Going into the fact of whether these denials are unconstitutional, one main factor is that the Defendants were able to tolerate the risks of other members of the service being unvaccinated for reasoning other than religious, like being in a clinical trial. Due to these denials, Plaintiff has suffered from irreparable standings in the Air Force, therefore leading to an economic downfall. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s rights as well as the rights of others in the Air Force under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Under the RFRA, Defendants have violated her free exercise of religion by denying Plaintiff’s request for religious accommodations and forcing her into early retirement based on her religious beliefs. By doing this, Defendants are not remaining neutral in the law due to the fact that they are surpassing others’ vaccine accommodations, and more importantly, allowing them to still serve in the Air Force at their full capacity. Based on the denial in this case, I believe that the Defendants did, in fact, impede on Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Due to the fact that under the constitution, Defendants cannot allow Plaintiff to choose between her career and her religious beliefs, their denial was unconstitutional. Pleading the other side of the case, if Defendants did grant Plaintiff an exemption, that would open up a bigger door; people could potentially use unjust reasoning and name it as a “religious exemption”, this is where the slippery slope takes place. But otherwise, this case is relevant and important due to its recency in our lives today. With new vaccines and a potential future for more variants of the virus, vaccine mandates will need to be neutral and equal, and this case proves they are neither of those things.
With the facts listed above, what do you think? Did Defendants impede on Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights of free exercise of her religion by denying her COVID-19 vaccine exemption due to her Christian beliefs?
6 comments:
I think this is a tricky case; I see both positions that Meghan pointed out. In this case, the concept of neutrality is neglected. However, this is definitely a slippery slope because if the vaccine exemption is granted, the possibility of people trying to get exemptions heightens. I think in this case, the exemption should be granted, because yes, the plaintiff should not have to choose between her job and religious beliefs. Moreover, there should be neutrality and equality represented throughout these cases.
This is an extremely interesting and relevant case. The Plaintiffs First Amendment right is being impeded upon due to the denial of the vaccination exemption under her Christian beliefs. Her interpretation of Christianity entails the belief that her is a temple of the Holy Spirit; whereas long term effects and potentially procreation capabilities are unknown or jeopardized. Because the Plaintiff believes the vaccination would place her at risk and contradict her views, she should not be forced to take the vaccination. Mandates like such are interesting, when you have people arguing for "My body my choice," the same can apply for government and institutionally enforced vaccinations. In this case, there is no choice other than forcing you to get the vaccine or unemployment/early retirement. I agree this would be unconstitutional because her refusal to receive the vaccination under a religious exemption was denied, which infringes upon the First Amendment.
As a member of the United States Army Reserves and soon commissioning as an officer, this case is something I am watching closely. I personally find the mandate morally reprehensible, but once one takes the oath to serve the country some rights protected under the constitution are curtailed. For example, the first amendment to freedom of speech is restricted as a member of the armed services. One is not allowed to speak defiantly or against the President of the United States, or congress. I find this case to be similar to this example. Further, there have long been vaccination mandates for service members, every soldier, airman, marine, and sailor knows that MEPS, and Basic training shot line. To my knowledge, there has never been an issue with those vaccine requirements, nor any exemptions filed for those? I can certainly see how the issue is very important, and how in this case with the COVID19 vaccine specifically, people even though they "signed away" their rights should still retain autonomy over their body and medical procedures, since the virus isn't particularly lethal to those in good health, like a majority of military members are.
I see how the Plaintiff's first amendment right is being neglected, but Paul brings up a good point when he says that you give up some rights when you enter the military. In that case, would we consider this instance one of those times? Is getting the COVID-19 vaccination part of an effort to serve our country? I'm sure that is something up for debate. But overall, this is a special group of people that may be looked at differently from the general population of the United States. Additionally, I wonder how far this could go because often it is difficult to tell whether someone's claim for exemption is legitimate or a fraud. This aspect could fall under the "sincerity" of religion. It could very well be that the Plaintiff is sincere in her application for a religious exemption, but other people may use the religious exemption to simply get out of the vaccine. How many people are we going to allow to get this exemption and how are we going to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate claims?
I agree with Meghan in this case. I do believe that the Air Force officer should be granted an exemption. She is proving a sincerity of her religious beliefs and also has other medical reasons for wanting to avoid the COVID vaccine. Yes, there is a slippery slope when it comes to religious exemptions, but these exemptions go on a case-by-case basis. Just because this officer is given one does not mean everyone else has to be. It depends on the argument raised and I think in this case, it would go against her free exercise of religion to force her to get the vaccine. There are significant detrimental effects of the plaintiff losing her job here and the fact that she is willing to incur the consequences further proves her sincerity of religion. Also, there is clearly not neutrality here, as Meghan points out that other exemptions have been accepted.
This relevant case is interesting as we have seen it disputed on many levels in the past two years. People are generally very passionate about two things; religion and politics. This case happens to deal with both. There has been much back and forth on this topic in the past 2 years. In this case, and many like it, I tend to disagree with the notion that we should be giving away exemptions as such with ease. I see that Meghan points out that other exemptions have been taken, but we do not know the circumstances. This is certainly a slippery slope, and if we start allowing these exemptions, who's to say everyone doesn't have a religious obligation to refuse the vaccine? This is an international pandemic and is not to be taken lightly. I see Paul mentioned that most military members are in good health. This is not really the point. A vaccination is created, yes, to keep everyone regardless of health safe, but it is to help mitigate the spread of the virus. Just because people have mild symptoms does not mean they aren't spreading it faster than they would have. In this case I believe that the Air Force should be allowed to use good judgement to determine whether or not a plea for exemption is reasonable or not.
Post a Comment