Not seeing how the First Amendment applies here. The people of Maine have the right to choose their own laws.
Correct. In their own state. STATES RIGHTS.States rights still do not override the constitution.
States rights still do not override the constitution.
States rights still do not override the constitution.
Not seeing how the First Amendment applies here. The people of Maine have the right to choose their own laws.
Religious liberty is fundamental, expressly protected by the First Amendment. Under currently controlling precedent (which, as I’ve previously detailed, is disputed), a law that impinges on religion may survive if it is both neutral (i.e., not hostile to religion) and generally applicable (i.e., imposed on everyone equally).
Maine’s vaccine mandate does not meet this standard because it provides for individualized exemptions. Though medical professionals are not excused from compliance based on their religious beliefs, they needn’t comply if they get a note from a health-care provider claiming that, in their cases, immunization “may be” medically inadvisable.......................
Gorsuch explained that the main issues on such an injunction request are whether the applicants are likely to succeed on the merits and, if so, whether they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Gorsuch proceeded to make a strong case that the claimants would prevail on both issues.
States rights still do not override the constitution.
The plaintiffs are medical professionals who object to the vaccine, and thus the mandate, based on their Christian faith.
As a proud Heathen who is NOT a medical professional,I STRONGLY object to the phrasing and implication above. WHY is it stated in such a way as to imply that ONLY Christians can object to how this vaccine is created by the process (use of fetal tissue) stated below?
Specifically, because fetal tissue from terminated pregnancies was used in developing the approved vaccines, the plaintiffs see immunization as an implicit endorsement of abortion, in violation of their religious beliefs.QuoteThe sincerity of those beliefs is not in dispute.
WHY are the sincerity of MY beliefs in dispute,simply because I am not a Christian?
Would the sincerity of a Jews beliefs be questioned,for example?
Isn't THAT phrasing,which implies that ONLY Christians can be morally offended by this medical process enough for an appeal?
What are you saying to me? Just to talk and be contrary?Mob rule cannot overrule the constitution so no matter what laws the state passes, they cannot obviate your rights, ie 2a or religious liberty, no matter what.
The duty of the SCOTUS is to rule on the Constitutionality of law, not make law.
WHY are the sincerity of MY beliefs in dispute,simply because I am not a Christian?
Would the sincerity of a Jews beliefs be questioned,for example?
Isn't THAT phrasing,which implies that ONLY Christians can be morally offended by this medical process enough for an appeal?
First off, this is an injunction and not a decision. Gorsuch, et al. make a compelling argument that the status quo should be maintained until a decision is rendered.
Having said that, I stand by my original opinion regarding religious liberty as it pertains to Amendment I. However, a better way to approach this case is by making a due process argument via Amendment XIV, but only for those workers who previously had no vaccination requisites.
For certain health care workers, there was already a requirement in place to have certain vaccines. That rule has been amended to include the mRNA jab. But the problem lies with other workers (such as EMS workers) that did not fall under that category. These workers have now been reclassified and are now included with the other group, all done without legislative approval. This violates due process.
I will disagree. Profoundly. To err on the side of the angels would be a stay that preserved the right of dissenters until the decision is made. If they wind up backing the state, no harm except a temporary shelter. However, if the decision lands on the side of upholding the religious right, then who knows how many thousands would have been compelled, or may have lost their jobs during your 'status quo' maintenance?
This is wrong.
Foremost, it is not a 'vaccine'. It is a gene therapy, and should not enjoy any precedence allowed for vaccines.
But that does not exclude a religious exemption either way.
Maine’s vaccine mandate does not meet this standard because it provides for individualized exemptions. Though medical professionals are not excused from compliance based on their religious beliefs, they needn’t comply if they get a note from a health-care provider claiming that, in their cases, immunization “may be” medically inadvisable.......................
Refusing a vaccine is not a religious exemption unless your religion causes you to refuse all of them (Christian Scientists, Amish). Using religion just as an excuse to do or not do something is not protected by the Constitution. Otherwise, would have people driving around without a license, insurance and tags because..."my religion" or smoking Weed in prison because..."my religion".
I will disagree. Profoundly. To err on the side of the angels would be a stay that preserved the right of dissenters until the decision is made. If they wind up backing the state, no harm except a temporary shelter. However, if the decision lands on the side of upholding the religious right, then who knows how many thousands would have been compelled, or may have lost their jobs during your 'status quo' maintenance?
This is wrong.
Foremost, it is not a 'vaccine'. It is a gene therapy, and should not enjoy any precedence allowed for vaccines.
Read again. You and Gorsuch are on the same side here. By maintaining the 'status quo', Gorsuch argues that the new rule should not be implemented until the case is decided, thus protecting those contesting the rule. Again, the argument is compelling.
That is a separate argument, albeit one with considerable merit. I do not think plaintiffs will win on First Amendment religious grounds, but they certainly could on due process (e.g. no gene therapy precedence as a vaccine).
I CERTAINLY will not comply on religious grounds, foremost. Compelling me to inject aborted children into my blood is evil, plain and simple, under the color of law. I don't give a single sh*t what anyone says about it. I will die upon that hill. So the 1A issue is paramount to me, and Congress shall write no law... Religious right is sacrosanct. probably more than ANY other.
I will be on the cross next to yours with my eyes set on the heavens. But I do not expect an Amendment I legal victory in a State that did not bother to protect the religious rights of its own citizens.
The citizens of Maine should look to their own Supreme Court and invoke Section 3 of their own Constitution.Section 3.
[N]o person shall be hurt, molested or restrained in that person's liberty or estate . . . for that person's religious professions or sentiments, provided that that person does not disturb the public peace, nor obstruct others in their religious worship; -- and all persons demeaning themselves peaceably, as good members of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the laws