Supreme Court Rejects Vaccine Exemption Appeal

Supreme Court Rejects Vaccine Exemption Appeal
At least from what I am reading in the dialog between Tina and the judge my conclusion is the same as the court. What are your thoughts about this case?
If you like this content and want more, click here: www.drbeen.com/
Want to join my uncensored talks? Join me on patreon or substack:
Patreon: www.patreon.com/mobeensyed?fa...
Substack: mobeensyedmd.substack.com/
Want to support this work?:
BuyMeACoffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/drmobeen...
PayPal: paypal.me/mobeensyed?locale.x...
#drbeen #koolbeens #COVID
Disclaimer:
This video is not intended to provide assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or medical advice; it also does not constitute provision of healthcare services. The content provided in this video is for informational and educational purposes only.
Please consult with a physician or healthcare professional regarding any medical or mental health related diagnosis or treatment. No information in this video should ever be considered as a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.
References:
Supreme Court rejects fired AstraZeneca employee's appeal over refusal to take COVID-19 shot - Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com/news/...
Supreme Court denies appeal COVID vaccine religious beliefs appeal
www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...
Tina Goede, Relator, vs. Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. A22-1320, Court of Appeals Precedential, June 12, 2023
mn.gov/law-library-stat/archi...
Microsoft Word - 44917 Atkinson cv 02.docx
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...
GOEDE v. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. (2023) | FindLaw
caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mn-...

[@DrBeenMedicalLectures]

DrBeen Merch. My Monocytes Are Immortal. Ask Me Why! is up on the store now: drbeen-medical-lectures.creator-spring.com Get access to medical lectures for a low price of $4.99/month: www.drbeen.com/med-nerd/

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Dr. Mobeen, the Supreme Court would never take a case on this record. It would only take a case on a clear, unequivocal record of religious discrimination. Those cases have been won in lower courts, and the EEOC has stated that employers must not assume that requests for religious exemptions are insincere.

[@Drambles77]

Sneaky judge with his framing. Bottom line, no one should be coerced or forced to take a medial treatment they do not want. Simple.

[@robinhood4640]

Absolutely, the risk benefit ratio is a personal calculation, not a one formula fits all.

[@gregvisioninfosoft]

They used to do this in g*rman wwII conc*ntation c*mps, how nice that the world is following this same lead.

[@TheFirstManticore]

The right to accept or reject medical interventions is given by God.

[@peterdorrfuss2680]

@@TheFirstManticorewho has been thrown out as superstition, and replaced by authoritarian, nay borgian, hiv3mind x stream l3ft1$t and follow the $cientism and otherwise shut up and obey

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

Only a lab animal cannot say no thank you to an experimental shot

[@ljessel6612]

Nuremberg Code of Ethics - You can not be forced to be in an experiment. Human Rights - you can not be penalized for refusing to be jabbed.

[@PeterMartin-qh1yb]

It's seems neat impossible to get this right upheld

[@dunningkruger4863]

And yet they are.

[@sueo7834]

Recently, in Queensland, Australia, it was decided that the people who lost their jobs as a result of refusing the jab was illegal and they are now looking at granting them compensation.

[@iandalrymple7255]

That’s awesome to hear

[@questioneverything9535]

Taking any vaccine or procedure should be a personal choice. This sounds like her reason for not taking it should not have been a religious belief but personal choice and forcing this on her would be a crime against humanity.

[@sueo7834]

@@questioneverything9535 Exactly!! It is an attack on one’s person...could even be classed ..forgive me for saying so...but yes, definitely rape...like the date drugs being given without someone’s permission.

[@rouxchat6033]

It would be different if an employee signed a document stating they agree to be "vaccinated" prior to hiring. Pushing this one size fits all policy on everyone after the fact, is simply wrong.

[@peterdorrfuss2680]

@@iandalrymple7255not correct. the judge made a weak decision that in the case of some specific workers, ie police members and some others, MAY have had their human rights violated. put that in the context of the open corruption, impunity, in our leaders, their conflicts of interest. also the weak words and slaps on wrist Is ra hell is getting for its land grab/ethnic cleansing, g3n0cyde, and it puts this one, slight crack in their system of oppression/control, via judges, rulings, po lie ticians, in context.

[@HazeOfWhearyWater]

It's ridiculous that a judge can decide if you are sincere in your religion.

[@SubFlow22]

It's crazy that a religious belief holds more weight than a persons honest fear of injury or death.

[@HazeOfWhearyWater]

@@SubFlow22 Your personal (or anyone else's) assumptions concerning a person's alleged 'fears' are NOT relevant in any way with respect to their protected rights under the constitution.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

In principle I agree, but she contradicted herself in her testimony.

[@HazeOfWhearyWater]

@@l.w.paradis2108 She shouldn't have had to testify. She should not have been compelled to accept this genetic therapy.

[@flossypark3169]

Judges in the west have been afforded too much power, or, they are being blackmailed? 🤔🤔🤔

[@scottmiller2591]

jail the judge for practicing medicine w/o a license.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Not what happened. She botched her own case for a *religious* exemption.

[@Peter.F.C]

Jail all judges.

[@contentedspirit9022]

And everyone who made the mandates without making exemptions for those with valid medical, mental health, or strong beliefs against taking the jab. Everyone should be allowed to receive or reject any medical treatment or procedure. Informed consent is legally supposed to be provided to all patients prior to receiving any treatment or procedure. Patients were not provided even basic information concerning these vaccines, and definitely were not provided complete "informed consent" as has always been legally necessary prior to any patient treatment or procedures. Patient's question were not even answered when asked to their physicians. So many things were changed, avoided, ignored and many people have reported being berated and spoken to angrily by medical providers, then fired or manipulated into going through with taking the vaccine simply because they had no other way to care for their families and themselves. Once being forced (or "mandated") to take a new and experimental medical "treatment", people who developed complications or died, these medical professionals were protected while families lost everything, without any option of compensation because it was a forced/mandated treatment they did not want, often knowing they were high risk for having problems from said "vaccine". There is SO much wrong with this entire ordeal.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

@@Peter.F.C The employer is the bad guy in this picture.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

@@contentedspirit9022 1000%

[@1stAmbientGrl]

In the U.S.A. NOTHING should ever be mandated! This is supposed to be the land of the free!

[@stevesherman1743]

Not anymore. 😢

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

Not with chairman biden

[@oldblack15]

A mandate is only a contract that needs two parties to agree to the terms. If one does not agree the contract is voided.

[@markadams7328]

Especially after a few months when there was proof that the jab didn't prevent catching or spreading the virus!

[@elizabethcote9070]

​@@oldblack15thanks for the explanation.

[@danielmurphy4429]

So, the court essentially said a corporation has the right to “force an employee to have a medical procedure.”

[@hanskasper6305]

The government and the manufactures should all be jailed period jail the judges over through the crooked government

[@mybiz1006]

Yes. That was my take as well.

[@vengeance2825]

That will not be upheld on the USA. Not for the private individual. Maybe for government employees of a domestic corporation.

[@danielmurphy4429]

@@vengeance2825 I’m not so sure about that.

[@vengeance2825]

@@danielmurphy4429 I am.

[@Andrea-lq8so]

Judges now think they’re one cloud above God.

[@ArifKhan-vh2gx]

That would be Trump He controls the Supreme Court

[@divyanshugogna6152]

One should not loose faith in the justice system. They are required to follow the judicial system and rules in it. If they are following them then they are not doing anything illegal/wrong. If they are not following them, then there are appeals processes for that.

[@v.vm.m9277]

Just one?

[@michaeljoncour4903]

@@divyanshugogna6152 WELL, the ''rules'' are dumb, made by fools, i have seen countless examples of murderers let out of jail after 20 years or less and go on to murder a number of other people on their release .

[@Andrea-lq8so]

@@divyanshugogna6152 You are extremely naïve or just incredibly stupid if you seriously believe there is no corruption in Govt's & the judicial system!

[@foodbeforepills8749]

Are these the same people that are "my body my choice"... except when it comes to vaccines?

[@eigenvalue5775]

They are setting up the stage for absolute coercion for taking the Mark.

[@brynduffy]

An atheist should never be deciding the religious sensibilities of a citizen.

[@iheartherbs]

A CITIZEN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. LEARN YOUR RIGHTS AS A PRIVATE PERSON

[@ST-ff1zd]

It was never about wellness or safety. It was about the power to coerce. And now, people have lost what little regard they had for all the hot shot medical "authorities."

