“...you CAN’T have “unsafe” people around the “safe” ones...”
You’ve got the idea as to result, however this has nothing to do with rights.
One of the requirements of the military is that you have to be world wide qualified. It is the determination of the commander in chief, POTUS, that if you can be shut down, or shut down other members, then you aren’t safe to deploy and a threat to the mission and lives. If you can’t deploy, you must leave the military. (Med evaluation Board, MEB) That’s the basics. And as long as the president determines the vaccines are safe, and you refuse them, you are violating the UCMJ art 86 failure to go get the vaccines when told to.
That also establishes art 92 a failure to obey an order or regulation” (written or stated). So it can add punitive damages, possible incarceration. Those damages are assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the offense.
The military world is not like the civilian population. If a military member decides not to get the vaccines, when he signed the contract and it was the member’s responsibility to understand the parameters of the commitment, then he’s accountable for the failure to go and the follow on possibilities. He was “hired,” trained, fed, housed, and given room and paid to make decisions and gain responsibilities.
If the member had a religious problem with the vaccines, then the member should have had problems with others like Rubella, measles, hep A, and, God forbid, rabies that were created with human cells. But there have been no human cells used since the mid 1980’s. So the member never should have signed the contract.
wy69
You are overlooking (with the help of the enemedia) that this is a “vaccine” that only has emergency authorization. I would agree with your points except for that - and it is a HUGE difference. If the standard testing had been performed (years of it) and you said all that, I’d agree.