I am concerned that employers are essentially arguing with employees about requesting a religious exemption.
What happens if your employer replies back that the Pope encourages the vaccines and he is "higher" in authority than a Bishop?
There was a local attorney (well, local = ~200 miles) on the radio a few days ago talking about the sorts of criteria that some employers are taking to determine if they will grant religious exemptions. His practice area is employment law. He said some employers are exposing their company to legal challenges by attempting to make judgements on "how religious" (his phrase) an employee may be who is requesting an exemption, and in effect arguing with employees regarding their degree of their faith.
Pinging TG24 as I believe she has commented on this previously.
Re: 57 - CORRECTION. He did not use the word “arguing” - that was my conclusion and it is presumptuous.
He used the world “challenging” (I made as many notes as I could - while driving! and re-read what I scribed) as in:
“...and in effect “challenging” employees regarding the degree of their faith.”
See above. This game is literally social media “gotcha” garbage.
The HEK293 line was obtained from an abortion done in 1972. Aspirin, Tylenol and many of the other things there long predate that cell line.
The game the hospital is playing is trying to use the fact that new experiments have been done on HEK293 cells with preexisting substances like aspirin and Tylenol.
Pfizer and Moderna used the HEK293 in the actual testing and development phase of the new vaccines (but not the manufacture). The hospital is trying to equate the two things, but they aren’t the same.
The employers can test sincerity, blanket statements like “your church doesn’t believe that” won’t cut it.
29 CFR § 1605.1: In most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. This standard was developed in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970). The Commission has consistently applied this standard in its decisions. The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase “religious practice” as used in these Guidelines includes both religious observances and practices, as stated in section 701(j), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).”
The fact that an employee didn’t always act in a manner consistent with the belief is not the legal standard either, as religious beliefs can change over time.