Vegan refuses vaccination on ‘religious’ grounds

[rug]

A federal judge is to determine whether veganism qualifies as a religious belief in an employment discrimination case.

Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)
Friday, January 11, 2013

A customer service representative who is a vegan, similar to being vegetarian, was fired at a Cincinnati hospital for refusing a flu vaccination derived from chicken eggs. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow that an Ohio judge is deciding whether veganism is a moral or ethical belief, exempting the plaintiff from vaccinations.

"A number of states allow opt-outs of vaccines, not just for religious but also for moral or ethical beliefs," he says. "But even veganism could be part of a person's religious belief if they did not want to put in their body food that was killed."

The bigger question, though, is the health of the individual and the people they work with.

"And since this person is working in a medical environment, it could be argued that even though this may be part of your religious belief, there's no way to accommodate that because by not having the vaccine you're going to expose the people in the hospital or in the medical facility to potential diseases that could ultimately be deadly or certainly life threatening," Staver remarks.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2013/01/11/vegan-refuses-vaccination-on-%E2%80%98religious%E2%80%99-grounds

A motion by the hospital to dismiss the complaint was denied last month.

http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/Blog.1.4.13.chenzira%5B1%5D.pdf

[cbayer]

1. That's a conundrum, but less so because she works as a customer service representative.

She is less likely to have contact either with really sick patients or really vulnerable patients in her current position. I would allow her to object and refuse.

[customerserviceguy]

2. Not necessarily

First, she may not be phone-only staff. Second, she is likely to have contact with someone who eventually has contact with the general public.

I agree that this refusal is religious in nature, but I fail to accord religious exemptions the deference that they are shown. An individual's irrational belief systems do not have any impact on the biological processes of acquisition and transmittal of disease.

[cbayer]

3. While that may be true, she presents no more risk than your average citizen.

The issue with hospitals are two fold.

First, a hospital who has half their staff out sick during a flu epidemic is in real trouble.

Second, personnel that have contact with high risk populations place those populations at higher risk if the employee becomes infected.

Neither of those seem really at issue here.

I'm not sure I would consider this religious, but I do respect people's moral decisions to be vegetarian or vegan.

[SheilaT]

4. Other than people who truly live in caves

are actually do not leave the house and have no contact with other humans, we all are "likely to have contact with someone who eventually has contact with the general public."

[customerserviceguy]

6. And people who live in caves

don't have qualifications to meet to keep a job, usually.

[TheMadMonk]

27. You do realise that CSR includes the coffee shop lady...

...sneezing all over your vanilla slice.

From there, an unvaccinated individual has contact with patients, staff AND visitors, with the last becoming infectious in the home, right in the middle of a patient's post hospital convalescence.

No-ones belief system have no right to impinge on any other person's safety.

[cbayer]

28. Yes I do. That's going to be true of everyone in your local coffee shop,

grocery store, etc., etc., etc.

They don't require vaccinations.

Look, I'm a strong proponent of vaccinations in health care settings, but there are some individuals that have a contraindication or religious objection or can't receive live virus or something.

Exceptions are always made. The issue here is whether this case qualifies for one.

[TheMadMonk]

29. Anyone is free to go to hell in their own handbasket.

NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT I ACCOMPANY THEM.

If I see a food server snuffling behind a counter, I will speak up loudly enough to ensure that every customer present knows.

Just as I'm obnoxious and insist on them starting over from scratch, when they take my money and make change with the same gloved hand they just used to make my sandwich.

Just as I am extremely loud and vocal when I see an intensive care nurse go from colostomy bag to the dressings of a post operative brain cancer patient without changing gloves.

[cbayer]

30. You have seen an ICU nurse go from colostomy bag to dressing on a brain surgery patient

without changing gloves?

Wherever it is you work, I would suggest that you let JCAHO know and have it shut down immediately.

[TheMadMonk]

31. I didn't. My mother did, and you can bet she raised...

...a stink. She was next patient in line. If I'd been present they would have heard me on the opposite side of the campus.

The response was extra "Smokey Bear" signage. ie. infection control is EVEYONE'S responsibilty, with a bullet list of unacceptable behaviours (for patients, visitors) to watch out for.

Believe you me. You don't fire a nurse in Australia for anything less than an offence which strips them of their accreditation. Not unless you want end up in the position of hiring them back from an agency at twice the cost.

[Kalidurga]

5. Veganism can be a religion...

I am vegetarian working on transitioning to Veganism. It is not a religion for me and it isn't about animal rights for me. It's purely for health reasons and I prefer a non meat based diet. However, this is changing somewhat. My attitude is starting to become different the more I learn about how our food is produced.

I also don't think the government should be involved in deciding what a religion is or isn't. The minute a person says it's religion it is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. If "the minute a person says it's religion it is", then you can have no religious exemptions

You cannot allow someone to exempt themselves from anything they want by saying "my religion demands this". If religions get special treatment by the state, then what is religion must also be subject to judgement by the state for those purposes.

[Kalidurga]

10. Well now that sounds like a good plan...

Why do the religious get to demand to be special little snowflakes.

[cbayer]

12. Because of the first amendment. Is that ok?

[Kalidurga]

13. I'm sorry is there something in the first amendment that

defines religion and says that special accommodations have to be made?

[cbayer]

14. Yes there is. It explicitly protects freedom of religion from governmental interference.

There is no definition, but the protections are there.

[Kalidurga]

15. So if there is no definition...

Then what stops an individual from defining what their religion is. And I am not talking about government regulation religion, just the opposite. I don't think it is up to the government to define what a religion is. If a person says veganism is their religion I will respect that even though that is not currently the case with me, that could change. What I don't see however is the protection from the government that would say allow a person to claim a religious exemption to something their employer requires.

[cbayer]

16. At the time it was written, there apparently was no need for a definition.

People generally agreed about what was a religion and what was not.

Since then, states have been involved in deciding what constitutes a religion, and it's not always clear.

Scientology? Moonies? Pastafarians? And now some atheist/secular groups are asking for similar exemptions.

The courts have struggled with this to some degree and the results are not always consistent, imo, but there has to be a defining body. Otherwise everyone could claim that something they believed in was a religion, which was not the intent of the framers and would lead to chaos, as many would do it in a less than honest way.

[Kalidurga]

17. I find this argument weak.

What the founders intended is indeed a problem, because we can't ask them. What we have to deal with is what is actually written and what was actually agreed upon. Do we in fact know what the founders though a religion was? I don't because they didn't define it. And then there is the messiness you mention of the courts not being consistent and I can't blame the courts for this because the guidelines are so vague.

I don't think it is the governments business to define religion. And it isn't the governments business to protect religion from the employer/employee relationship sorry, but that is business if your religion conflicts with your job then you either need a new religion or a new job or make the compromise.

As for unscrupulous people making religious claims we already have that in organized religions. And again who gets to define religion?

[cbayer]

18. This country was founded primarily by groups who were escaping religious prosecution.

Although they did not specifically define religions, they spoke generally about a variety of religions and including the non-religious in some writings about these protections.

You can't have it both ways. You can either leave it completely undefined, which would be an utter disaster, or define it so strictly that legitimate groups are excluded. Or you can leave it to be interpreted in light of the culture/norms of the time in which it becomes an issue.

I'm not dissatisfied with the current way this is handled and can't think of a better solution.

BTW, the courts disagree with you about the government's role in protecting individuals from discrimination based on religion in employment situations, and I support that position 100%. Were it not for the government's role a company could, say, refuse to hire anyone who was an atheist.

Would that be ok with you? Or should I just tell you that if you are an atheist and want to work here, you either need to find a religion or a new job?

