My brother's extensive email regarding why he won't be mandating the Cov-jab at his company
- Thread starter ScioAgapeOmnis
- Start date
Think again you are an employee not an employer. What is more important to you following Company rules or seeking your fortune elsewhere. Think again.
Thanks you all, and my brother says he’s ecstatic that you guys liked it, that you found value in it, and of course that he made SOTT focus (albeit anonymously), and he said his life is now complete it’s all downhill from here! We both hope it can help others if they need a succinct summary of the situation as a defense of their position.
And yea he’s an avid reader of SOTT and the forum, he even has an account and made an introduction, but he literally works like 16 hour days on his business to keep it going, so he hasn’t has time for too many extracurriculars. However he has been consistently donating as his way to help keep the lighthouse going, and we always find time to have a few cigarettes and discuss life, the universe, and everything. I keep him abreast of forum activities, recommended readings, sessions, etc as much as I’m able for when he gets some reading time. Between me and him, he’s been much better at the cold showers than I ever managed
Also, as a coincidence, I just found out today that my company is now officially mandating the vax, and I have until Dec 15 to get it done or be terminated. So I’ll be gathering my wits and putting up a fight, exploring all the options in that regard. It was inevitable! Like Laura’s quote says, if a man is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully lol!
So far the options I have are:
Use reputable studies to contradict their stated reasons for the mandate. It’s a long shot but would be interesting to see their response and counter argument.
Move out of Mass (they’re only doing it to Massachusetts employees but have plenty of remote employees across the country)
Consult a lawyer and see if I have a strong case and maybe he will take it pro-bono cuz I can’t afford a lawyer. Also a long shot, but you miss all the shots you don’t take right?
Use the religious exemption option thanks to FOCM’s statement of principles. They may require a “clergy note” (ridiculous right?) so I may ask a “clergy” to write me a note if I can verify that it is indeed necessary.
Finally, look for another job. And be clear at any interview that this is to escape the vax prosecution and I’m a refugee so they can’t also be doing that or even thinking about it. This is another long shot, as they can say whatever they want at the interview and change their minds anytime.
My best bets seem to be move states and become fully remote, and religious exemption. Just in case, I’ll try doing all of the above to have as many cards in my pocket as I can, and hopefully one of them will pan out.
And only as an absolute last resort when all else crashed and burned, I’ll take the jab and do the protocol. My gf says over her dead body tho, she’s ready to go outside and flip a car or something, but I have faith that one of the options will likely work. If not, not the end of the world, I can handle a little prick, and we have bigger pricks to worry about running the country ;)
And yea he’s an avid reader of SOTT and the forum, he even has an account and made an introduction, but he literally works like 16 hour days on his business to keep it going, so he hasn’t has time for too many extracurriculars. However he has been consistently donating as his way to help keep the lighthouse going, and we always find time to have a few cigarettes and discuss life, the universe, and everything. I keep him abreast of forum activities, recommended readings, sessions, etc as much as I’m able for when he gets some reading time. Between me and him, he’s been much better at the cold showers than I ever managed
Also, as a coincidence, I just found out today that my company is now officially mandating the vax, and I have until Dec 15 to get it done or be terminated. So I’ll be gathering my wits and putting up a fight, exploring all the options in that regard. It was inevitable! Like Laura’s quote says, if a man is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully lol!
So far the options I have are:
Use reputable studies to contradict their stated reasons for the mandate. It’s a long shot but would be interesting to see their response and counter argument.
Move out of Mass (they’re only doing it to Massachusetts employees but have plenty of remote employees across the country)
Consult a lawyer and see if I have a strong case and maybe he will take it pro-bono cuz I can’t afford a lawyer. Also a long shot, but you miss all the shots you don’t take right?
Use the religious exemption option thanks to FOCM’s statement of principles. They may require a “clergy note” (ridiculous right?) so I may ask a “clergy” to write me a note if I can verify that it is indeed necessary.
