These suits are great, but they miss the boat. Sure it's easier to base them on religious objections, but really, this leaves bodily autonomy in the ditch.
This was not just about religion. After UAL dictated a vaccine mandate, employees went to UAL and asked for an exemption to the mandate based on EITHER religious reasons OR medical reasons The legal foundation is in Title VII and the ADA. The employees actually did cite bodily autonomy, but had to cite case law to do that.
True enough, and I have fought those Title VII fights. Nonetheless, your last line sums up my objection, we can't just claim sovereignty over our own body, which should be a given, but instead have to cite case law.
These suits are great, but they miss the boat. Sure it's easier to base them on religious objections, but really, this leaves bodily autonomy in the ditch.
This was not just about religion. After UAL dictated a vaccine mandate, employees went to UAL and asked for an exemption to the mandate based on EITHER religious reasons OR medical reasons The legal foundation is in Title VII and the ADA. The employees actually did cite bodily autonomy, but had to cite case law to do that.
True enough, and I have fought those Title VII fights. Nonetheless, your last line sums up my objection, we can't just claim sovereignty over our own body, which should be a given, but instead have to cite case law.