Religious Exemption, Covid

[jamil]

According to the EEOC guidance on employers granting religious accommodations, most requests should be granted if they meet the following:

Is the belief that drives the need for an accommodation religious?

Is it sincerely held?

Is the requested accommodation reasonable?

Does the requested accommodation pose a hardship for the employer?

It’s not religious if the belief based on secular morals, or political views. That’s probably why Tryin’s accommodation was denied. It failed the test of religion.

Is the belief sincerely held? There isn’t much room for employers to deny this one. It’s not the duty of the employee to prove his belief is sincerely held. I’ve heard some employers are requiring this for vaccine religious accommodations. This is probably just bullying. But employers may look to see if the employee’s past behavior is discordant with the belief. For example if you claim you need an accommodation to get off work on Saturday’s because you’re Jewish, it’s not reasonable for your employer to check with all the local Synagogues to see if you’re a member in good standing. You don’t have to be a member of a church or even belong to an organized religion. However, if your boss has seen you moonlighting at the local bowling ally on Saturday, they have a reasonable cause to reject the claim.

Is the accommodation reasonable. This doesn’t mean the employer gets to judge your religious belief to determine if the belief is reasonable. That’s up yo the believer. The reasonable test is for then accommodation not the belief. If you believe in human sacrifice and you ask for an accommodation to pick a fellow employee to sacrifice to Ra, okay, fine, you get to believe that because we have freedom of religion. But it’s not a reasonable accommodation. An accommodation to be exempted from taking the vaccine because of religious beliefs is reasonable.

Does it pose a hardship for the employer? A Hooters waitress asking for a religious accommodation to wear unflattering clothes on the job would break Hooter’s business model and they’re within their rights to decline that accommodation on the grounds it’s a hardship to the business.

 

[OkieGirl]

[I can't believe I'm saying this...] Jamil is correct-ish

1.) Check with your HR department and see if they have a specific form they require you to submit. If they do, and you don't use it, they aren't obligated to review your incorrectly submitted request.
2.) READ the EEOC website on this topic. Seriously...READ IT. You will have a much better idea how to respond to your employer once you've educated yourself on what is and is not part of a religious exemption. For example, anyone at my employer objecting to testing had their exemptions denied. The employer is covered in the denial if they have a reasonable need to test you. YOU CAN APPEAL with a response that you would allow testing as needed and receive an approval if you appealed within their timeline. Another example, anyone submitting a RELIGOUS exemption request but citing scientific data or efficacy statistics had their denied because they were making a non-religious argument. Please read what the EEOC has to say, knowledge is power.

 

[jamil]

Some of you guys treating this like a term paper is IMHO, the wrong approach. I would just briefly state what your sinsere belief is and how that relates to why it prevents you from taking the vaccine.

If it’s more than a few sentences it’s probably saying too much. You don’t need to quote scripture. If you really have a sincere religious belief that prevents you from taking the vaccine, it should be easy to explain it succinctly.

 

[wtburnette]

I didn't have to go that far. The form I filled out for my employer was similar to what jamil posted above. I just basically said that this decision was between the Lord and myself and they had no right to ask for anything more. My exemption was approved. YMMV.

 

[Leadeye]

I'll be curious to see how this works out, I think they will just keep me around and hidden somehow.

 

[Leadeye]

I keep thinking that this is going to be a slow push by HR at places affected by the mandate. Maybe OSHA has instructions to go in swinging from Joe Ho &Co. come 1/5/22

 

[DragonGunner]

Wife did hers from her hospital last week, the hospital supplied the exemption and the questions on it. She did tell her beliefs in the scriptures, and why this vaccine is very different than say a flu shot.......She expects to find out with the rest on Monday. If they don't accept it they are asked to quit their jobs by Dec. 1. Meanwhile 10 national guards are there working getting ready for when they lose or fire people. I don't think anyone is quitting, going to force them to fire them. Thanks Holcomb and Republicans.....you prove everyday what great democrats you really are.

