Supreme Court judge says gay rights case proves vaccine mandate is illegal

[tulipsandroses]

Justice Niel Gorsuch wrote in his opinion that people have a similar right to a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccine mandates as anti-gay bakers do to refuse gay couples.
By Molly Sprayregen Tuesday, December 14

In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch uses the Court’s decision in favor of an anti-gay baker to support his belief in religious exemptions to vaccine mandates.

In the case of Dr. A v. Hochul yesterday, the Court upheld the state of New York’s mandate that all health care workers be vaccinated against Covid-19, regardless of religious beliefs.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/

[FalloutShelter]

1. Huh????????

Far as I know Gay wedding cakes are not contagious.

[Faux pas]

2. Whoa!

Eff him.

[unblock]

3. What is the "religious" objection to vaccines, anyway?

Thou shall not... uh...,

I mean I know (a) Christian scientists have a well documented stance against all manner of medicine, so I understand that one and (b) pretty much everyone else claiming a "religious" objection is full of crap.

My question is, other than the Christian scientists, what's the objection? Do they now suddenly also object to childhood vaccines?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

5. They claim the vaxx was developed using stem cells from aborted fetuses

Which isn’t true, of course…

[unblock]

8. So they want to make sure the fetus died in vain?

[Buckeyeblue]

4. The problem is that we don't make people with religious objections prove it

They should have to provide a well reasoned, textually supported argument about why their religious beliefs prevent them from doing anything. And there should be questions.

[Hekate]

11. Draftees who want Conscientious Objector status have to jump thru many hoops, such as proving...

… that they were raised in a pacifist religion (i.e.Quakers) . If they were not so raised but came to pacifism on their own, it gets even harder. Some end up in federal prison as draft-dodgers, like Muhammed Ali, or in Canada like my cousin.

Understand that there IS a precedent — and a very long one — for religious exemptions to certain things, but you can’t just up and say without proof that “my religion/my philosophy forbids such and such, so just let me out of it.”

We do have religious freedom, but we also have social and legal obligations. We also have laws that forbid certain practices, and you can't dodge that by claiming that your religion demands the sacrifice of young virgins on the Solstice.

In the past generation we have allowed ourselves to get all turned around by the rise of the Evangelicals and their rather extravagant claims of special privileges based on both the Constitution and Gawd.

Legal precedent does not support some of their claims — but this 6-3 SCOTUS just might.

[Buckeyeblue]

13. Yes. You put it better than I did.

I think it does come from evangelicals thinking that they have some sort of blank card to discriminate based on some vague notion of their religion. And just because you believe in something doesn't mean it's based on some long standing religion. It may very well be based on ignorance (like the anti-vaxx movement).

[RussBLib]

6. because a "seriously held belief" is more valid than reality

you should be able to persist in your delusion no matter the detriment to the community

[BlueCheeseAgain]

7. For all the (rightful) anger about Kavanaugh and Barrett's confirmations processes...

Those two have shown some ability to not be total right-wing ideologues. Gorsuch is a lost cause.

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. So this is where they stick with precedence?

[struggle4progress]

10. "I have deeply-held religious objections to your silly requirements

that I have some medical training before I am allowed to perform brain surgery at this crappy-ass hospital. I sincerely believe that the proper way to proceed in every situation always appears to me in a blinding light with a thunderous voice that sinners with less faith are simply unable to perceive. And that is how it was revealed to me that I should wear a hockey mask and never use anything but chainsaws in my surgical practice"

[dsc]

12. He is right about this on one level

the logic behind that decision leads directly to the idea that but Jesus is a good enough excuse to refuse vaccines which is exactly and precisely why it was such a stupid decision. Laws that are generally applicable should be enforced unless there is either evidence of targeting of specific religion or a case where it is only the person asking for exemption be affected. It is one thing to protect the practice of religion it is quite another to create a but Jesus reason to let people deny rights to others or to put others at risk.