I was first attracted to this case by the petition to the for an en banc (all the judges on the circuit) re-hearing in this case concerning religious objections to the Covid-19 in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The initial attractor:
In sum, the majority’s “ongoing coercion” theory is contrary to all precedent, devoid of any limiting principle, and harmful to the employees it purports to protect. The en banc Court should put a stop to this madness.
A bit puzzling, if fun. It turns out that a three judge panel had ruled, 2-1, in favor of the plaintiffs, who were pissed that their religious accommodation for not taking the Covid-19 shot – that is, for not contributing to public health – was leave without pay from United Airlines. The dissenting judge claimed this violated many precedents, both specific to the Fifth Circuit and those from SCOTUS.
Going through the sections leading to the above paragraph impressed me by how it doesn’t address the primary motivation of the need for everyone to participate in public health, and that’s the potential damage and death, both directly and indirectly, the unvaccinated can cause. Quite frankly, the idea that religious “sensibilities” justify endangering society is exactly what we were trying to escape 200+ years ago when we engaged in the Revolutionary War, telling off Mad King George and, by implication, his monarchical ancestors and descendants who paraded about, murdered innocents, and took terrible arbitrary actions, all under the imprimatur of some Divine touch making them King or Queen.
Allegedly. Self-reported, one might say.
So I have little sympathy for the majority of the panel who rendered the decision which United Airlines is now appealing. One of the judges is a Trump nominee, the other from Bush II. If I’m to believe the dissent, it sounds like a sad commentary on the nominations of those Presidents.
