Hope She Is Right
(media.gab.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
Discrimination (in a legal sense) has to fall into a set of defined categories. For example, https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-type
As far as I can tell, after a good 20 minutes of searching, there's no protections for this particular type of discrimination, even though we recognize it as flagrantly discriminatory.
We need a new anti-discrimination Act for this. It baffles me that none of our lawmakers have even considered this yet.
Only a licensed medical doctor can legally prescribe a medical procedure such as a vaccine, or a medical device such as a face mask. Your boss ain't your doctor. And even if you boss was a doctor and prescribed the vaccine, you have legal authority over your body and can choose not to get it.
The key is Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. The way religious beliefs has been defined and interpreted is more along the lines of deeply-held moral conviction. Terminating an employee for not getting an unprescribed medical treatment due to their deeply-held beliefs, or even treating them differently than employees who got the unprescribed treatment, absolutely is discrimination.
Religion is definitely valid leverage for a discrimination suit, but the OP's post said nothing about religious convictions. It simply says, if you're fired for being unjabbed, sue for discrimination.
Consider looking up the lawyer Peggy Hall. Religious discrimination is the way to go as the definition and case law is so broad that it essentially means deeply-held beliefs.
From what I can tell, in discrimination suits they'll try and pick apart an employee's grievances and show that there's no discrimination. With religious discrimination that's much harder to do as the burden of proof is on the employer. You don't have to attend church, read the Bible, or even believe in God to be discriminated against for your deeply-held beliefs.
I do agree that in the tweet she should have mentioned the type of discrimination