[@Verna-mh3fe]

At this point I can only see this as the mark of the beast from the book of Revelation.

[@graphguy]

Spot on . SCOTUS is not immune from being under the control of Satan. No one but God can say what my sincere faith based views are.

[@bryanutility9609]

@@graphguyACB adopting Haitian children, via Clinton foundation?

[@jmc8076]

Not all are religious.

[@jmc8076]

@@graphguy They appointed by BOTH political sides. Both wings of bird same $.

[@graphguy]

@@jmc8076 I don't think you saw me make a we vs. them distinction. If you did, you would have seen that my stance has always been biblical... live in this world, but be not a part of it.

[@midnightteapot5633]

So a judge can dictate what should or should not happen via medical procedure. Next time I need some plumbing work done I will call a car mechanic.

[@buckleysangel7019]

I’ve decided that the judge isn’t sincere in being a judge. Mandatory daily boosters for the judge!

[@svenniacin6891]

The government has exemptions so why does that not translate. Also. Inform and consent.

[@rakhis2575]

People will realize soon they have been duped by their own g0vt and medical agencies 😮

[@SALTYCOMBATDIVER-ExInstructor]

The basis for things like tetanus and other vaccines that have proven to prevent something does not relate to a mRNA 'vaccine' that doesn't prevent an illness. Even saline can cause harm when injected which is why you can't buy IV supplies and administer saline without being under a doctor's authority. No benefits and only risks doesn't require a religion to have an objection.

[@patbuckley4039]

Politicians who told people to get jabbed didn't get jabbed. The world is insane.

[@CLH-of5rr]

We are all living the same life in a world wide crime scene.

[@gg-wk2ww]

Nothing about sovereignty over your own body. Nuremberg

[@bartofilms]

Her beliefs seem to be purely secular, not religious, but valid, none the less. She should sue AZ in civil court for her lost wages and other monetary damages.

[@georgemead6608]

I agree. The idea that the government can punish you based on their opinion of your beliefs is vile. Requiring any person to accept any medical procedure should be illegal.

[@bartofilms]

@@georgemead6608 I think it may be illegal and some new class actions may soon start.

[@danmarquez3971]

That is very unfortunate. The mandate itself strikes me as illegal. Why? Two laws: 1) Medical Privacy Laws: These prohibit employers from accessing employees' medical information without their consent. Vaccine status is medical information. 2) Informed Consent Laws: Theses give individuals have the right to be fully informed about the risks and benefits of medical interventions and to make their own decisions about whether to accept or refuse treatment. Informed consent was not possible because the employee could not have been fully informed due to the censorship of information regarding risks. Because the employer fired an employee by violating the above laws, the employee was wrongfully terminated and should therefore be awarded unemployment plus more.

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

Ths authorization that allows the use of the experimental drug states that it is 100% the recipient's choice to take the jab. You can't make someone take an experimental drug. They only allowed the use of if to help people so they said. You can't then jab then because you say so

[@danmarquez3971]

@@thedevilsadvocate5210 Great point!

[@l.w.paradis2108]

​@@thedevilsadvocate5210 Sadly, she couched her appeal on religious grounds, then she contradicted herself blatantly. I agree there should have been no mandates in the first place. The employer contested her unemployment compensation claim, compounding the injustice. They are the bad guy in this picture. ​If you claim your objection is religious, but your objection turns out to be ethical or medical, that is considered failing to prove your claim -- the one you formally made in court. She wanted benefits and lost because she didn't make her case for a religious exemption. She could have sued on some other basis, like the true reasons she declined vaccination. I agree there should have been no mandates in the first place, like I said. The point is, when you make a claim in court, you have got to focus and prove the claim you made.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

GREAT discussion, by the way!! 💯

[@danmarquez3971]

@@l.w.paradis2108 Yes it is. It does get our thinking gears spinning. Hopefully an attorney sees the discussion.

[@Arripa-777]

But Astra-Zeneca was banned in many countries !

[@mspapworth1]

Her problem was dealing with lawyers and courts. They are weapons of mass destruction 😢

[@carmengabriel4]

A no thanks should be enough.

[@KenJackson_US]

How can anyone distinguish a "religious belief" from any strongly held belief? It sounds like they cynically and wrongfully wanted a chapter and verse from the Bible. The court is out of order.

