Does this pass Sterling?

11/4/2021

"Col. Katheryn Ellis, the former commander of the 14th Medical Group, told Task & Purpose that on Oct. 12 she was told by the commander of the 14th Flying Training Wing, Col. Seth Graham, to issue an order for two of her civilian employees to get vaccinated against the novel coronavirus.

However, Ellis believed Graham’s order conflicted with her own religious beliefs, as well as a request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate which she filed on Sept. 17. Ellis did not feel comfortable sharing the specifics of her beliefs “other than they are sincerely held,” she said, but this was the first time a vaccine violated those beliefs.

“To clarify, my religious beliefs prevent me from taking the vaccine, actively promoting the vaccine, and from administering the vaccine to others myself (I’m a nurse),” Ellis said in a text message. “These objections were included in my religious accommodation request.”"

Link here.

(Update)

The Air Force has not approved any requests from active-duty airmen and Space Force guardians who requested exemption from mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations on religious grounds, according to new statistics released by the service on Wednesday. The service is currently reviewing 4,933 religious exemption requests.

David Roza, The Air Force has not approved any religious waivers for the COVID vaccine. Task&Purpose, Nov. 3, 2021.

"The stats show that 95.9% of the active-duty force has been fully vaccinated, while an additional 1% has been partially vaccinated."

Give Me A Break

11/4/2021 07:56:42 pm

Oh, please. How many other vaccines has she had? Why does the covid vaccine violate her beliefs if the other vaccines she’s been required to take don’t? If it’s the abortion argument, that’s a loser unless she can prove she’s never taken the other vaccines and/or medicines also developed from fetal cell lines.

Just like sticking feather’s up one’s butt doesn’t make one a chicken, simply saying “this violates my religious beliefs” doesn’t automatically make it so.

1984

11/5/2021 12:10:49 am

The belief is that the Vaccine is harmful, and therefore against religious principles (as well as ethical) to do no harm or to put harmful things into your body.

I agree with you on principle, I am just explaining their point of view. And while I suspect much of this as an "excuse" we seem to allow the skirting of law in this country for 1. the death penalty and 2. illegal immigration (i.e. people who put their life is in danger), among other things.

Philip D. Cave link

11/5/2021 06:48:43 am

At least one expert has confirmed for me that many common vaccines we have been given over the years have resulted from stem cell research.

AnnoyingProle

11/4/2021 09:23:34 pm

Yeah, have to agree. "I'm sorry, I can't do critical parts of my job any more, for reasons I can't share with you." -- if that passes muster for the RFRA, expect me to start defending people who explain that morning muster and urinalysis are onerous burdens on their sincerely held beliefs.

11/5/2021 07:58:51 am

AP makes a good point. Daily schedules are based on any number of things.

A Muslim's defense to the FTR for formation is because he was responding to the Adhan. Remember, one of the Five Pillars is prayer.

A person of the Jewish faith is UA on Saturday's, their religious day of rest.

Or, the SGM is asked, why can't I have X day off as a holiday [pick one]

https://registrar.richmond.edu/planning/religious-observance.html

The defense is that basing work schedules on Christian "timing" violates the RFRA because of a failure to accommodate, it denies equal protection based on religion, and it violates the Establishment Clause by imposing a Christian religion---or words to that effect.

To be clear, if this will be a defense, you better have requested an exemption or accommodation. See United States v. Sterling.

Rory Fowler link

11/5/2021 03:09:32 pm

I am not an American, and cannot comment on American legal principles. However, in Canada, a person occupying a public office, performing public duties and functions, and exercising public powers, cannot refuse to perform those functions based upon their religious beliefs. However, some accommodation, to avoid conflict, is typically pursued.

This has arisen in the context of same-sex marriage, where a public functionary is obliged to perform and register a civil marriage. This is not a religious ceremony - it is a function of public administration. Typically, where a registry office (or equivalent) can assign that function to someone who does not object to performing the function, they will do so. But it does not constitute a valid ground for refusal.

The note above states that Col Ellis refused on 'religious grounds' not ethical grounds. And there is a distinction. If I, as a legal officer, were ordered to perform a function of that office that I considered to be unethical, I can refuse that order on the grounds that it is unlawful. I am taking a risk that, if I am incorrect in my analysis, I am refusing a lawful order (but I'll take that risk). But if it is, in fact, an order to perform my functions in an unethical fashion, the Law Society that licenses me (which is a necessary condition for me to be a legal officer) bars me from carrying out such an order.

It sounds like she thought that 'religious accommodation' was some sort of 'trump card'. But, if that were to arise in Canada, that would amount to an over-broad application of a principle of accommodation that applies individually. It's one thing to refuse a vaccination on valid religious grounds (which must be clearly articulated, and supported by the religious group to which she adheres), it is another to refuse to issue an order where the recipient of that order does not object on religious grounds. Moreover, (again, in Canada) even religious freedom is subject to such limitations as can be imposed in a free and democratic society (the balancing under s 1 of the Charter).

Comments are closed.

CAAFlog

Does this pass Sterling?

Categories

Archives