For number 2: a lot of religious exemption laws specifically require that it be a position or doctrine of an "established" religion. So yes, "proof" that religious leaders said the same thing is actually required much of the time. It's how religious exemption gets quietly denied. It shouldn't be that way, but it often is.
As for number 1, well, that's just the most legally defensible position of the above.
Those in a position where they actually need such a document are already fighting an uphill battle to use the law to protect them. The correct course of action is of course to quit the job, don't go to the college, etc. If "I refuse" isn't good enough for them, they are evil and you should turn the other way.
The military is the tough one though, and if they haven't already stood their ground on all the other injections they've been stuck with, it's very unlikely any piece of paper is going to save them from this one. I expect dishonorable discharge for refusing will soon be the only way out for them.
I expect dishonorable discharge for refusing will soon be the only way out for them.
Refusal to move to a new duty station (while continuing to serve at your current one) typically results in no more than a "may not re-enlist after end of service" code on one's discharge papers, and anyone who has re-enlisted must refuse their final move (fun little trick, that).
I'd actually expect anyone who declines the jab to get the same discharge status they would otherwise have gotten - at worst, general under honorable conditions, which can be upgraded to honorable through administrative action after service.
Furthermore, if an other-than-honorable discharge is the result of not getting stuck, commanding officers are going to start outright defying the vaccination orders in some parts of the military where commanders are generally more based.
For number 2: a lot of religious exemption laws specifically require that it be a position or doctrine of an "established" religion. So yes, "proof" that religious leaders said the same thing is actually required much of the time. It's how religious exemption gets quietly denied. It shouldn't be that way, but it often is.
Ah, well that is BS. I'd fight that in court, and I think I'd win. It's in the Bible after all.
We would all win anything in court if the judge was honest and a constitutionalist.
In that world the Judge would render summary judgement against whoever was stupid enough to try and violate your rights by forcing you to get an experimental injection, and that person would see jail time with only the smallest of opportunities to try and defend their heinous actions.
But we don't live in a world with honest constitutionalist judges, that's pretty much the crux of our problems. Legally speaking.
For number 2: a lot of religious exemption laws specifically require that it be a position or doctrine of an "established" religion. So yes, "proof" that religious leaders said the same thing is actually required much of the time. It's how religious exemption gets quietly denied. It shouldn't be that way, but it often is.
As for number 1, well, that's just the most legally defensible position of the above.
Those in a position where they actually need such a document are already fighting an uphill battle to use the law to protect them. The correct course of action is of course to quit the job, don't go to the college, etc. If "I refuse" isn't good enough for them, they are evil and you should turn the other way.
The military is the tough one though, and if they haven't already stood their ground on all the other injections they've been stuck with, it's very unlikely any piece of paper is going to save them from this one. I expect dishonorable discharge for refusing will soon be the only way out for them.
Refusal to move to a new duty station (while continuing to serve at your current one) typically results in no more than a "may not re-enlist after end of service" code on one's discharge papers, and anyone who has re-enlisted must refuse their final move (fun little trick, that).
I'd actually expect anyone who declines the jab to get the same discharge status they would otherwise have gotten - at worst, general under honorable conditions, which can be upgraded to honorable through administrative action after service.
Furthermore, if an other-than-honorable discharge is the result of not getting stuck, commanding officers are going to start outright defying the vaccination orders in some parts of the military where commanders are generally more based.
Ah, well that is BS. I'd fight that in court, and I think I'd win. It's in the Bible after all.
We would all win anything in court if the judge was honest and a constitutionalist.
In that world the Judge would render summary judgement against whoever was stupid enough to try and violate your rights by forcing you to get an experimental injection, and that person would see jail time with only the smallest of opportunities to try and defend their heinous actions.
But we don't live in a world with honest constitutionalist judges, that's pretty much the crux of our problems. Legally speaking.