What's more protected - Free Speech, or an Exemption? Does Civil disobedience scramble things?

Yes, I disagree with the politics involved in and dominating the coerced vaccinations, as well as the division of society that the vaccinated MUST BY DEFAULT be included into. I cannot be told "how or how not to" dissent in order to say: "that's wrong, and I disapprove". Options such as exemptions for religious or medical reasons may be available, however, they DO NOT voice my dismay. You see, at this point, regardless of the safety or not of ANY vaccine, I am now disheartened by the campaign behind this one, and I wish to show it by "actively resisting its application to me personally". However, is that a protected right I wonder?

Both Montesquieu and Aristotle separate the "good citizen" and the "good person". Today, I see that they are both at each-others' throats! Without the "good person" involved, the "good citizen" will never thrive, and visa-versa. Who is more important, or less? I find it impossible to be both without one rejecting the other today. One must adore authority, and the other, God. Today, I am experiencing more of a difference between "God and Country" than a blending. So, it is because of this division, and not to create one that I oppose ANY vaccine mandate/pressure. So, can I say that it is a "First Amendment Right" to resist vaccination?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Yes, there's a wedge being driven between God and country, and deliberately so. But then again, is the country Washington, or is the country the three hundred million of us who actually do something productive? Is resisting Washington treason, or is Washington so far from the Constitution that obeying Washington is treason? For all the noise and clamour 24/7, the silent majority has never been harder to hear.

You have rights guaranteed by all the first ten amendments. Against this "vaccine", the first, fourth and fifth can all apply, the first in speaking out about it, the fourth very directly, and the fifth in resisting things like vaccine passports. So far, I think the Tenth has been most powerful.

I wonder if they'll keep pushing until it comes down to the Second?

I don't understand the question.

What is meant by "an exemption"?

There is no legitimate constitutional or just reason for the government to mandate vaccines to anyone as a prerequisite for employment of any other kind of public interactions. There's nothing here to balance out.

Of course we have a right to refuse the vaccine. And this shouldn't be by way of an exemption, because there shouldn't be any mandate in the first place that anyone might claim to be exempt from. The mandate itself is the problem. Constitutionally and ethically 100% of the population is exempt from it.

Whether you base this on the First Amendment, or the Fourth, or the Ninth, or the Tenth, or the Thirteenth, or the Fourteenth, or justice itself, or all of the above makes no difference to me.

Lets set the 1st aside and just consider that no person has a right to require you to take a vaccine that is not effective for a cold .Now if they come to my house and demand I take it I think I should grant them freedom of speech while I shoot them.

I don't see how the First Amendment has anything to do with the issue of forced vaccination, other than prohibiting the government from interfering with someone's speech about it and maybe providing a basis for a religious exemption.

More important, does the federal government have any constitutional authority to impose vaccination (other than with respect to its own employees or the District of Columbia)? I don't see how it does.

I think the federal government, like any employer, has the right to make vaccination a condition of employment (especially regarding the armed forces), and I find it surprising that libertarian-minded folks on this site think otherwise. Although Congress has broad powers over D.C. (much like the states do over their citizens), I don't think it extends to forced vaccination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

I think the federal government, like any employer, has the right to make vaccination a condition of employment (especially regarding the armed forces), and I find it surprising that libertarian-minded folks on this site think otherwise.

---

Did enlistees know they'd be required to take an experimental "vaccine" which is ineffective at preventing a disease which has a 99.9% survival rate for their demographic when they signed on the dotted line? Are they free to quit if they disapprove of the unannounced change to the contract? After all, they only just changed the dictionary to redefine graphene nanotubes full of God knows what as "vaccines". Like, since these people signed up.

And how do you justify Tuskegee?

Of course libertarian-minded folk can take a dim view of that crap. I find it surprising anyone could think otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

Did enlistees know they'd be required to take an experimental "vaccine" which is ineffective at preventing a disease which has a 99.9% survival rate for their demographic when they signed on the dotted line? Are they free to quit if they disapprove of the unannounced change to the contract? After all, they only just changed the dictionary to redefine graphene nanotubes full of God knows what as "vaccines". Like, since these people signed up.

---

Part of the contract was to obey all lawful orders of one's superiors. Good grief, if someone in the military has to obey an order to go into harm's way and risk his life (which he does), it's hard to see how he has the right to refuse a vaccine. And while the vaccine doesn't have a 100% prevention rate the data show that it is very effective in preventing death and serious illness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

And how do you justify Tuskegee?

---

I don't, and that's an utterly absurd comparison. The study didn't involve injecting anyone with syphilis; rather, treatment was withheld from subjects who were known to have syphilis and who weren't told of their condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

Part of the contract was to obey all lawful orders of one's superiors.

---

Nothing wrong with refusing wrong orders.

In the Army you can shoot the one giving it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

And how do you justify Tuskegee?

---

He justifies everything Government does..

Likely supports the MKultra programs too.

for the "Greater Good".

I don't see the "I don't care" option. I would have selected that. I'm not going to request approval for my religious or medical/health beliefs, nor am I taking the clot shot. I went back to "normal" after the 2-3 weeks of shutdown to flatten the curve and I'm staying here. I'm not interested in new/updated offers of abnormal. I can't control the world around me so these issues about mandates, exemptions, amendments, and protections are questions for other people. I acknowledge that doors are being shut to me, but I'm just going to keep on keepin' on and live my life instead of living the one they want for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcosmar

He attempts to justify everything Government does..