Finally, look for another job. And be clear at any interview that this is to escape the vax prosecution and I’m a refugee so they can’t also be doing that or even thinking about it. This is another long shot, as they can say whatever they want at the interview and change their minds anytime.
My best bets seem to be move states and become fully remote, and religious exemption. Just in case, I’ll try doing all of the above to have as many cards in my pocket as I can, and hopefully one of them will pan out.
And only as an absolute last resort when all else crashed and burned, I’ll take the jab and do the protocol. My gf says over her dead body tho, she’s ready to go outside and flip a car or something, but I have faith that one of the options will likely work. If not, not the end of the world, I can handle a little prick, and we have bigger pricks to worry about running the country ;)
Also my gf just found this on a fb group and I wanted to share for my fellow Massholes. Even if they get their way, they’re just petty tyrants, and as warriors it is our duty to be a royal pain in the ass to them the entire way. Make it really difficult and annoying and frustrating for them!
RE: Vaccine Mandates in Massachusetts
From an Attorney who was kind enough to allow me to share this information ...
There is no business reason to inquire into the sincerity of an employee's sincerely held beliefs when they decline a vaccination on religious grounds. The reasonable accommodation of wearing a mask during "flu season" has a no cost/no burden impact on the business. The practice is already established policy.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has found that it is unconstitutional for the law to permit an employer to distinguish between an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs that are shared with others belonging to an organized church or sect, and those beliefs not similarly shared with others. Requiring a religious entity to authenticate an employee's claim of sincerely held personal beliefs is contrary to established law and policy in Massachusetts. Declination of the influenza vaccination due to sincerely held religious beliefs is sufficient evidence of sincerely held convictions, behaving in a manner markedly consistent with professed beliefs. No other information is required.
MASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITY
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, § 4(1A)
For employers with 6 or more employees, Chapter 151B, § 4(1A) provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to impose upon an individual as a condition of obtaining or retaining employment any terms or conditions, compliance with which would require such individual to violate, or forego the practice of, his creed or religion as required by that creed or religion including but not limited to the observance of any particular day or days or any portion thereof as a Sabbath or holy day and the employer shall make reasonable accommodation to the religious needs of such individual. The words "creed or religion" mean any sincerely held religious beliefs, without regard to whether such beliefs are approved, espoused, prescribed or required by an established church or other religious institution or organization. There are two distinct legal obligations on employers subject to G.L. c. 151B:
a prohibition against disparate treatment based on creed or religion, and,
a duty to make reasonable accommodation to an employee's sincerely held religious belief.
Article 2 of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts protects both religious beliefs and religious practices because the Massachusetts Constitution also protects conduct, that is, the "manner and season" of worshipping God/Creator. As long as the conduct does not disturb the public peace[1] or obstruct others in their religious worship, conscientious conduct as defined by Article 2 is protected absolutely. An inquiry of whether a practice is truly a form of worship is, in essence, an inquiry into the validity of a religious belief.
The Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual, Number 915.003, defines religion to include both theistic beliefs, practices, and observances, as well as non-theistic “'moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.' Religious beliefs can include unique views held by a few or even one individual..." p. 6.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 105 CMR 130.000 Hospital Licensure 130.325: Requirement That Personnel Be Vaccinated Against Influenza Virus, but allows for clear and unequivocal exceptions to influenza vaccination policies for hospital workers: (1) A hospital shall not require an individual to receive an influenza vaccine pursuant to 105 CMR 130.325(B) or (C) if: (b) vaccination is against the individual’s religious beliefs; or (c) the individual declines the vaccine. Indeed, no person is required to submit to an influenza vaccination, nor are they required to assert a religious exemption. The right to refuse consent to vaccinations is allowed by law without the need for an "exemption".
FEDERAL AUTHORITY
Federal law protects all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice. Employers may not refuse to hire, discharge or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because an individual’s religion.
