That is true in legal technicality, but it looks to be untrue in practice, as the courts are cucked for now. Even RFK's suit against the FDA for their simultaneous approval and EUA extension will only get heard in November.

OP has great info, as well as HalmoniKim2 - wholeheartedly agree.

Piggybacking off the top comment here, but it's important GAW (and the rest of the normies on our side or not) realizes that exemptions are only going to go so far - it's a temporary measure that gives you time to make plans for the next phase.

Everybody needs to plan on being forced to make a stand because every cucked company is going to eventually force their employees to get vaxxed or be fired for non-compliance. We all know this is highly illegal, but we also all know that things are going to get worse before they get better.

I continually read on here "when is action going to happen, we are almost at the precipice!" Newsflash - we'll be at the precipice when EVERY pede and every normie is being PERSONALLY affected. Things can get FAR, FAR worse and I am fully planning on that being the case.

If you are at a based company or self-employed or retired, I'd say congrats for not being forced into this shitshow. The rest of us will be making some hard decisions soon.

My company has a "self-testing" plan in place for those who don't show proof of the jab. But in all of their communications, they say the self-testing will only be taking place until the end of the year, but they never state what's going to happen after that point. We're all working remotely, but making plans to return to the office. However, "Delta variant" has them scared shitless and it's about 85% leftists vs conservatives, so they're going to have no problems booting everybody who doesn't comply with their corporate tyranny.

Both hands way up, but not in surrender. I will fight until I'm fired.

Hand is up. It's all been surreal but I promise it's real.

My office was very anti-discussing the jab until two weeks ago. My boss is based and hates the whole topic, but word came down from upon high and now it's mandated.

My boss sent around an email announcing that we all had two weeks to show evidence that we had taken the first shot. He then said he would be sending a follow up email 72 hours later and if you get that email you still need to show evidence. I did not get that email and he seems to have left some people off of the list.

Me too

Sometimes change is good

Wow...you are in the heart of lib thinking. It's bad out there. Do you use an anti-parasite on a regular basis? The reason I ask it because of all of the talk here on GAW makes it sound like we should do that. Thanks.

My wife and I are expecting our first child and we are not vaccinating.

How are your kid’s immune systems?

This! And the template thing is true. I don’t know why that matters or how they can deny someone a religious exemption just b/c they used a template, but my company definitely sent an email out saying that they were going back through everyone’s exemptions b/c they found out some people copy and pasted from a template. So dumb! Clearly a bunch of Karens run our company. 🙄🤦🏼‍♀️

A good source for some scriptures to use is The Warrenton Declaration on Medical Mandates, Biblical Ethics, & Authority https://warrentondeclaration.com/ The site provides rationale and scriptures to back it up. I have submitted my religious accommodation for the Air National Guard. For now, my civilian employer has not mentioned anything about it yet.

Just to make sure the language we use is clear on this - As I understood it, The Project Veritas video exposed that fetal tissues from kidneys were used in testing to CREATE the vax. They also exposed a deliberate cover up by Pfizer to conceal this information from the public and to directly lie to the public. They also exposed that Pfizer willfully engaged in misconduct in deliberately false prior public statements that fetal tissues were not used in the creation of the vax.

The Project Veritas Whistleblower did not expose that there were fetal tissues used in the vax itself but she did make a statement in her personal opinion that based on the other deceitful actions by Pfizer on this topic, she does not trust that fetal tissues are not present in the actual vax.

No, fetal cells are not in the jab nor are they used in the production of it. They can honestly say that. But that is not the entire truth. What they don't want people to know is that fetal cell lines were used in the research development of the jab. That fact is what they are trying to conceal because that is a basis for exemption on religious grounds. They are being deceptive by not telling the whole truth.

I work for a major healthcare system in Houston. The aborted fetal cell argument worked for my colleagues, who said they couldn’t take a product that came into creation through the use of fetal cells, even if they’re not supposedly in the shot itself.

Please share updates with us as you have them.

This is my position as well. I refuse to even participate in the pretend need to justify anything. There is a free online class at Hillsdale College that I am taking with my 10 year old son on The Constitution called The Constitution 101. I think all pedes should take it to arm themselves with knowledge of our natural rights as understood and articulated by our founders as well as to improve upon and strengthen our understanding that laws or mandates or any other agreed upon set of rules for society only have legitimacy when they are put in place with the consent and agreement to abide by them from the governed. So, as I see it, the key is not consenting to any of this charade and instead using our voices to speak against it with the confidence and authority of natural law that supercedes all subsequent agreements a society may enter into.

Exactly. This is why people need to flat out REFUSE to tell them anything about "vax status." Your employer CANNOT ASK ABOUT YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY, so why would you voluntarily provide them with that info?

They cannot ask if you have cancer, are pregnant, have Multiple Sclerosis, etc.

DO NOT TELL THEM ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR HEALTH. Tell them they will have to contact your doctor for that information.

They can and will still fire you, but they will fire you anyway over literally anything. Do you want to work for an employer like this? Because mandating a vax for an employee is 1 step away from mandating sterilization, or abortions, or the number of kids you can have.

Nuremberg Code is not actually in US law.

Religious beliefs are personal. NO other person or organization has the right or authority to judge them.

This is a repost but I think it is important to address:

Just to make sure the language we use is clear on this - As I understood it, The Project Veritas video exposed that fetal tissues from kidneys were used in testing to create the vax. They also exposed a deliberate cover up by Pfizer to conceal this information from the public and to directly lie to the public. They also exposed that Pfizer willfully engaged in misconduct in deliberately false prior public statements that fetal tissues were not used in the creation of the vax.

The Project Veritas Whistleblower did not expose that there were fetal tissues used in the vax itself that is being injected into people but she did make a statement in her personal opinion that based on the other deceitful actions by Pfizer on this topic, she does not trust that fetal tissues are not present in the actual vax.

Also to be clear- someone should be able to make a religious objection to the vaccines based on their tests using fetal cells even if fetsl cells are notable included in the final vaccine product. Not that anyone should need any exemption to say no to any medical procedure.

That information being willfully misdirected on the specifics of the use of fetal cells in the development of their jab and not in the production was misleading. Although probably unethical, Pfizer's behavior does not violate any laws or regulations that would affect waivers. That would only happen if it could be proven that they willfully violated the law with specific intent that caused harm to people. That is a very high threshold of proof that would have to be produced. That usually happens when it can be proven that data was deliberately manipulated that then resulted in an unsafe product being given to the public. Much is the situation now, but no one so far has been willing to challenge this criminally and I am not sure it can be done with the waivers. These companies are pretty much insulated from accountability.

Short answer? I don't know if it works overseas, but I have become quite acquainted with the law here in the US. I don't see why it wouldn't apply elsewhere.

A cut and paste from one of the sources I used in my letter:

The EEOC and courts have consistently found that Title VII defines religion very broadly to include not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. Moreover, an employee’s belief or practice can be treated as “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few — or no — other people adhere to it.

Importantly, while social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII, the EEOC and some courts have taken the position that certain non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs may qualify as “religious,” provided they are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. For instance, at least one court has declined to dismiss a Title VII religious accommodation claim brought by a vegan who refused to comply with her employer’s mandatory flu vaccine policy on the grounds that the vaccine contained and/or was produced using animal by-products. On the other hand, it does not appear that any court to date has extended such protection to those who adhere to the growing anti-vaccination movement.