Posted on 08/19/2022 9:32:48 PM PDT by Enlightened1
A federal court denied a petition for rehearing in a case surrounding United Airlines’ vaccine mandate — one judge accusing the company of “coerc[ing] its employees into violating their religious beliefs.”
Judges for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, widely considered the most conservative federal court, voted 13-4 on Thursday to deny a rehearing. The court also denied United Airlines’ request to vacate a panel opinion from February, which held that the mandate inflicted irreparable harm and remanded the case to district court.
Trump-appointed Judge James Ho penned a concurring opinion, admonishing the airline for creating a “crisis of conscience” for its employees, and warned of new wave of corporatism in the Unites States that seeks to inflict its cultural values on Americans.
Ho wrote that mandating employees with sincere religious objections to take vaccines that “were developed using aborted fetal tissue” or face indefinite unpaid leave, is an “obvious irreparable injury” because it “press[ures employees] into violating one’s faith.” Ho said:
Being placed on indefinite unpaid leave because your employer doesn’t like your religious beliefs is obviously an adverse employment action and an actionable claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And you’ve obviously suffered irreparable injury when you’re forced to violate your faith in order to get your job back. The injury would be entirely reparable by money damages if it was just about a loss of money.”
But it’s not. It’s about a loss of faith. And it’s about a crisis of conscience. You’re being coerced into sacrificing your faith in order to keep your job. No measure of damages makes sense in this scenario. To keep your job, you must violate your faith. How much money would it take for you to sell out your faith?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Adults understood the risks and made their decisions. Smart company lawyers advised their clients to grant blanket religious waivers,
77 Chief Judge Priscilla Richman Austin, TX 1954 2005–present 2019–present G.W. Bush 63 Circuit Judge Edith Jones Houston, TX 1949 1985–present 2006–2012 Reagan 64 Circuit Judge Jerry Edwin Smith Houston, TX 1946 1987–present — — Reagan 71 Circuit Judge Carl E. Stewart Shreveport, LA 1950 1994–present 2012–2019 Clinton 73 Circuit Judge James L. Dennis New Orleans, LA 1936 1995–present — — Clinton 78 Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod Houston, TX 1966 2007–present — — G.W. Bush 79 Circuit Judge Leslie H. Southwick Jackson, MS 1950 2007–present — — G.W. Bush 80 Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes Dallas, TX 1963 2008–present — — G.W. Bush 81 Circuit Judge James E. Graves Jr. Jackson, MS 1953 2011–present — — Obama 82 Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson New Orleans, LA 1961 2011–present — — Obama 83 Circuit Judge Gregg Costa Houston, TX 1972 2014–present — — Obama 84 Circuit Judge Don Willett Austin, TX 1966 2018–present — — Trump 85 Circuit Judge James C. Ho Dallas, TX 1973 2018–present — — Trump 86 Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan Baton Rouge, LA 1972 2018–present — — Trump 87 Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt New Orleans, LA 1960 2018–present — — Trump 88 Circuit Judge Andy Oldham Austin, TX 1978 2018–present — — Trump 89 Circuit Judge Cory T. Wilson Jackson, MS 1970 2020–present — — Trump
2 Clinton judges and 3 Obama judges.
Which one switched sides?
Leaving aside all the issues of liberty, it’s absolutely asinine that there’s even still a debate over mandates of these so-called vaccines. Once it became obvious that the mRNA vaxxes don’t actually prevent infection and transmission (with seemingly every single goshdarned quadruple-vaxxed Dem politician getting covid-19), what’s there to debate? This all should have been over months ago.
In the en banc poll, four judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Smith, Higginson, Costa, and Willett), and thirteen judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Richman and Judges Jones, Stewart, Dennis, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson).
A Reagan judge, 2 Obama judges and a Trump judge.
Why does it have to be framed as a religious issue? If a person did not want to be subjected to an experimental gene therapy, that should be enough to prevent companies from mandating medical procedures.
If a future jab is created without a link to the cells from abortions, would the religious objection argument failed in courts?
Ping
Exactly.
An employer can take whatever precautions they want up to but not going beyond our bodily integrity. They can no more require the vx than they can require me to bend over and let the boss sodomize me.
Agree! It is a personal choice!
“require me to bend over and let the boss sodomize me.”
Don’t be surprised if that is included in future job descriptions, considering how whacky and evil this country has become.
It was framed as a religious issue because that is what the lawsuit was about. There is no job on earth worth losing my salvation over
Not every company, including those with government contracts, enforced the vaxx mandate.
Interesting that those companies never felt any heat from Deep State.
Wonder why that was...
Not so much a religious issue as a liberty issue. The court came to the right conclusion.
And many of these same companies can’t fill job openings, in some cases for over a year now....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.