene research using HeLa cells. He did not use the HEK-293 line because it was derived from an aborted fetus. That was when I first learn about human cell lines.

She claimed she researched everything she put into her body but then admitted the only thing she researched was the COVID vaccine. She was not sincere.

Her 'sincerity' is the metric; but, it is highly malleable depending on how it is measured and the premises one begins with. As I've said, not everyone has worked in a lab. Neither is everyone an 'absolutist' when it comes to their religious beliefs. As of the moment, there are still sufficient 'unknowns' for many to reasonably justify 'hesitancy.'

Is that a 'choice' or is it indicative of uncertainty? If you go back and read the myriad threads, you'll discover I was constantly searching for something to hang my hat on. I never found it, so I took my best 'guess' and lived with the consequences. As has been coming out, many others did the same, making a different choice, and not all of them lived and some of them lived with the damage caused.

What was that about an unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness? If the government is supposed to 'secure' those rights for us, then what is the alternative when the government is deliberately 'muddling the message' which is needed for you to make the choice? What was that about informed consent?

Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process...

But, even that is 'muddled' when it comes to vaccinations...

...Some states have informed consent laws, covering either procedural requirements (e.g., whether consent may be oral or must be written) or substantive requirements (e.g., types of information required). Check your state medical consent law to determine if there are any specific informed consent requirements relating to immunization. VISs may be used for informed consent as long as they conform to the appropriate state laws...

Now... What if the so-called 'vaccine' isn't really a vaccine, but more closely aligns with the definition of 'treatment?' We've had that discussion as well. Which definition of 'informed consent' would apply?

In my situation, I did suffer a consequence for not being able to have the COVID vax. I needed nasal surgery and a shoulder surgery. I had to wait until last year to get them done. Because I had to wait, my shoulder damage was severe enough that it could not be completely repaired.

But, you didn't have a choice of whether to get the so-called 'vaccine' as you were allergic. Thus, you aren't living with the result of a choice you made or were forced to make, but the results of one made for you or, more accurately, a choice made without consulting you and/or in consideration of your situation.

As I've noted, we all get that this likely wasn't the 'best' case for the Justices to work with. Yet, we also get that things need to be done in order for this not to happen again. SCOTUS seems, predictably and, in some ways, reasonably, hesitant to insinuate themselves. Thus, the question is one which underlies an earlier comment...

Very astute observations on the Supreme Courts specific rationale for rejecting the case.

The fact remains though that it was an opportunity for them to render justice and they did not.

Hopefully they just want a cleaner case.

Where do we 'start' in terms of 'rendering Justice' or, more accurately, balancing where the 'discretion' lies?

As I've said, it's not as black & white as you wish to present it. Just as I said back in 2021 on the linked thread...

So which shots you getting?

Still in the same place and state of mind I was in...

• Not vaccinated.
• J&J would be my choice of the 3 currently under EUA.
• Hoping Novavax will be an option if/when I ultimately have to decide.
• Would rather avoid vaccine altogether as there is a probability that I have natural immunity.
• Not anti-vaxx. Just anti-mandate.

"Choice" implicitly involves discretion. But, that brings us back to the question of whether, for many, it was truly a 'choice.' Where is the demarcation when your information is 'artificially' limited, the options to choose from are 'artificially' narrowed, and the consequences are 'artificially' limited so as to induce a 'preference?'

Remember, discretion is defined as: "the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice..."

How much 'freedom,' 'power,' or 'right' was afforded in the 'choice' being presented when it came to the mandates? I would argue, as I have... not much. In fact, in many instances, it made the 'choice' tantamount to a 'false choice' or, more accurately, a false dilemma or false dichotomy...

A false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a limited number of options are wrongly presented as being mutually exclusive or the only available options...

False dilemmas often play a role in people's internal reasoning process, when they misunderstand or misinterpret situations. Furthermore, false dilemmas are also frequently used intentionally for rhetorical purposes in various ways, such as to oversimplify complex situations by turning them into misleading dichotomies, or to frame issues in a way that pressures people to accept a certain stance...

Wait. What was that thread back in 2021?

We Predicted It Would Come To This - Coerced Consent Is Almost Here

Ultimately, we're not going to settle this here and now. Many of us are still looking for answers to questions which cannot be fully articulated and/or answers which are still in need of information yet to come. However, if the institutions we depend on, such as SCOTUS, to formulate those answers won't even start by looking at the questions being posed... Where does that leave us? Maybe near what I said in 2021 on the above thread...

"JUST IN: Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and Delta Air Lines will NOT REQUIRE employees to get vaccinated, breaking with United Airlines' mandate that workers get vaccinated by October 25th or face getting fired."

https://mobile.twitter.com/petemuntean/status/1425207837203046401

Not sure if true but we'll find out.

True or not, it hints at what this is going to take.

I've never downplayed the potential involved with this virus. I've also never insisted that we change society, that people blindly and unquestionably comply with Government edicts, and I've resisted the mania of... "we're all gonna die if" vs. "none of us is gonna die because"... that's swept the media and so many Internet forums. Instead, what I have said, from the beginning, is that this is going to end up akin to how we deal with the flu in that, as a relative of those viruses, 'herd immunity' is unlikely to be achievable, vaccines are going to be similar to flu vaccines in their efficacy, and the virus is likely going to be endemic.

Unless and until individuals and businesses (which are concerned with CYA from a legal/financial standpoint) begin adopting a similar attitude by focusing on mortality/hospitalizations rather than simply cases and start pushing back on Government edicts/chivying, COVID (or the next 'virus') will continue to be used as the rationalization for many agenda-achieving machinations.

Make the choice which seems best for you. Allow others the same. Let the mania and the resultant hysteria exhibited by both sides abate. When you do, coercion becomes significantly less effective or even possible.

[Big Chudungus]

notice all the people enforcing Vaxx are exempt.

its like all the people being pro-abortion have already been born

[stonefly-2]

[QUOTE=TrappedinCal



Where do we 'start' in terms of 'rendering Justice' or, more accurately, balancing where the 'discretion' lies?


Well you will sure get no testimonial from me on the purity of our justice system but we "start" with full throated acknowledgement of the various damage done to those coerced. (either way)

Right and wrong to the best of each mans ability to describe it.

Also not perfect but not weasel words either.