How should the courts test whether a person really has a religiously based objection to vaccines or birth control coverage?

[Big Bend Texas]

How high should the bar be set? When is it okay to tell a business that their alleged religiously based objection or imperative is bullshit?

They shouldn't be mandated to start with, that's where the courts should start.

There's no federal authority for any such requirements and our constitution doesn't speak well of any sort of religious test.

I know damned well people abuse religious exemptions by claiming them when they have no religion or there's nothing in the tenets of their religion relative to same but I don't believe the courts should have any role other than striking down the requirements.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The question should be: Is it ever OK for govt to attempt to tell us we have to take a vaccine or provide others with birth control, religious objection or not?
Spoiler alert- the answer is NO

There's an actual justification for vaccines, but none for birth control.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well, if the person is the one who is injecting their religious beliefs into the court case, then they've made it the court's business.

A court case that never had any legitimate cause to exist in the first place, based on trying to uphold government-imposed mandates that government never had any legitimate authority to impose.

I should not even need to state a religious objection to allowing myself to be injected with a dangerous, experimental drug, or being compelled to provide someone else with contraceptives; must less have that objection subjected to any examination by any court to determine if my objection meats some arbitrary standard.

The only objection that I should need is to tell Government to keep its fucking nose out of matters that are none of its fucking business.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

They shouldn't be mandated to start with, that's where the courts should start.

That's where your separate thread should start.

It's really funny how I've asked a simple question, but some people are so damn sensitive to it that they're desperately insisting on derailing into different topics.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Well, if the person is the one who is injecting their religious beliefs into the court case, then they've made it the court's business. So, how should a court go about testing the sincerity of the alleged religiously based objection to a law to complying with an otherwise valid law?

The only role of the court is to strike down requirements that clearly violate The Constitution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, I know. But on what basis do they decide if it's a deeply held and sincere belief? What do you think the basis should be?

They don't. It's none of their business.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

That's where your separate thread should start.

It's really funny how I've asked a simple question, but some people are so damn sensitive to it that they're desperately insisting on derailing into different topics.

You didn't ask a simple question, you've just got your panties in the wringer because you don't like the answers.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I know damned well people abuse religious exemptions by claiming them when they have no religion or there's nothing in the tenets of their religion relative to same but I don't believe the courts should have any role other than striking down the requirements.

So, to clarify, are you saying that the government should simply strike down any law, wholesale, that a person raises a religiously based objection to?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

They don't. It's none of their business.

How is it not the court's business if an individual brings the matter to the court and asks the court to use it as a basis for a decision?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

So, to clarify, are you saying that the government should simply strike down any law, wholesale, that a person raises a religiously based objection to?

I'm not chasing your red herring. You addressed two specific things to which I've responded.

There's questionable but arguable authority to mandate vaccines in a deadly pandemic, there's no authority granted to the federal gov't to mandate insurance coverages.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, are you saying that the courts never should have carved out religious exceptions to the ACA requirement to cover birth control? Or that the military should not provide religious exceptions to vaccine requirements for service members?

The ACA never should have imposed birth control coverage requirements, and the military should never have mandated that its members should be injected with dangerous experimental drugs. Government never had any legitimate cause or authority to impose either of these in the first place.

That there is any discussion of a need to carve out religious exceptions to a policy ought to be a huge red flag that that policy was an inexcusable overstepping of authority to begin with.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I'm not chasing your red herring.

The fuck?

Get the hell out of my thread, you dumb fuck. You think you can come in here, in a thread that I fucking started, and you get to fucking tell me what the topic ought to be? It's incels like you who become serial rapists because you've convinced yourselves the women want you to do it. I just hope that before you get the chance someone has the good sense to puree your balls and feed them to you through a straw.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There's an actual justification for vaccines, but none for birth control.

Not for these dangerous experimental mRNA drugs that are being fraudulently promoted as “vaccines”. At least until such time as they have been through the same process usually required of any new drug to be proven safe and effective (a standard which current data are increasingly showing to be unlikely that they will ever meet), absolutely no justification exists at all to cause anyone to take these drugs other than by completely freely-given and fully-informed consent, as stated in the first point of the Nuremberg Code.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How is it not the court's business if an individual brings the matter to the court and asks the court to use it as a basis for a decision?

The individual should never have even had a need to bring such a case to court.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Not for these dangerous experimental mRNA drugs that are being fraudulently promoted as “vaccines”. At least until such time as they have been through the same process usually required of any new drug to be proven safe and effective (a standard which current data are increasingly showing to be unlikely that they will ever meet), absolutely no justification exists at all to cause anyone to take these drugs other than by completely freely-given and fully-informed consent, as stated in the first point of the Nuremberg Code.

You can't produce a vaccine for a novel virus causing a deadly pandemic and run it through the normal process including long term observation of patients before fielding it.

The pandemic would long be over before you completed that process.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The fuck?

Get the hell out of my thread, you dumb fuck. You think you can come in here, in a thread that I fucking started, and you get to fucking tell me what the topic ought to be? It's incels like you who become serial rapists because you've convinced yourselves the women want you to do it. I just hope that before you get the chance someone has the good sense to puree your balls and feed them to you through a straw.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The fuck?

Get the hell out of my thread, you dumb fuck. You think you can come in here, in a thread that I fucking started, and you get to fucking tell me what the topic ought to be? It's incels like you who become serial rapists because you've convinced yourselves the women want you to do it. I just hope that before you get the chance someone has the good sense to puree your balls and feed them to you through a straw.

You ignorant twit, I haven't been a virgin since I was 16 and never lacked for female companionship in the almost 45 years since.

Blow it out your ass.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You can't produce a vaccine for a novel virus causing a deadly pandemic and run it through the normal process including long term observation of patients before fielding it.

The pandemic would long be over before you completed that process.

Nor can you justifiably compel anyone without their freely-given and fully-informed consent to accept a dangerous, experimental drug. We put German and Japanese war criminals to death after World War II, for this exact same crime, of using unwilling human test subjects in dangerous medical experiments. The modern counterparts to these war criminals deserve the same fate.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Nor can you justifiably compel anyone without their freely-given and fully-informed consent to accept a dangerous, experimental drug. We put German and Japanese war criminals to death after World War II, for this exact same crime, of using unwilling human test subjects in dangerous medical experiments. The modern counterparts to these war criminals deserve the same fate.

Actually we can and have since the fifties with such vaccines as polio, small pox, whooping cough, Measles and Mumps.

One way or another we have to get to better than 80% protection to achieve herd immunity to prevent or stop a pandemic in it's tracks.

It's justified by the projected cost/benefits of the vaccination vs lack of vaccination.

When the harm from not vaccinating is high serious enough the gov't is justified in mandating vaccination.

There's seventy years of law here you cant' get around.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

We put German and Japanese war criminals to death after World War II, for this exact same crime, of using unwilling human test subjects in dangerous medical experiments. The modern counterparts to these war criminals deserve the same fate.

We didn't put into prison or execute anyone for mandating vaccinations in a deadly pandemic after the war.