That is the core of the issue.
The rule is vax or exemption mask & test and it places the expense on the employee, not the employer.
What employer’s are doing is implementing vax only or no job. Which is the employer’s CHOICE. No shirt, no shoes, no service. But that business policy is discriminatory and violates a persons religion. This is where the lawsuit resides. But again, the problem rests with all the churches, pastors, etc. saying the vax is fine.
I do not think the ‘stay,’ will stop implementation.
To those of the religious exemption, I no longer think the argument is around fetal cell lines. This issue is around being conditioned to accept the MOTB. And refusal requires us to confess Jesus Christ before men.
I do think this is turning into the MOTB and if not the Mark, the Mark will soon show itself related to it somehow; however, I doubt it will work for those who claim that as their reason for exemption. At least the fetal lines are concrete. They can’t deny that they were/are used.
However, I’m still not understanding why any of us have to give a “reason” for a religious exemption. It was my understanding that one only had to claim that they have a “sincere religious objection” or something to that effect.