[Kalidurga]

19. I didn't say the government can't protect against discrimination.

But they shouldn't force companies to have special rules either. Again can't have it both ways. Either you are for religious freedom or you are not. If the government is supposed to be out of religion then they need to be out, they can't both say it's religious freedom and btw we get to define what religion is and isn't.

And no one forces a person to disclose their religion to their employer. So, if an atheist applies to be the pastor of a church and keeps that to themselves it doesn't seem much an issue. But, if they get up in front of the congregation and do so, I say that they do that at risk of losing their job.

[cbayer]

20. I want to be clear about the government's role.

The first amendment provides that the government must not endorse or support any specific religions and that they must protect religion freedoms in general. There is a dual but distinct role - freedom from and freedom of.

If an atheist or theist wishes to keep their beliefs to themselves, then the government has no role. But if an employer says that everyone must pray, and the formerly quiet atheist objects, then one would expect the government to step in to protect their rights.

This is no different than a believer who raises an objection to an employer requirement based on their personal religious beliefs.

[Kalidurga]

21. Now we are getting somewhere...

I do believe the government should protect against discrimination. That you can't fire someone for their religion. But, if their religion says they must have a two hour lunch break for prayer, I don't think that should be protected. If that is your religion perhaps you aren't cut out for the work force or you need to adapt.

No employer should be allowed to require a person practice a religion either. In theory I suppose this means an atheist could become Pope.

Also if the government can't endorse a religion, I fail to see how that could give the government the right to define religion. They can't have it both ways. They are either out of religion game (except to protect religious rights) or they are not. If we have religious freedom then we either have it to define what our religion is or we don't.

BTW I believe all religions are made up. This isn't to say I don't have one or that I am an atheist.

[cbayer]

22. The definition part, as you point out, is the most complicated, but you bring up a good

point that actually supports the need to provide definitions.

There is the concept of "reasonable accommodation", and that is where the courts often weigh in. They look at several aspects - is this a religion? Is this practice an important part of this religion? Can accommodations be made in this particular workplace? Do these accommodations infringe on the freedoms of others?

I figure you were atheist, which is why I made the comparisons I did to the rights which should be afforded to and protected for both believers and non-believers. They are equally important, imo.

[Goblinmonger]

23. That's kind of the mythy version of that.

It was founded primarily by groups that felt that their church was being bastardized in England and were pissed that they were being pushed out of their country and couldn't practice their conservative batshitcrazy religion there so they came here to persecute and murder those that practiced a different religion than they did.

But, sure, "escaping religious prosecution" is a good short wording of that.

[rug]

25. The Church of England was the official religion of 5 of the 13 colonies that rebelled.

[cleanhippie]

33. No. It. Was. Not. This COUNTRY was founded on no such thing.

The European settlements were founded primarily by groups who were escaping religious prosecution, but they are not the ones that founded this country. Intentionally or not, you are confusing the settlement of the continent by Europeans with the Framers of the Constitution and Civil War. Two very different groups of people.

[cleanhippie]

32. "Otherwise everyone could claim that something they believed in was a religion"

Then who the hell has the right to define that but the individual with the belief? Perhaps were YOUR beliefs not so mainstream, you would not be so quick to offer judgement (or the need for someone to judge...).

You are speaking from your position of privilege. Do you understand that?

[cbayer]

8. It sounds like you probably would not object to the vaccine based on your reasons

for pursuing veganism, though.

[Kalidurga]

11. No I don't object to vaccines based on that.

The mercury is troubling I would need to see more data on that.

[Silent3]

9. Whether you call it "religious" or not, if you adopt special self-imposed rules for yourself...

...at a certain point it's got to stop being everyone else's job to accommodate the artificial difficulties you create.

[elfin]

26. I agree

I do not want such vegan fundies to be a sneeze away from this geezer or her beloveds during a dangerous flu season.

[EvilAL]

24. I picture a

big broccoli sitting on a throne of carrots, with a cornstalk staff and a crown of mashed potatoes. Also you can't eat nuts on Friday, but everyone does anyway.