[@doremi9]

It's all about legalism, trying to find a loophole, in this case, to require a person to "obey," or else. If you don't jump through my set of hoops and say it the way I want it stated, I get to control you.

[@poempadgett4664]

If she had been of any other faith, making the same appeal, her religious exemption would have almost certainly been approved, no questions asked. In fact, it wouldn’t have made it this far, in the first place.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Watch the entire video and listen closely to her testimony. She botched her own case for unemployment benefits on the grounds of *religious* beliefs. Unequivocal claims for religious exemptions almost always WIN.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

​@@doremi9 If you claim your objection is religious, but your objection turns out to be ethical or medical, that is considered failing to prove your claim. She wanted unemployment benefits and lost because she didn't make her case for a religious exemption. She could have sued on some other basis, like the true reasons she declined vaccination. I agree there should have been no mandates in the first place. The point is, when you make a claim in court, you have to focus and prove the claim you made.

[@KenJackson_US]

@@l.w.paradis2108 : _"She botched her own case ... on the grounds of religious beliefs."_ I don't have the wording of the law, but I understand it actually says something like *strongly held belief.* You see, they _can't_ make a law that gives Christians an advantage and leaves atheists without a similar right. Besides, what religion ever mentions medical procedures?

[@bobthrasher8226]

"Religion" exemptions are supposed cover "conscience" as well.

[@AmixLiark]

I would have straight up quit. The company and work isn't worth desecrating your body. You can live and be homeless without desecrating your body.

[@bryanutility9609]

Everyone has a right to a religious exemption. People have won court cases. I’m not sure why she lost, but she shouldn’t have unless she didn’t play the game right.

[@questioneverything9535]

Exactly. Now we are seeing all the damage that this bioweapon is causing. Those that created it and forced it need to held accountable.

[@jmc8076]

Good if you can but realistically not all are in a position to say no. This was prob known and exploited.

[@bryanutility9609]

@@jmc8076 everyone had the opportunity for a religious exemption (conscientious exemption). Many didn’t know this is the problem.

[@AmixLiark]

@@jmc8076 You're right there are some people who had to do it to get back home because they were abroad when the mandates hit and there are people who cannot survive in homelessness.

[@johnnybq2]

Damn shame but even the Judicial branch is compromised. So much for those checks and balances.

[@smalljen2040]

Could she have appealed based on the fact it was "experimental" and under Nuremberg rules?

[@Klonering]

No country or government is bound by law to the The Nürnberger Kodex. Just like the Human Rights declaration from the UN. More of a paper tiger.

[@Psy0psAgent]

Perhaps every option like you said has been considered and only the ones that will fail will be shown to the public to demoralize them from pursuing anything.

[@ksgraham3477]

The Nuremberg Code should cover anyone who rejected being tampered with genetic mRNA instructions. It was not a vaccine. It WAS an experiment.

[@jmc8076]

IVM pushed down to justify.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Not what she chose to do.

[@PeterMartin-qh1yb]

The "First Amendment" is dead

[@divyanshugogna6152]

dont need to look any further than Julian Assange for that

[@georgemead6608]

It might just be in a coma in the ICU on life support while the government seeks permission to pull the plug.

[@TheFirstManticore]

It is under seige and at war, but not dead. There is hope for the Republic.

[@SubFlow22]

That's what we have the 2nd for.

[@arondebreceni9464]

If you use your faith, they will question it, if you use your brain, they will they reject you.

[@fewferfev]

What it's going to take to stop them and retain any freedom at all it to quit our jobs and take our money out of banks before it goes digital. We've almost lost this war if we do not make a stand here and now. It should be enough for that woman or any of us to just say the word, "NO".

[@TheFirstManticore]

This woman must have felt very strongly about this, because she sacrificed her job.

[@sandramae1772]

As a lot of us did.

[@barbarawarren9443]

While I totally understand her views, I see the legal issue. She is arguing from a common-sense medical standpoint, rather than from a religious standpoint, and legal arguments must be so specific and based on the original assertion. Yet, this is an overall sign of the times. Humans on planet earth are losing their rights to self-determination.

[@meganashlea]

The first thing our exemption department was looking for was the mention of anything medical or political for an automatic denial. I assisted a couple coworkers with their exemptions telling to remove those statements and keep it strictly from a religious viewpoint. Half of us were approved and half weren’t, thankfully no one was fired before they dropped the whole thing. We had a phone interview were they tried to catch you with some questions also. 😑

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Exactly right.