---

FTFY

So, it's been 24 hours, and the feedback has been interesting so far. I'm reflecting on a rhetoric class where we studied Charlton Heston and Gun Rights. What impressed me then, was this statement in his speech: "I say the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the others." But in the age of Coronavirus and Mandates, you can't point a gun at someone and say give me Healthcare, a Job, make the ATM spit out money, etc. A gun won't push a Bill through Congress, or necessarily cancel one either. We are staring down the barrel too - of a "Digital Weapon" being pointed at us in this day and age. Many of us have been injured by it also. So, with what do we fire back against our tyrannical opponents with? When Freedom of Speech is censored, that "weapon" is unloaded and as worthless as any gun against a digital regime. We have then Petition, and Assembly to use against them. Assembly may be our right, but, it IS NOT Civil Disobedience... or is it these days with our Lockdowns? Without a "GreenPass/Proof", can I even collect signatures, talk to the people about my views? So, what I'm wondering, is whether or not "refusing the Jab" to "make a statement" in "this day and age" of multi-tiered Anti-Constitutional Anarchy, is as protected as Free Speech (used to be) within a society of growing defenselessness. I'd like your opinion, and I'd like you to answer the poll above if you would. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

FTFY

---

You both missed the point. I was talking about whether the federal government had the legal authority to require the vaccination of its employees. I didn't say it was good policy to do so.

And apparently you both missed the part where I said it didn't have the authority to mandate the vax for anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

I don't see how the First Amendment has anything to do with the issue of forced vaccination...

More important, does the federal government have any constitutional authority to impose vaccination (other than with respect to its own employees or the District of Columbia)? I don't see how it does...

I think the federal government, like any employer, has the right to make vaccination a condition of employment...

---

Ladies and gentlemen, beware of this guy! He thinks he's a slickster, but he's not. To say "you're FIRED if you don't get vaccinated", is FORCED VACCINATION, period. Notice how he flip-flops on this? He's disinformation. He's "one of [them].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evacuationday

Ladies and gentlemen, beware of this guy! He thinks he's a slickster, but he's not. To say "you're FIRED if you don't get vaccinated", is FORCED VACCINATION, period. Notice how he flip-flops on this? He's disinformation. He's "one of [them].

---

Sonny Tufts is a marxist tax lawyer who is paid to post here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evacuationday

Ladies and gentlemen, beware of this guy! He thinks he's a slickster, but he's not. To say "you're FIRED if you don't get vaccinated", is FORCED VACCINATION, period. Notice how he flip-flops on this? He's disinformation. He's "one of [them].

---

There's a huge difference between forced vaccination (i.e., an imposed criminal penalty for refusing to get vaxxed) and making it a condition of employment. The latter is no more forced than requiring hospital workers to wash their hands or to wear a mask in the OR. Don't like it? Find another job. Or do you think you have the right to tell your employer how he must run his business or otherwise demand that he employ you on your terms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty

Sonny Tufts is a marxist tax lawyer who is paid to post here.

---

Where's my check, you pathetic buffoon?

You continue to demonstrate your utter cluelessness. If I really were a Marxist I'd work for the State to make sure it gets the maximum amount of revenue allowed by law. Instead, I work in the private sector to make sure my clients pay the least amount of tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

Where's my check, you pathetic buffoon?

You continue to demonstrate your utter cluelessness. If I really were a Marxist I'd work for the State to make sure it gets the maximum amount of revenue allowed by law. Instead, I work in the private sector to make sure my clients pay the least amount of tax.

---

And yet all your posts and behavior demonstrate otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

Or do you think you have the right to tell your employer how he must run his business or otherwise demand that he employ you on your terms?

---

When those terms are set and established at the time of employment, then yes. Otherwise, it's a sort of "bait and switch" scenario, isn't it? In a world full of respectable men and woman, which is what civilized society aspires to be, what you suggest is inappropriate. I do believe you're an establishment plant here. You convince nobody, because you're "not in touch" with reality on the street, in the common workplace, at the family level. Established Rights should not be subject to change at a whim. They need proper discourse, which is absent here. Pull yourself together man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evacuationday

I do believe you're an establishment plant here.

---

His employer gets a grant thru https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evacuationday

When those terms are set and established at the time of employment, then yes. Otherwise, it's a sort of "bait and switch" scenario, isn't it? In a world full of respectable men and woman, which is what civilized society aspires to be, what you suggest is inappropriate. I do believe you're an establishment plant here. You convince nobody, because you're "not in touch" with reality on the street, in the common workplace, at the family level. Established Rights should not be subject to change at a whim. They need proper discourse, which is absent here. Pull yourself together man!

---

Unless there's a written employment agreement that would restrict the employer's ability to alter the terms of employment, the employee's job is "at-will" -- i.e., the employer can fire him or change the job responsibilities for any reason (excluding reasons that are specifically prohibited by law, such as racial discrimination). In other words, the employee has no right to continued employment.

I'm not saying that requiring the jab is good policy, but I can't see why the government should deny the employer the right to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

I'm not saying that requiring the jab is good policy,...

---

Of course you're not saying. Liberal. :rolleyes: