Skip to main content

Religious Exemptions to the COVID-19 Vaccine

We have all been counseled to avoid discussing religion and politics in order to reduce the risk of a hostile encounter.  I recall being reminded of this maxim when dining with a new acquaintance many years ago.  My response?  ‘That’s all I like to talk about!’

I am writing this at 9:30 a.m. on a Saturday and I’ve already had multiple conversations – both directly and electronically – with people in my life on both of these radioactive subjects.  As far as I know, all of the friendships remain whole.  Indeed, these debates and exchanges serve to fortify our friendships rather than to threaten them.

I recognized that discussing religion can be fraught for many individuals and might be best avoided for them.  Same with politics.  Many a thanksgiving dinner has been sullied by someone who decides to serve as the family turkey 

Look at the national response when a Colorado baker refused to bake a wedding cake for gay couple in 2012.  The cake shop owner claimed this violated his religious beliefs at a time that the state did not recognize same-sex marriage.



Praying for Wisdom

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided fuel for some to argue that the vaccine encroaches on their religious freedom.  Indeed, federal law provides for a vaccine exemption for a sincerely held religious belief.  (Individuals can also claim a medical disability exemption under the Americans with Disability Act.)  If the exemption claims are legitimate, then the employee is entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation at the workplace so long as this would not pose undue hardship on the employer.

While defining a medical disability can be somewhat objective, how does one define a religion?  This is murky terrain.  Try to do this yourself before reading further and you’ll see what I mean.

Here’s a summary statement on the definition of religion taken from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The presence of a deity or deities is not necessary for a religion to receive protection under Title VII.  Religious beliefs can include unique beliefs held by a few or even one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs.  Individuals who do not practice any religion are also protected from discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof.  

Seems rather a broad definition to me.  The courts will be charged with defining religion and they will need Solomonic wisdom to achieve this.  Might veganism or vegetarianism be religions?  Satanism?  Atheism? One man’s religion is another man’s cult.  All of this will be good news for discrimination lawyers whose prayers for prosperity have been answered.  

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Stop Medical Malpractice: The White Coat Wall of Silence

Photo Credit Leisure Guy, one of my most faithful commenters, opines that I am omitting an important aspect of the tort reform argument. He has implored me repeatedly to read a particular book that I suspect buttresses his views, but this worthy pursuit is simply not near the top of my priority pyramid. Since he’s retired, he enjoys the luxury of burrowing deeply into the base of his priority pyramid. With 4 tuitions to go, retirement is a distant mirage for me. I’m can be a ‘leisure guy’, but only in my dreams. I have written throughout this blog and elsewhere that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against physicians. I have admitted that caps on non-economic damages are not ideal, because they deny some worthy plaintiffs of complete compensation, but I support them because I believe they serve the greater good. I have ranted that there is no effective filter to screen out physicians who should never be invited to the litigation party in the first place. I believe that the...

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Will Smarter Lawyers End Frivolous Lawsuits?

How do you know if a lawyer is any good?  Of course, they've all passed the bar, but now their profession is lowering it.  While most of us strive for excellence, and raise our children to value this virtue, prominent legal educators are establishing a new quality intitiative for their profession.  Who says that lawyers can't reform themselves?  Perhaps, we physicians can follow their bold example and raise the credentials of our pre-medical students.  I’ll present the facts. You be the judge. I have written a dozen posts on tort reform on this blog, which always generate spirited and adversarial retorts from attorneys and their supporters. They accuse me and other tort reform advocates of carrying water for insurance companies. They repeatedly point out that I know nothing about the legal system and are unqualified to opine on its flaws. They deride me when I argue that effective tort reform would reduce the practice of defensive medicine, despite the re...