 

[jamil]

I keep thinking that this is going to be a slow push by HR at places affected by the mandate. Maybe OSHA has instructions to go in swinging from Joe Ho &Co. come 1/5/22

I don’t know about OSHA, but you can go to the EEOC website and look at their guidance on this to employers. It’s actually quite fair and deferential to case law.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

My wife and I are both retired and so, thankfully, don't have to endure what the majority of you are having to deal with.

Earlier this week (and I can't find it, now) I read an approach that went roughly: series of questions about the legality of requiring the jab; its status as an "experimental" drug; its history of side effects (number/type/severity); the liability of the government, pharmaceutical suppliers, and the employer itself for severe side effects, should they arise; a positive affirmation that the employer will be financially responsible for any adverse side effects or death as a result of mandating the jab (because, ultimately, THEY ARE going to be held responsible, rather than the government or Big Pharma if things go south); and an affirmation that you will take the jab if the employer agrees to be financially responsible.

The company may think twice before acting on its termination policy and if they don't, you may be able to sue them later, either for improperly terminating your employment or for adverse side effects caused by requiring you to take an experimental drug that doesn't provide extended immunity from a disease with a 99% recovery rate.

 

[jamil]

Wife did hers from her hospital last week, the hospital supplied the exemption and the questions on it. She did tell her beliefs in the scriptures, and why this vaccine is very different than say a flu shot.......She expects to find out with the rest on Monday. If they don't accept it they are asked to quit their jobs by Dec. 1. Meanwhile 10 national guards are there working getting ready for when they lose or fire people. I don't think anyone is quitting, going to force them to fire them. Thanks Holcomb and Republicans.....you prove everyday what great democrats you really are.

About the lot of chamber-o-commerce Republicans ****suckers in Indiana, they should take a lesson from this Republican on how to stand up for your constituents.

 

[Gunmetalgray]

When living in dictator Caesar's era, one must play Caesar's games. By not playing, Caesar wins by default. Consider playing the game better than them and instead try to win. They want a form filled out, fill out a form. Keep your job, keep playing until their house folds, or until Caesar is, well, stabbed 23 times...(anyone read history?)
It's a game, don't attach any moral connotation to it, they don't.
p.s. avoid documenting anything firm that could be used against, use words like to the best of my recollection, as far as I am aware, etc., works for them...

 

[jamil]

When living in dictator Caesar's era, one must play Caesar's games. By not playing, Caesar wins by default. Consider playing the game better than them and instead try to win. They want a form filled out, fill out a form. Keep your job, keep playing until their house folds, or until Caesar is, well, stabbed 23 times...(anyone read history?)
It's a game, don't attach any moral connotation to it, they don't.
p.s. avoid documenting anything firm that could be used against, use words like to the best of my recollection, as far as I am aware, etc., works for them...

This is kinda what I’ve thought about this. If police officers quit, Caesar gets to replace them with more ideologically compatible police. Same with the military. If people quit, it creates a convenient class of employed compliers vs unemployed non-compliers. Unless you can find a better employment situation, don’t quit. Make them fire you.

 

[JettaKnight]

There's a popular pastor in Moscow, ID advocating the use of fake vaccine cards.
He's completely against mandates and any restrictions... now.

It was completely different a few years ago.

The claim I am making here is very limited. If a person has decided personal convictions about the contagious disease he is carrying, the society in which he lives has an equal right to have decided and contrary convictions about that same contagious disease he has. And if there is an outbreak of such a disease, and the government quarantines everyone who is not vaccinated, requiring them to stay at home, the name for this is prudence, not tyranny.

When someone can flip-flop that drastically, no one should be looking to them for truth.

https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2021/08/30/who-said-this-about-vaccine-mandates/

 

[buckwacker]

There's a popular pastor in Moscow, ID advocating the use of fake vaccine cards.
He's completely against mandates and any restrictions... now.

It was completely different a few years ago.

