A religious exemption IS a state grant, not a Right of Liberty. Strictly speaking, a religious exemption is 'a privilege' granted by the state 'to do what otherwise one cannot do.'
Liberty is dominion, sovereignty over the self which is obedient to God and His Laws ... and against which the state cannot infringe for lack of standing. If t…
A religious exemption IS a state grant, not a Right of Liberty. Strictly speaking, a religious exemption is 'a privilege' granted by the state 'to do what otherwise one cannot do.'
Liberty is dominion, sovereignty over the self which is obedient to God and His Laws ... and against which the state cannot infringe for lack of standing. If the state infringes upon the any of the Rights of Liberty, the state commits a trespass (infringes), an injury or harm against the one who exercised a Right or Rights of Liberty.
American Rights of Liberty ARE NOT civil rights. American Rights of Liberty (God-conferred) can only be recognized, affirmed and upheld by the state. Nor can a public or private corporation (artificial person and an appendage of the state) infringe upon Rights of Liberty. Thus outsourcing enforcement (mandates) by the state to private and/or so-called public companies is a ruse, and violators of the Rights of Liberty who bend to the states' illegal decrees are open to prosecution in Common Law. This is how it used to work before the state captured the entire justice system and made it is own.
Not true. Virtually all the case law that upheld religious accommodations in regard to employment draw directly from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically it's prohibition on employment discrimination based on religious beliefs. The EEOC itself quotes this case law at length in it's advice to employers.
I think you are confusing state requirements on public health grounds (like vaxxes for school) with employer-based requirements. It's not the same thing and different laws apply.
Look you can make all kinds of fancy sounding speeches regarding liberty that sound great and get you no where. Bottom line is that employers fear losing lawsuits. The case law on the CRA is crystal clear and goes back decades, that's why it's effective. Companies know they will lose if they deny good-faith exemption requests. It may take years but it will happen.
Dave, you and I probably agree on about 98% of things politically. But there's philosophy that sounds great (but is ineffective) and there's legal strategy that works. They are not necessarily the same thing. Lofty speeches didn't get me my exemption, it was my company knowing I would sue them under the CRA if they denied it.
Not sure about that, since we have constitutional basic rights (the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to religious expression, etc.). With regard to C19, an employee only has to notify their employer that he/she is invoking or exercising their religious exemption. There is no need to ask for it like a permission slip. Of consequence, any refusal to accept a religious exemption (RE) is a direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and sets up an employer for a lawsuit. Many of us have been very successful in communicating this legal trap to employers via religious exemptions, but you need to research exactly how it needs to be articulated. An employer may/can refuse to accommodate your RE, but again, that is at their legal peril if an employee has established their RE properly.
Exactly, this is why exemption requests under the CRA were and remain very effective. Employers are *required* to accommodate religious beliefs unless they impose an undue hardship on the employer. Period, end of story.
You don't need a note from Pope, to pass some sort of logic test, prove consistency in your beliefs, or even belong to an organized religion. If the employer thinks your request is in bad faith the burden is on them to prove it. In addition, the bar for "undue hardship" on the employer is quite high. There is decades of case law on this.
The problem as Seaquinn notes is that you need to know the law and make your request clearly within the bounds of the law. Quoting Patrick Henry and "don't tread on me" to HR won't work.
Just so! That is why I made sure that the three Religious Exemption requests for my RN spouse *all* cited the EEOC / Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically, and demanded they honor her religious beliefs.
All three were granted - even though the first hospital's supervisor later told my wife, "I thought we weren't granting *any* REs." The last one was kinda funny - they first indicated they didn't grant REs, then said OK we do - but you'll have to submit it to our committee that reviews RE requests.
RE granted within 30 minutes of submission. I guess those committee members read fast.
Nice to read that it worked. My employer requested a letter of support from a "religious leader" and I told them to go pound sand based on both the law and scripture (citing references from both). My request was granted.
We really need to keep our emotions in check and do solid research before going off all half-cocked. So many on our side immediately jump to "how dare they!" and shoot themselves in the foot. The key to fighting mini-tyrants is to accept nothing they say at face value and to know the law better than them. We win with knowledge, not emotion.
It's not enough to cite "Muh freedumb." You have to let them know that you know your legal rights and will enforce them if necessary. (I used to practice employment law, way back in the day so I know the law and the references to cite.)
In one of the REs we wrote, we attached a religious exemption from our priest who attested to the fact that we belonged to the parish, that we had the right as Catholics and indeed as American citizens, to be free from religious discrimination in the practice of our religion, and that as Catholics, we could not be forced to violate those principles.
BUT, you are absolutely correct that under CRA, you do not need to belong to any church or specific religion. Your say-so and genuine belief is enough to enforce your right.
Similar story except no letter from a priest. I specifically cited my religious objections (primarily, but not only, the use of fetal stem cells derived from abortion) with supporting scriptural references. I told them where we attend church and that the bible is the basis of all of our decisions. I rejected the request for a letter of support on the doctrine of "priesthood of believers" and "soul competency" with scriptural references. I'm accountable to God for this decision not another man.
What they were trying to do with the letter of support request was to turn this into the theological equivalent of a doctor's note. However the CRA of 1964 and the ADA of 1990 are not interchangeable (despite their efforts to conflate them). I don't need an "expert" to attest that I actually believe what I claim like proving a medical condition. The case law is clear on this but they count on people's ignorance when making these requests (a common bureaucratic tactic). People will give up as it's too much trouble rather than rejecting the request outright as not required under the law.
A religious exemption IS a state grant, not a Right of Liberty. Strictly speaking, a religious exemption is 'a privilege' granted by the state 'to do what otherwise one cannot do.'
Liberty is dominion, sovereignty over the self which is obedient to God and His Laws ... and against which the state cannot infringe for lack of standing. If the state infringes upon the any of the Rights of Liberty, the state commits a trespass (infringes), an injury or harm against the one who exercised a Right or Rights of Liberty.
American Rights of Liberty ARE NOT civil rights. American Rights of Liberty (God-conferred) can only be recognized, affirmed and upheld by the state. Nor can a public or private corporation (artificial person and an appendage of the state) infringe upon Rights of Liberty. Thus outsourcing enforcement (mandates) by the state to private and/or so-called public companies is a ruse, and violators of the Rights of Liberty who bend to the states' illegal decrees are open to prosecution in Common Law. This is how it used to work before the state captured the entire justice system and made it is own.
Not true. Virtually all the case law that upheld religious accommodations in regard to employment draw directly from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically it's prohibition on employment discrimination based on religious beliefs. The EEOC itself quotes this case law at length in it's advice to employers.
I think you are confusing state requirements on public health grounds (like vaxxes for school) with employer-based requirements. It's not the same thing and different laws apply.
Look you can make all kinds of fancy sounding speeches regarding liberty that sound great and get you no where. Bottom line is that employers fear losing lawsuits. The case law on the CRA is crystal clear and goes back decades, that's why it's effective. Companies know they will lose if they deny good-faith exemption requests. It may take years but it will happen.
Dave, you and I probably agree on about 98% of things politically. But there's philosophy that sounds great (but is ineffective) and there's legal strategy that works. They are not necessarily the same thing. Lofty speeches didn't get me my exemption, it was my company knowing I would sue them under the CRA if they denied it.
Not sure about that, since we have constitutional basic rights (the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to religious expression, etc.). With regard to C19, an employee only has to notify their employer that he/she is invoking or exercising their religious exemption. There is no need to ask for it like a permission slip. Of consequence, any refusal to accept a religious exemption (RE) is a direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and sets up an employer for a lawsuit. Many of us have been very successful in communicating this legal trap to employers via religious exemptions, but you need to research exactly how it needs to be articulated. An employer may/can refuse to accommodate your RE, but again, that is at their legal peril if an employee has established their RE properly.
Exactly, this is why exemption requests under the CRA were and remain very effective. Employers are *required* to accommodate religious beliefs unless they impose an undue hardship on the employer. Period, end of story.
You don't need a note from Pope, to pass some sort of logic test, prove consistency in your beliefs, or even belong to an organized religion. If the employer thinks your request is in bad faith the burden is on them to prove it. In addition, the bar for "undue hardship" on the employer is quite high. There is decades of case law on this.
The problem as Seaquinn notes is that you need to know the law and make your request clearly within the bounds of the law. Quoting Patrick Henry and "don't tread on me" to HR won't work.
Just so! That is why I made sure that the three Religious Exemption requests for my RN spouse *all* cited the EEOC / Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically, and demanded they honor her religious beliefs.
All three were granted - even though the first hospital's supervisor later told my wife, "I thought we weren't granting *any* REs." The last one was kinda funny - they first indicated they didn't grant REs, then said OK we do - but you'll have to submit it to our committee that reviews RE requests.
RE granted within 30 minutes of submission. I guess those committee members read fast.
Nice to read that it worked. My employer requested a letter of support from a "religious leader" and I told them to go pound sand based on both the law and scripture (citing references from both). My request was granted.
We really need to keep our emotions in check and do solid research before going off all half-cocked. So many on our side immediately jump to "how dare they!" and shoot themselves in the foot. The key to fighting mini-tyrants is to accept nothing they say at face value and to know the law better than them. We win with knowledge, not emotion.
Good for you, Jeff. You are exactly right.
It's not enough to cite "Muh freedumb." You have to let them know that you know your legal rights and will enforce them if necessary. (I used to practice employment law, way back in the day so I know the law and the references to cite.)
In one of the REs we wrote, we attached a religious exemption from our priest who attested to the fact that we belonged to the parish, that we had the right as Catholics and indeed as American citizens, to be free from religious discrimination in the practice of our religion, and that as Catholics, we could not be forced to violate those principles.
BUT, you are absolutely correct that under CRA, you do not need to belong to any church or specific religion. Your say-so and genuine belief is enough to enforce your right.
Similar story except no letter from a priest. I specifically cited my religious objections (primarily, but not only, the use of fetal stem cells derived from abortion) with supporting scriptural references. I told them where we attend church and that the bible is the basis of all of our decisions. I rejected the request for a letter of support on the doctrine of "priesthood of believers" and "soul competency" with scriptural references. I'm accountable to God for this decision not another man.
What they were trying to do with the letter of support request was to turn this into the theological equivalent of a doctor's note. However the CRA of 1964 and the ADA of 1990 are not interchangeable (despite their efforts to conflate them). I don't need an "expert" to attest that I actually believe what I claim like proving a medical condition. The case law is clear on this but they count on people's ignorance when making these requests (a common bureaucratic tactic). People will give up as it's too much trouble rather than rejecting the request outright as not required under the law.
Like I said, knowledge not emotion is the key.