Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jack D Crack's avatar

YAY! Another win!

But I think, also, that having 'shown or demonstrated a willingness to test' as a reasonable accommodation for a religious exemption as a necessity for strengthening or winning these cases is BOGUS. Here's why...

1) Testing a healthy non-symptomatic person is both ill-advised by the CDC and, in the absence of a clinical evaluation, NOT an indication of infection NOR infectiousness. Therefore, testing is JUST another means of unethical and illegal COERCION. ( ORC 2905.12 )

2) Testing ONLY the un-jabbed, in light of the facts in (1) above, is JUST another means of unethical and illegal DISCRIMINATION. (Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Section 2000e-2)

These are the only reasonable accommodations, in the presence of a religious exemption to an injection mandate, that I can think of (please add to this list):

A) If I begin to feel sick or I am symptomatic, I will take sick leave and/or work remotely.

B) A positive antibody test.

C) Work remotely or during 'off' hours.

NOTE: The known science of natural immunity, to specific coronavirus variants developed after exposure and infection, has been and continues to be well established, long before March of 2020.

Expand full comment
Evil Harry's avatar

Very well done. Thank you.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts