New York's largest health provider fires 1,400 employees who refuse vaccine
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
OMG
You're just pissed because you got busted out being ignorant, THEN had the absolute nads to say I didn't know what I was talking about.
"Taking this vaccine violates my conscience for at least three reasons: first, the use of aborted fetuses in either the development or production of these vaccines, or both, when my religious beliefs require that I respect all human life, including fetal life, and not knowingly profit from harm to fetal life; second, the invasion of my body with foreign toxins when my religious beliefs require I treat my body as a temple, and not so knowingly desecrate it; and third, the coercion against informed consent of this vaccine when my religious beliefs require all medical treatment be conditioned upon informed consent. This is a matter of life and death, the very purpose for which I live my life, respect for all human beings and all human life in the world, a core matter of right and wrong, and essential to my very being. I cannot violate my conscience on such a core matter of my morals and the beliefs that guide me and govern me, formed by religious beliefs and as instructed by my religious tenets. I have never knowingly taken any vaccine, or any medicine, developed or produced with aborted fetal cells, that invaded my body with foreign toxins, or that were compelled against informed consent. The violation of informed consent is a matter of religious conscience; what the Nazi doctors did is morally wrong, spiritually offensive, and participating or partaking in such invasive, coerced medicine at any time offends the very core of my conscience. I cannot consciously disrespect human life, and the core of what makes us human and the dignity it requires we treat ourselves and our fellow human beings, even if it might medically or financially profit me to do so. Some things are not for sale; my conscience, formed by the core of religious tenets, is one of them."
Racist.......
black dog
Free America
At Will Employment.....In 41 States says,
At-will employees may also bring claims against their employers for the following torts:
Intentional interference with a contract. This claim may be made in the employment context when a supervisor or co-worker with an improper motive successfully induces the employee’s dismissal. This tort is not recognized in all jurisdictions.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines this tort as extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. In many courts, even serious emotional and psychological abuse may not be outrageous enough to establish liability.
Also,
It is important to recognize that discrimination statutes shield members of protected classes only from adverse employment actions made because of their membership in a protected class. In other words, an employer may fire Jane because she failed to perform the required functions of her job, but not because she is in a wheelchair.
At-will employees may also bring claims against their employers for the following torts:
Intentional interference with a contract. This claim may be made in the employment context when a supervisor or co-worker with an improper motive successfully induces the employee’s dismissal. This tort is not recognized in all jurisdictions.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines this tort as extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. In many courts, even serious emotional and psychological abuse may not be outrageous enough to establish liability.
Also,
Federal and state discrimination statutes prohibit employers from basing employment decisions on an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status. Specific state statutes may also protect employees from discrimination based on other factors, such as sexual orientation.
It is important to recognize that discrimination statutes shield members of protected classes only from adverse employment actions made because of their membership in a protected class. In other words, an employer may fire Jane because she failed to perform the required functions of her job, but not because she is in a wheelchair.
black dog
Free America
As a guy thats been married to an attorney and lives with another attorney that totals 25+ years, you are ****ing laughable even as a jailhouse lawyer... A lowly welder is laughing at what you think you know...
Next time you log on to LexisNexis search ' ****ing Laughable'
Bare-ya-cuda
Well-Known Member
You know what they say about arguing with idiots…they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.OMG
You're just pissed because you got busted out being ignorant, THEN had the absolute nads to say I didn't know what I was talking about.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I don't know why this is so hard for people.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
What amazes me is how malleable you are and how easy it is to get you people to argue FOR government intervention in the labor markets. Government intervention in an ostensibly mutually beneficial transaction between two PRIVATE PARTIES, namely an employer and employee. Actually, I'm not all that amazed, because you have ZERO principles guiding you. Only raw emotion.
But this is what is expected of the statist.
And now you'll tell that statist doesn't mean what I think it means.
What amazes me is how malleable you are and how easy it is to get you people to argue FOR government intervention in the labor markets. Government intervention in an ostensibly mutually beneficial transaction between two PRIVATE PARTIES, namely an employer and employee. Actually, I'm not all that amazed, because you have ZERO principles guiding you. Only raw emotion.
But this is what is expected of the statist.
And now you'll tell that statist doesn't mean what I think it means.
See? Now you're all pissed off and hurling insults because you got outed as a dolt.
It would have taken you :30 to rundown "at-will employment" and read what it is before throwing down the gauntlet. It would take you that same amount of time to look up "gaslighting".
But no. No no no. You prefer to be a dolt and say stupid things on the internet. And Good For You!
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
I can understand the religious aspect of refusing the needle with regards to this whole at-will employment argument however, aren't there already religious exemptions being put into place? Other than the religious aspect what other terms are being violated in an at-will employment situation? In other words.. Why is this an argument when religion is out of the equation? Other than "I just don't want to get it!"
DISCLAIMER: I am neither for nor against getting the shot. Just asking the above question.
DISCLAIMER: I am neither for nor against getting the shot. Just asking the above question.
But no. No no no. You prefer to be a dolt and say stupid things on the internet. And Good For You!
Being wrong, just to be a dick
When it comes to injecting drugs into your body, that should be reason enough. There is no other medical procedure that your employer can demand you get as a condition of employment, especially not after you've already been hired.
And I don't believe there are any exemptions, religious or otherwise, at least in NYC. Other cities may have one, though.
ontheriver
Well-Known Member
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
I could understand this view prior to the vaccines being FDA approved but, what about now? This is a vaccine and NOT heroin.
Whiz Quiz comes to mind here. Although that may fall into the category of medical testing. Same as blood drawing for drug screening. Both are conditions for some employment.
Exemptions are supposedly on the way. If and when they are in place, what will the argument be?
Is this real or are you being sarcastic?
Right, but that's usually established right up front before the applicant becomes an employee.
The argument will still be that government and Big Pharma cannot dictate mandatory treatment or therapy as a condition of enjoying your constitutional rights as an American citizen.