EEOC Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2
In any workplace with 15 or more employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is empowered to prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination and advance equal opportunity for all in the workplace. EEOC’s Compliance Manual, Number 915.003, provides guidance and instructions for investigating and analyzing charges alleging discrimination based on religion. "Because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely-held religious belief." p. 14. "Employers who unreasonably request unnecessary or excessive corroborating evidence risk being held liable for denying a reasonable accommodation request, and having their actions challenged as retaliatory or as part of a pattern of harassment." p. 51.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires reasonable accommodation of employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices when requested, unless accommodation would impose an undue hardship on business operations. Undue hardship under Title VII is defined as “more than de minimis” cost or burden. The no cost / no burden policy of mask wearing for employees who decline the influenza vaccine is not more than a de minimis cost nor an undue business hardship.
The EEOC has made it clear that employers may not coerce vaccination, even in the midst of a pandemic: "May an employer covered by the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 compel all of its employees to take the influenza vaccine regardless of their medical conditions or their religious beliefs during a pandemic
No. ...under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII."[1]
Rights to bodily integrity and individual liberty are protected constitutional rights. Even when considering the overall public benefits of vaccination, the administration of a vaccine requires informed consent. All medical interventions correspond to a set of benefits and risks weighed when making medical decisions. Court decisions on the topic of vaccination have held that even if vaccines provide benefit to the public, administration of a vaccine requires voluntariness, individualized patient assessment and informed consent.
[1] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, EEOC Compliance Manual Section 12: Religious Discrimination 56-65 (2008), [https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/re...lrBq7bcFXSIBNw-abUOadJbFTQS8JbFZkU5vBn9dVMxk)
[1] Disturbance of public peace is defined as unreasonable disruptiveness plus infringement on someone's right to be undisturbed. Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732 (1977).
RE: Vaccine Mandates in Massachusetts
From an Attorney who was kind enough to allow me to share this information ...
There is no business reason to inquire into the sincerity of an employee's sincerely held beliefs when they decline a vaccination on religious grounds. The reasonable accommodation of wearing a mask during "flu season" has a no cost/no burden impact on the business. The practice is already established policy.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has found that it is unconstitutional for the law to permit an employer to distinguish between an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs that are shared with others belonging to an organized church or sect, and those beliefs not similarly shared with others. Requiring a religious entity to authenticate an employee's claim of sincerely held personal beliefs is contrary to established law and policy in Massachusetts. Declination of the influenza vaccination due to sincerely held religious beliefs is sufficient evidence of sincerely held convictions, behaving in a manner markedly consistent with professed beliefs. No other information is required.
MASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITY
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, § 4(1A)
For employers with 6 or more employees, Chapter 151B, § 4(1A) provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to impose upon an individual as a condition of obtaining or retaining employment any terms or conditions, compliance with which would require such individual to violate, or forego the practice of, his creed or religion as required by that creed or religion including but not limited to the observance of any particular day or days or any portion thereof as a Sabbath or holy day and the employer shall make reasonable accommodation to the religious needs of such individual. The words "creed or religion" mean any sincerely held religious beliefs, without regard to whether such beliefs are approved, espoused, prescribed or required by an established church or other religious institution or organization. There are two distinct legal obligations on employers subject to G.L. c. 151B:
a prohibition against disparate treatment based on creed or religion, and,
a duty to make reasonable accommodation to an employee's sincerely held religious belief.
Article 2 of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts protects both religious beliefs and religious practices because the Massachusetts Constitution also protects conduct, that is, the "manner and season" of worshipping God/Creator. As long as the conduct does not disturb the public peace[1] or obstruct others in their religious worship, conscientious conduct as defined by Article 2 is protected absolutely. An inquiry of whether a practice is truly a form of worship is, in essence, an inquiry into the validity of a religious belief.
The Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual, Number 915.003, defines religion to include both theistic beliefs, practices, and observances, as well as non-theistic “'moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.' Religious beliefs can include unique views held by a few or even one individual..." p. 6.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 105 CMR 130.000 Hospital Licensure 130.325: Requirement That Personnel Be Vaccinated Against Influenza Virus, but allows for clear and unequivocal exceptions to influenza vaccination policies for hospital workers: (1) A hospital shall not require an individual to receive an influenza vaccine pursuant to 105 CMR 130.325(B) or (C) if: (b) vaccination is against the individual’s religious beliefs; or (c) the individual declines the vaccine. Indeed, no person is required to submit to an influenza vaccination, nor are they required to assert a religious exemption. The right to refuse consent to vaccinations is allowed by law without the need for an "exemption".
FEDERAL AUTHORITY
Federal law protects all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice. Employers may not refuse to hire, discharge or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because an individual’s religion.
EEOC Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2
In any workplace with 15 or more employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is empowered to prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination and advance equal opportunity for all in the workplace. EEOC’s Compliance Manual, Number 915.003, provides guidance and instructions for investigating and analyzing charges alleging discrimination based on religion. "Because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely-held religious belief." p. 14. "Employers who unreasonably request unnecessary or excessive corroborating evidence risk being held liable for denying a reasonable accommodation request, and having their actions challenged as retaliatory or as part of a pattern of harassment." p. 51.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires reasonable accommodation of employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices when requested, unless accommodation would impose an undue hardship on business operations. Undue hardship under Title VII is defined as “more than de minimis” cost or burden. The no cost / no burden policy of mask wearing for employees who decline the influenza vaccine is not more than a de minimis cost nor an undue business hardship.
The EEOC has made it clear that employers may not coerce vaccination, even in the midst of a pandemic: "May an employer covered by the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 compel all of its employees to take the influenza vaccine regardless of their medical conditions or their religious beliefs during a pandemic
No. ...under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII."[1]
Rights to bodily integrity and individual liberty are protected constitutional rights. Even when considering the overall public benefits of vaccination, the administration of a vaccine requires informed consent. All medical interventions correspond to a set of benefits and risks weighed when making medical decisions. Court decisions on the topic of vaccination have held that even if vaccines provide benefit to the public, administration of a vaccine requires voluntariness, individualized patient assessment and informed consent.
[1] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, EEOC Compliance Manual Section 12: Religious Discrimination 56-65 (2008), [https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/re...lrBq7bcFXSIBNw-abUOadJbFTQS8JbFZkU5vBn9dVMxk)
[1] Disturbance of public peace is defined as unreasonable disruptiveness plus infringement on someone's right to be undisturbed. Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732 (1977).
Yes, exactly how I understood the law as well. If your employer persists, you can always say you are refusing the vaccine on religious moral grounds due to aborted fetal cells being used in the R&D (covid) and creation (most others) of vaccines.
BTW: Excellent article by your brother! He had the tone of a SOTT writer down, very impressive.
SevenFeathers
Dagobah Resident
Check out Catherine Austin Fitts' suggestions: Catherine Austin Fitts’ approach for dealing with vaccine mandates « Jon Rappoport's Blog
avia
Padawan Learner
Hi SAO, I really like how your brother framed this as a moral issue first and foremost! Because it is, do I agree to violate others' free will? No.
His second point, logistics, spoken like a real manager! Logistics is where the rubber meets the road. Look at what's going on in the "health care" industry. Hospitals began their mandates, now they are having staffing issues. The same thing across many other industries. Police, firefighters, correctional officers. Two units at Rikers' Island had no guards for over 24 hours because so many of them were out sick. The inmates really are running the asylum!
His second point, logistics, spoken like a real manager! Logistics is where the rubber meets the road. Look at what's going on in the "health care" industry. Hospitals began their mandates, now they are having staffing issues. The same thing across many other industries. Police, firefighters, correctional officers. Two units at Rikers' Island had no guards for over 24 hours because so many of them were out sick. The inmates really are running the asylum!
Fellow Masshole here. Thanks for this. Though I don't see our company mandating vaccination, we are seeing some of our "clients" mandating vaccination and/or testing in order to enter their facilities. Mostly colleges and universities.