5 ms·

My employer wouldn't let me go to the office or even any offsites or outdoor actives (i.e. a picnic) until very recently. (Despite my approved religious exempti

My employer wouldn't let me go to the office or even any offsites or outdoor actives (i.e. a picnic) until very recently. (Despite my approved religious exemption and "requiring" all employees to work in the office). If that isn't coercion to take an experimental vaccine i don't know what is.

threeseed 4y ago
a) I wouldn't class it as experimental when hundreds of millions of people have taken it. b) It sounds like your employer did the right thing to balance your rights versus those of the people you work with.
- addingadimensio 4y ago
  If an experiment is big enough it becomes a statistic
- burner990 4y ago
  > I wouldn't class it as experimental when hundreds of millions of people have taken it. that just means we're experimenting on hundreds of millions in real time. That was the whole point of the "emergency use". > your rights versus those of the people you work with no, employees don't have a legal "right" to work in a fully vaccinated office. That would imply that even if an employer wanted to give someone an exemption, then any employee could veto it.
curiousgal 4y ago
> approved religious exemption The wording is a telltale sign that the exemption is pure BS.
- TheCrownedFox 4y ago
  You might not like that the exemption exists, but it's legal in the USA. Would you rather that religious beliefs were not respected by the government?
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    I would prefer the government was completely indifferent to religious beliefs. Because any belief can be construed as religious if you’re willing to take the position that religion is stupid and you don’t care about optics. So yeah, I would prefer beliefs not garner you special privileges
    - TheCrownedFox 4y ago
      What special privileges are being garnered? The topsy-turvy world of the religious person existing as the exception rather than the rule is quite odd to me. But regardless, in the USA the religious exemption policy is incredibly diverse and welcoming, you are correct on that. You do not even need to communicate with your God in expressible ways to other people. What should be the limit on someone's divine communication and the restrictions upon the government they live under?
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        > What special privileges are being garnered? The exemption > What should be the limit on someone's divine communication and the restrictions upon the government they live under? None. But your definition of divine communication should not override otherwise unrelated rules.
        TheCrownedFox 4y ago
        I would posit that the special privilege has been given to the non-religious, in that they have been able to openly discriminate against religious people in violation of existing laws. I would suggest looking into the EEOC regulations mentioned by someone else in this thread and Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act.
        oneoff786 4y ago
        By posting that you have discriminated against my religious beliefs. So you’re just as bad as an offender. So it’s really a moot point.
- burner990 4y ago
  That's the legal wording from EEOC[1]. I'll chalk up your religious prejudice to ignorance. [1]: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-1...
lazyasciiart 4y ago
Seems reasonable to me. They want everyone to be at the office and vaccinated, but they’re not allowed to fire you because “religion”, so they made special accommodations to let you continue working without making all of their other employees have to be around you. You appear to be mad that your “exemption” wasn’t enough to make them pretend you were vaccinated?
- burner990 4y ago
  But no accommodation to go to the company (outdoor) events and hear talks from the executives? > You appear to be mad that your “exemption” wasn’t enough to make them pretend you were vaccinated? I had blood test proof of antibodies but its just about "feel goods". And they didn't require boosters, just the first 2 doses from over a year ago, so yes its non-sensical and purely political (not based on science).

threeseed 4y ago

a) I wouldn't class it as experimental when hundreds of millions of people have taken it. b) It sounds like your employer did the right thing to balance your rights versus those of the people you work with.

addingadimensio 4y ago
If an experiment is big enough it becomes a statistic
burner990 4y ago
> I wouldn't class it as experimental when hundreds of millions of people have taken it. that just means we're experimenting on hundreds of millions in real time. That was the whole point of the "emergency use". > your rights versus those of the people you work with no, employees don't have a legal "right" to work in a fully vaccinated office. That would imply that even if an employer wanted to give someone an exemption, then any employee could veto it.

curiousgal 4y ago

> approved religious exemption The wording is a telltale sign that the exemption is pure BS.

TheCrownedFox 4y ago
You might not like that the exemption exists, but it's legal in the USA. Would you rather that religious beliefs were not respected by the government?
- oneoff786 4y ago
  I would prefer the government was completely indifferent to religious beliefs. Because any belief can be construed as religious if you’re willing to take the position that religion is stupid and you don’t care about optics. So yeah, I would prefer beliefs not garner you special privileges
  - TheCrownedFox 4y ago
    What special privileges are being garnered? The topsy-turvy world of the religious person existing as the exception rather than the rule is quite odd to me. But regardless, in the USA the religious exemption policy is incredibly diverse and welcoming, you are correct on that. You do not even need to communicate with your God in expressible ways to other people. What should be the limit on someone's divine communication and the restrictions upon the government they live under?
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      > What special privileges are being garnered? The exemption > What should be the limit on someone's divine communication and the restrictions upon the government they live under? None. But your definition of divine communication should not override otherwise unrelated rules.
      - TheCrownedFox 4y ago
        I would posit that the special privilege has been given to the non-religious, in that they have been able to openly discriminate against religious people in violation of existing laws. I would suggest looking into the EEOC regulations mentioned by someone else in this thread and Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act.
        oneoff786 4y ago
        By posting that you have discriminated against my religious beliefs. So you’re just as bad as an offender. So it’s really a moot point.
burner990 4y ago
That's the legal wording from EEOC[1]. I'll chalk up your religious prejudice to ignorance. [1]: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-1...

lazyasciiart 4y ago

Seems reasonable to me. They want everyone to be at the office and vaccinated, but they’re not allowed to fire you because “religion”, so they made special accommodations to let you continue working without making all of their other employees have to be around you. You appear to be mad that your “exemption” wasn’t enough to make them pretend you were vaccinated?

burner990 4y ago
But no accommodation to go to the company (outdoor) events and hear talks from the executives? > You appear to be mad that your “exemption” wasn’t enough to make them pretend you were vaccinated? I had blood test proof of antibodies but its just about "feel goods". And they didn't require boosters, just the first 2 doses from over a year ago, so yes its non-sensical and purely political (not based on science).