[@DavidJohnson-yg8qm]

Without actually saying so, she knew these vaccines were dangerous.

[@tommygunn7745]

why dont lawyers drill their clients for the questions they may be asked by the judge or opposing party? Not to craft deception but to make sure their client can articulate their belief,etc to the court? The stress that is experienced by those addressing the court can be enough for some to appear as if they are less than honest.

[@divyanshugogna6152]

Kindly dont judge this, you have no knowledge of this. it is also equally possible that clients refuse to cooperate with their lawyers. Without good cooperation no lawyer can help their fullest. Equally if you get a situation where clients just wants to go against the legal council's instructions, lawyers probably cannot do much, except do as per told in that case (other than may be leave them) either even though they were advised before hand outcome wont likely be good. (and yes there's plenty of people, and cases like this in the modern era).

[@tommygunn7745]

@@divyanshugogna6152 My statement wasnt meant to be judgmental about this situation and due to your reaction I can now see that its the interpretation one might have. Next time Ill try not to be in such a hurry and press send until Ive given it a few minutes to sit,come back and reread it. im sometimes surprised when I have reread them...

[@l.w.paradis2108]

​@@tommygunn7745 Your post was fine. I'm a lawyer, and I can confirm they usually don't do a very good job anymore. Everyone is scrambling to pay their mortgage and don't take the time with middle class clients. (I just consulted on a much worse case pro bono. This is everywhere now.) ​If someone claims their objection is religious, but the objection turns out to be ethical or medical, that is considered failing to prove the claim THEY chose to make. She wanted unemployment benefits and lost because she didn't make her case for a religious exemption. She could have sued on some other basis, like the true reasons she declined vaccination. I agree there should have been no mandates in the first place. The point is, when you make a claim in court, you have to focus and prove the claim you made.

[@tommygunn7745]

@@l.w.paradis2108 Thanks for the explanation

[@l.w.paradis2108]

@tommygunn7745 You're welcome. P. S. The bad guy in this picture is the employer. They fired her in the first place, and then they objected to her unemployment compensation claim. They could have refrained from objecting during the national emergency, and in light of the fact that the vaccines were EUA. They could have done at least that much. But no.

[@georgebowman3222]

Sounds like the lawyer did not prepare the person to make their religious beliefs front and center and part of every answer to drive home that point. How (fill in the blank) is that? The lawyer did not do their job properly - it seems - and the person did not appear to make their beliefs the clear point either. ---- Makes one wonder if it might be a red herring case for those who really do have solid religious beliefs for NOT taking those emergency biologics. It is wondered if there can be an appeal on the grounds that (Technically) those jabs are NOT true vaccines and to call them that is incorrect - as they are gene therapies and/or emergency biologics. Additionally, true vaccines all have had to go under STRICK 5-10 year double blind placebo testing before they can be considered to go on the market to the public. How and why did the lawyer NOT bring this up in the court???? Seems to be many missed opportunities to give the court facts to chew on.

[@lcolon5606]

Agree. Her lawyer did not prepare her.

[@doremi9]

In fact, in reality very few if any vaccines have undergone the testing you mention. They are not tested against true placebos. They are nearly always tested against OTHER VACCINES. This is from "Turtles All the Way Down."

[@stevesherman1743]

They are the controlled judicial opposition.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

​@jwshepard6 This law actually is more clear than that -- much more. Cases where the objection is unequivocally on religious grounds generally win. The EEOC has cautioned employers that they need to address these objections case by case, and cannot assume that a belief is insincere. Assuming insincerity is denial of due process (see the Colorado baker case).

[@wagonweel4200]

They asked questions not involving religion and then rejected because they weren't religious answers. What happened to my body my choice .... oh that only for destroying foetuses. No one has the right to demand you take anything.

[@johnratliff4594]

I don't get it. Why is it a company can fire you for any reason, but then you have to justify the reason for collecting unemployment? She was fired she didn't quit. That should be the only criteria, it wasn't a choice for unemployment.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

The employer contested unemployment benefits on grounds of misconduct. THEY are the bad guy here. Her testimony was contradictory, sadly. The judge was not in the wrong.

[@johnratliff4594]

@@l.w.paradis2108 misconduct is an action, not an action.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

@johnratliff4594 Failure to fulfill an employer's demand is the most common workplace "misconduct." So-called. She did not contest the firing on the ground that refusing an EUA vaccine is not misconduct (which it isn't). She filed a claim based on an exemption from an otherwise valid rule, because of her faith. Then she contradicted herself in her testimony.

[@elibennett6168]

My daughter's university told her she lost her Constitutional right to a religious exemption when they forced her to take the third shot because she had taken the first two as mandated. They also wouldn't refund her tuition so she could take a leave of absence. Her religious exemption provided evidence of a sincerely held belief against self-harm given the second shot caused a heart condition and she feared what the third might do to her. She now has POTS and weakness on the top of her heart. And yes, the cardiologist stated the only thing they could narrow down the cause was either the shot or some unknown, asymptomatic virus that she didn't know she had (umm...within two weeks of the shot?!).

[@jercasgav]

So...they require this to have a job, but if you are a Medicaid or welfare money recipient from govt you do not have to take the jibby. Also if you are illegal sneaking into the country, you don't have to have had the jibby either (or even a measles vaccine). As a worker you get to bust your behind, have 20-37% of your wages taken in income taxes alone (plus other taxes on top of that), you also have to pay so that others can get welfare that are not forced to have jabs, and you have no right over your own body to refuse medical treatments like jabs. Seems fair and rational right??! If you quit said job because you do not want to be forced to have a medical procedure, then you cannot get unemployment despite paying for years into the system, despite paying with your wages for others that don't need the jibby to receive welfare money from the labor off your back, and despite now in many places having to pay for people from other countries that never paid into the system or had the jibby.

[@doremi9]

You should have 100+ likes for this comment. The idiocy and inconsistency of how the system works is beyond the pale.

[@dmacrolens]

Never use the "word" "jibby" again.

[@tommygunn7745]

Theyre not done yet. The tactic is good for a couple additional biologic events and $$

[@jmc8076]

Needs to be based on freedom of full informed consent for all independent of beliefs or culture.

[@kathyingram3061]

~It sounds like maybe her lawyer was 'bought' by the other side~

[@reagandogg9734]

Judges or their families were warned not to take it

[@emilyurban3454]

Conscientious or personally held beliefs should be enough...

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

Because you didn't want to take an experimental drug is enough

[@Det_313]

Not sure if I missed this part but this lady doesn't sound like she had a lawyer. Unfortunately, she allowed her opinion and feelings to override her beliefs in court. Peggy the Healthy American on KZbin is a great resource for anyone seeking a religious exemption.

[@meganashlea]

Peggy’s videos were an amazing help when I had to submit a religious exemption.

[@Det_313]

@@meganashlea that's great to hear! I requested my letter through her but fortunately did not have to use it.... Yet... Lol

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Most (nearly all, in fact) _unequivocal_ claims for a _religious_ exemption win. The EEOC has even said employers must not assume a claim is insincere -- the employee must be given due process.

[@tommygunn7745]

RE: Peggy the Healthy American / thanks for the tip

[@g-man2507]

That lawyer should be disbarred. Would have been far better off using a legal bot. You can't argue for a religious exemption and then give a whole bunch of logical reasons.

[@brynduffy]

Appeal!

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Duh

[@deborahkay59150]

If she had brought the ingredients of what was in it maybe she would have won.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

People who assert a pure religious objection generally win.

[@bisaiah9797]

JOB 9:24 and REVELATION 12:12. I strongly recommend reading those scriptures.

[@TheFirstManticore]

I say that God gives us the right to choose our health care. That is a religious belief. Most courts, at least in the past, would accept this also.

[@niklet9246]

It's a human right to decide if something is injected into you or not.

[@mybiz1006]

No one should need a reason to refuse ANY medical intervention.

[@Magibrew]

It’s unfortunate that people were facing termination unless they took an experimental drug. People turned to various solutions to avoid being forced against their will. These people’s apprehension has been vindicated but their livelihoods will suffer.

[@jadedixon3641]

The problem is that she's arguing whether it's effective. The courts assume it's effective and dismiss anyone arguing otherwise. Still totally wrong what the courts are doing, but she needs a better lawyer to get a personal belief exemption. She's also better off arguging for an alternate work assignment and fighting over that, because there was no way a hospital was going to accept religious exemptions even if the employer would.