When someone can flip-flop that drastically, no one should be looking to them for truth.

https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2021/08/30/who-said-this-about-vaccine-mandates/

Ok, so why bring it up?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

When someone can flip-flop that drastically, no one should be looking to them for truth.

Which is exactly what people here have been saying about Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, etc.. So are you finally coming around now?

 

[DadSmith]

Many Christians believe the jab to be a part of the Mark of the beast found in the book of Revelation. They feel it is a conditioning that will lead to it. Such as if you don't have the jab you can't work, or go certain places as of right now it's true.
I personally can see their concerns because it is very similar to what the last days is supposed to be like. Cannot buy, sale, or trade without the mark. I know a few that believe it is the mark of the beast.

Need a powerful religious Exemption that should work great.

 

[wtburnette]

Many Christians believe the jab to be a part of the Mark of the beast found in the book of Revelation. They feel it is a conditioning that will lead to it. Such as if you don't have the jab you can't work, or go certain places as of right now it's true.
I personally can see their concerns because it is very similar to what the last days is supposed to be like. Cannot buy, sale, or trade without the mark. I know a few that believe it is the mark of the beast.

Need a powerful religious Exemption that should work great.

and whether you like that or not, believe that or not, or even find it ridiculous, freedom of religion is still protected in this country, at least for now.

 

[jamil]

There's a popular pastor in Moscow, ID advocating the use of fake vaccine cards.
He's completely against mandates and any restrictions... now.

It was completely different a few years ago.

When someone can flip-flop that drastically, no one should be looking to them for truth.

https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2021/08/30/who-said-this-about-vaccine-mandates/

This reminds me of Tyson's saying, that everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face. People have theoretical positions until life smacks the **** out of them. I'm sure you've changed your mind on things. I've changed my mind on positions I've once held. I used to be one of those people who would have said private media companies acting as a public square have a right to kick you off for any reason. It was a foolish ideological whim that faded as I saw the impact of people getting silenced.

The immediacy of his turnaround isn't a cause for disbelieving him because of that. What signals that his viewpoints may not be trustworthy is just the single datapoint that he's tacitly admitting that he was wrong. Unless, of course he's grifting for some kind of personal gain. Not enough information is present here to know that beyond speculation. But changing a position in itself isn't a strong indicator that the person is untrustworthy. A history of untrustworthiness is required for that.

And as others have said, why is this INGO-worthy? What are you trying to say? You keep saying that you're against mandates but then you say things that really make people wonder if that's true.

 

[jamil]

Which is exactly what people here have been saying about Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, etc.. So are you finally coming around now?

If Fauci & company changed their minds a time or two as new information became available, I see nothing wrong with that. But they have a historical pattern of saying one thing, and then changing that when it's expedient. Fauci has admitted to lying to influence public behavior. That's called propaganda. And once that's plain for everyone to see it indeed makes everything such people say dubious.

 

[jamil]

Many Christians believe the jab to be a part of the Mark of the beast found in the book of Revelation. They feel it is a conditioning that will lead to it. Such as if you don't have the jab you can't work, or go certain places as of right now it's true.
I personally can see their concerns because it is very similar to what the last days is supposed to be like. Cannot buy, sale, or trade without the mark. I know a few that believe it is the mark of the beast.

Need a powerful religious Exemption that should work great.

This is an ideal example of the distinct line between what's interpreted as "reasonable" with respect to what the law is around religious accomodations. Personally, I think this is an unreasonable belief. But if I were the person deciding whether to grant the accommodation, my own belief doesn't matter. The "reasonable" test doesn't mean that employers get to judge someone's religious beliefs as "unreasonable". If that were the case Jetta, in a position of such power, could always deny any religious request for accommodation if it wasn't what he believes.

It's not up to an employer to judge a religious belief. They can judge whether the belief is religious in nature, is sincerely held, and that the requested accommodation is reasonable. So yes, if you sincerely believe that getting the vaccine is the mark of the beast, I think a religious accommodation should be granted for that.