Op-Ed: Don’t exempt religious objectors from vaccine mandates (Ultra hurl alert...author is dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law)

LA Times ^ | July 23, 2021 | ERWIN CHEMERINSKY

[DoodleBob]

Policies requiring vaccination against COVID-19 need not include, and should not include, exceptions for those who have religious objections to vaccinations.

Many universities, including the University of California, are requiring vaccination for all students, staff and faculty returning to campus. Many employers, public and private, are doing so as well. These policies are essential to protect public health. The virulent Delta variant of the coronavirus has made it imperative to ensure vaccination of as many people as possible.

Unfortunately, though, many of these policies have an exception for those who have a religious objection to vaccination. These are neither required by the law nor are they desirable as a matter of policy because they make it possible for anyone to circumvent the vaccine mandate.

The UC’s mandatory vaccination policy, for example, has an exception for those who object on religious grounds. It states that this is because the law requires such an exemption, declaring: “The University is required by law to offer reasonable accommodations to ... employees who object to vaccination based on their sincerely-held religious belief, practice, or observance.”

This is simply wrong as a matter of law. No law requires such a religious exemption.

...

Laws that require vaccination are the epitome of a neutral law of general applicability: a requirement that applies to everyone and that was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion. Even if this were not so, the government can infringe on religious freedom if its action is necessary to achieve a compelling interest.

Stopping the spread of a deadly communicable disease is obviously a compelling interest and vaccinations are the best way to reach that goal. No one, in practicing his or her religion, has a constitutional right to endanger others.

[DoodleBob]

The author, the current dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, is a loon:

Chemerinsky supports gun control and disagreed with the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller....Chemerinsky believes that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided...Chemerinsky also represents a client held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center...He supports affirmative action...In January 2017, Chemerinsky, along with other high-profile lawyers, sued President Donald Trump for refusing to "divest from his businesses"... In an opinion piece following the 2020 presidential election, Chemerinsky wrote that "the Electoral College makes no sense as a way for a democracy to choose a president."

[neverevergiveup]

Another pinhead liberal lawyer. What would the world do without them..?

I'll bet he is ‘pro-choice’ when it comes to abortion.

[Jonty30]

They just haven’t met my price point of twice my wages, indexed to inflation, for life.

Why are going so cheap on me?

[DoodleBob]

Unfortunately, he’s not just another pinhead lawyer. He’s the pinhead dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

[BenLurkin]

“Judgement at Nuremberg” comes to mind.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

Looks like a Jerry Lewis character.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Mandate anything you want.
Expect some high speed rejection notices.

[cgbg]

His hero is Joseph Mengele—kinda obvious.

[EvilCapitalist]

And what if a muslim objected to the vaccine mandate?

[Gene Eric]

>> Laws that require vaccination are the epitome of a neutral law of general applicability

BS, ya’ opiniated idiot.

[PghBaldy]

He is a far left loon.

[cgbg]

Here in CT UConn announced “mandatory” vaccines and then immediately caved and issued hundreds of “exemptions” of all kinds.

They are using intimidation tactics but apparently the lawyers have advised them to back down when pressured on a case by case basis.

[therut]

Almost a USSC Judge. Thank goodness he did not make it.

[P-Marlowe]

They aren’t vaccines.

They don’t work.

[sauropod]

Yeah, i’ve been awate of this guy for awhile.

He’s a tenured fool.

[asinclair]

These policies are essential to protect public health. The virulent Delta variant of the corona-virus has made it imperative to ensure vaccination of as many people as possible.

And therein lies the problem: this isn't a vaccine. This is an analgesic to reduce the severity of infection. It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about promoting "public health," because The Jab does not reduce the incidence of infection, nor does it block transmission of the infection to others.

The growing number of news reports of people having "breakthrough infection" is in and itself a lie, as there is nothing "breakthrough" about it. If the censorship were lifted so this could be discussed, as per the scientific method, the actual utility of the various jabs would be better understood.

[Kid Shelleen]

Isn’t Erwin Chemerinsky one of Hugh Hewitt’s “smart guy” buddies?

[JoeRed]

His argument is based on the false premise that the vaccine stops the spread of the virus. The fact that vaccinated people can still infect others is proof that his premise is false. His argument is unsound. He probably knows this and is simply lying.

[Irenic]

Exactly.

[A Formerly Proud Canadian]

He is as stupid as he is ugly!

I only read a tiny bit of this doofus' screed, but what I read, confirms his ignorance. He states: "The VIRULENT Delta variant of the coronavirus has made it imperative to ensure vaccination of as many people as possible." (emphasis mine)

The 'Delta variant' hit the UK months before it hit North America. Results there suggest that it is perhaps MORE CONTAGIOUS but MUCH LESS VIRULENT! Cases are increasing, as are hospital visits, but ICU and MORTALITY RATES remain the same or ARE DROPPING! This idiot doesn'tunderstand the difference betwen'contagiousness' and 'virulence'.

Of course, MOST in the 'legal profession' and most 'educators' INDOCTRINATORS are atheist, so any attack on Christianity is to be expected.

Oh, and BTW, Mr. Professor, you can KMA!