On May 7 a majority of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said
that a Colorado university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate violates the U.S. Constitution.
The mandate, first handed down on Sept. 1, 2021, “clearly violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause as interpreted by our precedents,”
As many of my readers will appreciate from the beginning I have been opposed to these college Covid vaccination mandates for a variety of different reasons. Furthermore, I hope that this specific ruling by the U.S Court of Appeals will open the flood gates to many more suits with colleges having to defend their authoritative vaccine mandates.
Granted this case was an obviously over-the-top application of subjective policies on this college’s application of religious accommodations on the vaccine.
From the Epoch Times:
The University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in 2021 required COVID-19 vaccination of all students and employees. It initially offered religious exemptions to anyone who checked a box, but it later stated that administrators would “only recognize religious exemptions based on religious beliefs whose teachings are opposed to all immunizations.”Officials, for instance, said Christian Scientists would qualify for an exemption but Buddhists would not. They also said exemptions would be granted only to people who never received any vaccinations.
Seventeen students and employees, all of whose applications were denied, sued over the policy, alleging that it was discriminatory.
Under the original policy, Anschutz administrators “rejected applicants’ beliefs based not on their sincerity, but rather on their perceived validity,” according to the new ruling. Even after the administrators received numerous pages of explanations of religious beliefs, they denied each application. They rejected one application because officials claimed that it was “morally acceptable” for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines, judging any position otherwise as a personal objection as opposed to a religious one.
The policy was “explicitly non-neutral” because, according to a ruling in a separate case, the First Amendment does not allow governments to “discriminate in favor of some religions and against others,” according to the majority.
One amazing part of this case was that the defendants claimed to know what the individual was thinking, as opposed to what the individual was saying. Whenever any party claims to really know what one is thinking, one can be pretty sure that this supposition is frivolous. It reminds me of instances where individuals were praying silently and arrested for doing such. … “Even though you haven’t vocalized it as such, I know what you are really thinking.”
In this case, I say “good job” to the plaintiffs, and I hope that this is just the first of many victories over these past college Covid vaccination mandates.
5/23/