[@ksgraham3477]

Too bad in this case. She is done. That it is not a vaccine but gene therapy is moot here.

[@Sctronic209]

The court needs more boosters FT

[@damnyankeesdaughter5427]

I didn’t like it because of the genetic component. I’m a creation of the creator. 2013 Supreme Court said that all created dna belongs to the creator, including human dna.

[@Cj-qt2ls]

Unless you got mrna shot then you are owned now the court said it wasn't natural so it could be owned.

[@fadedglory1045]

Based on religion isn't the best basis anyway. Scientific and philosophical evidence is perhaps more accurate. Anyone can make up a religious reason. It's scientifically proven to have certain properties that should make it a personal choice regardless of religion.

[@williamh4172]

That's true.

[@brendanstoran7555]

In case anyone hadn’t noticed the world has gone utterly insane

[@wlh52]

Don't need any court to tell me what I can or cannot put in my body.

[@FrenchCocoa369]

I can see how she got rejected. Her arguments were based on her feelings and opinions of the effectiveness of the vaccine. Not on how it would go against her religious beliefs. She could have used a number of different factors based arguments and directly answered “this is how it goes against my religious beliefs” stating “no because it’s not effective” is irrelevant. Why didn’t her lawyer prep her for these questions???

[@aliyamea]

How about an exemption because you don't want the vaccine. thanks Dr Been.

[@andrewrichards4472]

No way. Judge must be brain washed. Nobody should ever be forced to take a meditation to be allowed to work

[@MarciaB12]

Corruption

[@ridingtheeventhorizon3315]

A “SINCERELY HELD BELIEF” IS an inalienable right… it’s not up for debate. Period.

[@laveraparato258]

She answered the questions wrong for religious exemption.

[@samwilliams1142]

We need to write the Nuremberg code into the Constitution. No medical procedures should be mandatory.

[@soccersprint]

The "authorities" wicked and bad. May they be punished for their evil deeds.

[@user-tm1ec2on6w]

Yes, the Law is a cabal.

[@velisvideos6208]

Very sad. She was confused. Should not have bothered with the legal approach as her case was remarkably weak. One wonders why the supreme court would bother with something like this.

[@Freeontheland2030]

Precedent

[@dmacrolens]

The only one wondering is you, simp.

[@Syncopia]

Why should we have to explain and prostrate oursevlves before judges for matters relating to our own bodily autonomy

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Because she wanted unemployment benefits and she botched her own case.

[@hexenwaldranch7809]

The question is basically… does the government or employer have the right to force a person to have a medical procedure? And yes, denying a person the means of supporting themselves, is force… so is denying public services (like school). If the answer is yes… we are all in danger

[@amandanabors7889]

Her lawyer should have told her to state continually her religious beliefs when questioned. I would have had it in writing and related all my answers to my beliefs with scripture references.

[@tommygunn7745]

Thats right, Also Prep the client so they know how to verbalize the truth that the judge would likely find more acceptable

[@davidrains3918]

The only exemption needed should be “I don’t want it”, period!

[@jamesbenson1809]

f_SCOTUS 1) Body autonomy is an un-listed right. 2) How is a sincerely held belief not religious? Isn't Atheism recognized as a religion?

[@peanutsnana5179]

😢😢

[@sarinulek6816]

They should have added to their arguments the fact that other Big Pharma execs along with Senate and Congress were all exempt from such mandates.

[@blessedfire365xgf]

And officials in Alberta stated young ladies have 55 percent rise in still births

[@tammygravis1462]

I love you for all you do. If your commentors had 1/1000th of the compassion you do for the injured we'd all be well. Keep fighting. It's our fault for trying to save our lives through the pandemic. So sad.

[@Hartmannk]

How can another person decide what they believe.

[@michaelsky7086]

hello from australia looking at what they did to trump courts have bee weaponized

[@tommygunn7745]

I dont know haw any human could maintain his fight so long. Money helps,but man!

[@Cogitovision]

Having accurate reasons and being on the side of truth will not save her.

[@danielleschmidt7825]

Are we still free ??

[@janedough6575]

Were we ever?

[@danielleschmidt7825]

In my country we were !​@@janedough6575

[@gerryaddley6200]

Thank you

[@Glenintheden]

Regarding religion the 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." From that I interpret it to mean that the government cannot declare what is or is not a religion. But a judge is part of the government, and thus does not have the right to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion. Regarding the case at hand, it sounds like the fired worker was claiming that her belief in the lack of effectiveness for the Covid vaccine was her religious belief. The judge thus had no right to claim beliefs about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness was not a religious belief. Because in doing so the judge put himself in the position of a government representative establishing a religion and restricting Tina's free exercise of what she deemed to be her religion, which is prohibited by the first amendment. The judge cannot determine some belief or activity is or is not a legitimate religious belief or activity without first establishing what is a legitimate religion; but the 1st forbids that.

[@ewaewa1208]

Hi.Can you turn on subtitles?Please.Thank you.

[@lovingit1538]

I would hsve had to find out what it was

[@bw2442]

In blacks law, the definition of mandate, is not mandatory. Only if you agree with it does it become an agreement

[@wesleyferguson6932]

I feel regardless of what religious beliefs might be. A person should have the right to refuse any medication.

[@amaizenblue44]

So, im not an anti-vaxxer *per se* . I have no issue with the science and importance of vaccines. It wasnt until the COVID cluster-F that I realized I DO have an issue with MANDATED vaccinations. In more ways than one. 1. If people dont recognize the importance of vaccinations, we need better education. Not tyranny. 2. Mandates should be all or none. Religious exemptions are abused by both the patient and by the governing body. Patients lie, and religion is nothing more than a set of personal ethics which even atheists possess; as such, an atheist's ethical objection should be weighted the same as a person of any faith. What #2 boils down is you cant freaking mandate vaccinations. Because there is nothing close to even a pseudo-objective way to determine who deserves an exemption. And what makes it worse is the subjectivity is often extreme due to the biases of individual organizations or even individuals (the aforementioned "governing body") So get better at #1. And sadly the attempt at universal acceptance was set back decades due to how they botched the COVID jabs.

[@paulfrank7607]

The Supreme Court does not take cases with ambiguities. The best book for understanding how the Supreme Court selects cases and how a case is handled is Gideon’s Trumpet 1964 by Anthony Lewis. This book was an eye opener for me.

[@CC-wj7iv]

A strongly held personal belief is your creed which is also an accepted exemption ( or at least supposed to be). The judges should have recognized that even if she isn't able to properly argue for herself. We are the arbiters of our health and no one should be forced under coercion and punishment to undergo an especially experimental medical procedure. That was established as evil by the Nuremburg code which I'm sure her country was a signatory to. We underwent a dark period in our history where the safety-nets all failed us. I would support a measure that would prevent that from happening again for us and our children.

[@Crufflovesall]

Employers forced by coercion the uptake of this poison or lose your job. It’s disgusting and sickening and it is wrong that anyone make someone prove their religious exemption sincere beliefs. My belief is mine and mine alone

[@MarcMallary]

Outrageous! If the law says someone should have to take poison to keep their rights, the law is wrong.

[@rogerdeacon5878]

A govt..a judge..an elected official..any administration..any medical person..any court..a senate a parliament ..a bank..a corporation..any commercial company .or officers or staff of any of the above cannot force you..and does not have any right to vaccinate you or your children..against your will and or religious beliefs...are you free?..do you have God given rights ?and freedoms?...or not ?..I put it to you...all...are we serfs?..are we slaves?..or not?

[@DoubtingThomas-mx8sl]

Free people could decide either way.😢

[@NoiserToo]

Thank you Doctor!

[@3366larryandrews]

How can the court adjudicate a religious belief? What nonsense. If all that was limiting her from unemployment benefits was her religious belief, she should have received them.

[@MOstix13]

“Employment misconduct?” Refusing to be forced to put something, anything, IN your body, especially if it’s untested and unproven is not employment misconduct. It’s called FREEDOM. “What about my body my choice.” ? Is that slogan correct for one and not the other? Such hipocracy.

[@basspig]

Never forget. Never forgive.

[@christopherbuckley7544]

Although I would agree with the court, I do not believe somebody should need to use religion as a viable basis to refuse a treatment. There should be no reason why a person must justify refusing a treatment. Freedom of choice regarding one's body is absolute and non-negotiable.

[@johnreas9216]

Welcome back home….