WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

https://pic8.co/sh/MN83gB.jpeg

They kept sending out memos as exemptions came in basically denying them before even processed.

After the cut off they sent out this document.

They’ve already denied at least one or two that liberty council helped draft.

A sincerely held religious belief is just that, morals are different. If you’re religious, a sincerely held religious belief is a sin if you go against it, a moral isn’t.

Right here if you’re catholic:

The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

We can’t let them set the precedent on what’s a religious belief and a moral. Liberals are constantly trying to change definitions but we have to stop them this time.

Even the eeoc states that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance

No where do they say redefine religion into a moral or conscientious belief.

Title VII and COVID-19 Vaccinations

K.12. Under Title VII, how should an employer respond to an employee who communicates that he or she is unable to be vaccinated for COVID-19 (or provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination) because of a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance? (12/16/20, updated 5/28/21) Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship. Employers also may receive religious accommodation requests from individuals who wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine is available to the employee. Such requests should be processed according to the same standards that apply to other accommodation requests.

EEOC guidance explains that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. See also 29 CFR 1605.

Under Title VII, an employer should thoroughly consider all possible reasonable accommodations, including telework and reassignment. For suggestions about types of reasonable accommodation for unvaccinated employees, see question and answer K.6., above. In many circumstances, it may be possible to accommodate those seeking reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs, practices, or observances.

https://pic8.co/sh/MN83gB.jpeg They kept sending out memos as exemptions came in basically denying them before even processed. After the cut off they sent out this document. They’ve already denied at least one or two that liberty council helped draft. A sincerely held religious belief is just that, morals are different. If you’re religious, a sincerely held religious belief is a sin if you go against it, a moral isn’t. Right here if you’re catholic: >The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, since it holds that **"human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.** We can’t let them set the precedent on what’s a religious belief and a moral. Liberals are constantly trying to change definitions but we have to stop them this time. Even the eeoc states **that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance** No where do they say redefine religion into a moral or conscientious belief. >**Title VII and COVID-19 Vaccinations** >K.12. Under Title VII, how should an employer respond to an employee who communicates that he or she is unable to be vaccinated for COVID-19 (or provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination) because of a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance? (12/16/20, updated 5/28/21) **Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship. Employers also may receive religious accommodation requests from individuals who wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine is available to the employee. Such requests should be processed according to the same standards that apply to other accommodation requests**. >**EEOC guidance explains that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance**. However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. See also 29 CFR 1605. >**Under Title VII, an employer should thoroughly consider all possible reasonable accommodations, including telework and reassignment**. For suggestions about types of reasonable accommodation for unvaccinated employees, see question and answer K.6., above. **In many circumstances, it may be possible to accommodate those seeking reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs, practices, or observances**.

(post is archived)

[–] 5 pts

You do not give them specific reasons why you're declining on the basis of religious beliefs - because they will then proceed to refute or dismiss those specific reasons. This is the same fuckwitted tactics that pro-vax shills use to delegitimise those who decline the jab in the first place - by asking them their "reasons" for declining. The answer is always "no."

[–] 0 pt

They had to submit something, even LC got the ones they helped with denied.

What should it say then?

[–] 0 pt

posted a good template.

[–] 3 pts

Found it follow these steps

[–] 2 pts

That sounds like a good strategy. But if you can find a lawyer that isn't swamped in these requests, it'll help. The second anyone threatens or even implies that you'll be fired, you should let your lawyer do the talking for you.

It's not just the fact that HR will take the same note written by a lawyer more seriously than one written by you. It's the fact that a lawyer can be a total asshole to your employer in ways that you can't. And as the very least, drag it out longer.

[–] 0 pt

You don’t actually send anything to a lawyer...that’s the point you tell them you did

[–] 0 pt

I follow, but eventually you will have to hire a lawyer if they don't give up and you have to sue because they violated Title VII when they fired you.

[–] 1 pt

I’ll start having people use that one, looks good.

Appreciate it.

[–] 1 pt

Thank you. I feel tricked being asked to volunteer vaccine status in the first place

[–] 1 pt

Thanks

Steele yourself. This is a game of sacrifice now. The side willing to sacrifice the most will win. I think it's going to turn out heavily on our sides favor as we are forced to sacrifice and when the other side has no easy out they won't be able too and will lose.

[–] 2 pts

It’s for a friend in healthcare. He’s keeping everything, going to pull the early retirement option, just barely made it by a month.

But in the end I agree we’ll win, and I hope we can tell them the STFU about global warming also.

[–] 1 pt

Remind me, I have a religious exemption guide on how to deal with this. Do not reply to them yet. I have to figure out how to upload this thing

[+] [deleted] 1 pt
[–] 0 pt (edited )

The religious argument is bullshit, it's not that it's Constitutionally untenable, it's that it won't get you where you want to go in a timeframe that will keep you employed... Viva Barnes Law has templates for legally sound objections you can use.

[–] 0 pt

What Barnes law? There’s like 100 of them.

[–] 0 pt

I just paid my 5 dollars and his template was denied for healthcare workers in Oregon also.

https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/987884/employer-letter-example-vaccine-mandate-objection

I’ll have to look for others on the site.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

If you're going to find one, that would be the place I would look.

