They’ll always need to make exceptions for people with medical conditions. Religious accommodations are not looking so hot though, something about a court denying review in a case to reconsider TWA v Hardison (which I just read about today but was published in April).
I’m going to quote my mom’s wisdom on whether this is likely to pass:…
They’ll always need to make exceptions for people with medical conditions. Religious accommodations are not looking so hot though, something about a court denying review in a case to reconsider TWA v Hardison (which I just read about today but was published in April).
I’m going to quote my mom’s wisdom on whether this is likely to pass:
It’s gonna get worse before it gets worse. But don’t worry because the worst is yet to come!
I would agree that in the past they would likely grant exemptions but heck they are gaslighting us by not recognizing antibodies and activated T-Cell immunity which were recognized by the medical community for decades. We were told this by world renowned specialists like Martin Kuldorf of Harvard and Jay Battacharya of Stanford, both of whom are being harassed and outright censored by the machine. So why would they recognize other exemptions? Boosters already on the way. Ina society that bribes children with ice cream and some of the least healthy among us with burgers and fries, is anything off the table? What happened to the Nuremberg Code?
Half the world has lost its mind. And how can anyone with Half a scruple mandate “vaccines” when the pharmaceutical companies that created them are immune from prosecution?
If I am not mistaken, the TWA case, although it could be distorted in a court of law, was about someone refusing to work on the sabbath due to their religion. It wasn’t about a religious exemption to a medical treatment. But in this day and age, all rationale and protections seem to be going out the window due to regulatory capture.
You recall correctly. The argument in issue, if I’m understanding it right, is whether the religious accommodation would create “undue hardship” to the company (more an employer-employee situation than an airline-traveler issue). I also don’t discount the likelihood that I’m drawing wrong conclusions and/or misinterpreting how the case bears upon current concerns... law is a language unto itself and I’m far from fluent.
Also, travelers being paying customers, no airline would just part with a good chunk of business without a fight, so there might be a strong response (based on greed but it would help to get some heavy pushback... I hope).
They’ll always need to make exceptions for people with medical conditions. Religious accommodations are not looking so hot though, something about a court denying review in a case to reconsider TWA v Hardison (which I just read about today but was published in April).
I’m going to quote my mom’s wisdom on whether this is likely to pass:
It’s gonna get worse before it gets worse. But don’t worry because the worst is yet to come!
I would agree that in the past they would likely grant exemptions but heck they are gaslighting us by not recognizing antibodies and activated T-Cell immunity which were recognized by the medical community for decades. We were told this by world renowned specialists like Martin Kuldorf of Harvard and Jay Battacharya of Stanford, both of whom are being harassed and outright censored by the machine. So why would they recognize other exemptions? Boosters already on the way. Ina society that bribes children with ice cream and some of the least healthy among us with burgers and fries, is anything off the table? What happened to the Nuremberg Code?
Half the world has lost its mind. And how can anyone with Half a scruple mandate “vaccines” when the pharmaceutical companies that created them are immune from prosecution?
If I am not mistaken, the TWA case, although it could be distorted in a court of law, was about someone refusing to work on the sabbath due to their religion. It wasn’t about a religious exemption to a medical treatment. But in this day and age, all rationale and protections seem to be going out the window due to regulatory capture.
You recall correctly. The argument in issue, if I’m understanding it right, is whether the religious accommodation would create “undue hardship” to the company (more an employer-employee situation than an airline-traveler issue). I also don’t discount the likelihood that I’m drawing wrong conclusions and/or misinterpreting how the case bears upon current concerns... law is a language unto itself and I’m far from fluent.
Also, travelers being paying customers, no airline would just part with a good chunk of business without a fight, so there might be a strong response (based on greed but it would help to get some heavy pushback... I hope).