David seems to be a good man. We share many ideological sympathies. He's a leaf, and very polite, so there's that I guess - but as these things go - I like the guy and I trust his professional judgement.

Robert Barnes is a penis. He appears to be quite knowledgeable and successful but I think he got beat up a lot as a kid, maybe someone stuck his head in a toilet... He peacocks as a fucking lifestyle and there is a underlying sense of insecurity that cannot be denied.

[–] 0 pt

I can't add to anything concerning religious exemptions. However on both the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna (Mode/ Modernise - RNA) Official Vaccine information websites, Exemptions exist, one being (from the official website):

'If you have had a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) or an immediate allergic reaction, even if it was not severe, to any ingredient in an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (such as polyethylene glycol), you should not get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.'

On an earlier Moderna website (Pfizer uses the very same proprietary PEGylated LNS - Lipid Nano Shell. Which also contains GO - Graphene Oxide but that's another topic altogether and not listed on ingredient sheets as the LNS with GO process of manufacture is 'proprietary'), it stated that individuals may have an existing 'unknown' allergy/ sensitivity (hives, rash, Swelling, redness, shortness of breath) to PEG products such as Shampoos, Soaps, Cosmetic products etc while not realizing PEG was the cause.

Ergo, you have an existing allergy to PEG-containing (Polyethylene Glycol) products. When applied topically, results in immediate (several minutes or whatever) redness, rash, hives, pain and heat at location of application etc. So you're sure as shite not willing to inject the very same ingredient into your own body and risk any potential for severe adverse events.

[–] 0 pt

J&J doesn’t use PEG, so you’d be mandated to get that one. Also you’d need medical evidence/records and/or a doctors note, good luck on the note since they purged all the non-vaxxed healthcare workers.

Also if you look at the lists from the manufacturers of “people who shouldn’t take the vaccines” they’ll deny you for those also, because “it may”, there’s no evidence it will.

[–] 0 pt

Yep sure. I get it. They are going at it hard, in order to get anyone and everyone the jab. Even where they purposely disregard risks stated on the Vaccine manufacture's website. Simply deceiving individuals with duplicitous 'mandate' bull-shittery and deliberately co-opting individuals out of informed consent. My stance has always been the same, I am unable to give informed consent as the long term risks are as yet unknown (Long term clinical studies (Data cherry picking and Methodology obfuscation, imo) are due in 2023-24 iirc. Until then i can not give 'informed consent' and i am resigned to let the cards fall as they may. Good luck.

[–] 0 pt

Yeah it’s crazy, a full list but can’t be exempted and doctors are actively pushing it on those groups also.

[–] 0 pt

I'm muslim and I need to double check with my imam.

That's what I'm going with.

[–] 0 pt

Haha, that might work.

[–] 0 pt

It should work, that's the only religion they respect at the moment.

[–] 0 pt

As far as I know, Satanism doctrine states:

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

So any Satanist who does not wilt a jab should be exempt.

[–] 0 pt

CHECK WITH ACLU ,THEY MIGHT TAKE YOUR CASE.

[–] 0 pt

I'm at an impasse too. How do I qualify for a religious exemption?

[–] 1 pt

Read natives post and link.

https://poal.co/s/AskPoal/446167/3ee29bf1-890c-4796-8dc7-3d5dffe54e05#cmnts

If you have to submit one, it’s at the bottom of section 1, keep it vague and just copy it verbatim. Then ignore them, if they keep at you, tel them you’re talking to a lawyer, just follow the photo at the end you can send them them this document.

It’s illegal for them to ask your beliefs or to make you get affidavits.

https://lc.org/Site%20Images/Resources/ReligiousBeliefs.pdf

[–] -1 pt

The fact you need religion tells me you can't think for yourself. My former co-op IT company is all atheists. Printing money still.

[–] 0 pt

There are no medical exemptions being allowed at all, religious/abortion was the only option.

Thanks for the input and knowing my beliefs.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Well if you are using the "fetal cells" line, know that you will be denied 30+ medications, as they used the same technique in their creation. Choose wisely.

Beliefs... Top kek. Edit: can't respond as the poster can't handle a discussion, blocked.

[–] 0 pt

Work doesn't need to know about any use of any medication whatsoever.

[–] 0 pt

Like these?

In case someone tries to pull this shit with you, present them with this (and you can verify each one of these by searching '"drug' first marketed". Aspirin - 1853 Tums - 1930 Benadryl - 1946 Pepto Bismol - 1901 Ex-Lax - 1906 Sudafed (Pseudoephedrine ) - 1930s Preparation H - 1935 (acquired, was a sunburn oil) Ibuprofen - 1961 Maalox - 1949 Albuterol - 1966 Senokot (Senna-based laxatives) - 1930s Motrin - (Ibuprofen) - 1961 Tylenol - 1953 (prescription), 1955 (OTC) (from Acetanilide, 1866)

[–] 0 pt

There are no medical exemptions being allowed at all

So if you were allergic to some of the vax ingredients, your choice would be to be fired or die from anaphylaxis? Get them to put that in writing, and even the most corrupt lawyers and judges will be hard pressed not to back you.

[–] 0 pt

They contain different ingredients, if you can’t take one, you can take one of the other two. It’s already been tried other places.

Worried about it flaring your autoimmune diseases which is an actual exemption, denied.