Tag: religious

  • Your right to shop mask-free is protected by state and federal civil law

    We are born with God-given rights that the Constitution protects. Your right to shop mask-free is protected by state and federal civil law, which defends your religious freedom. This religious exemption clearly states the applicable laws and the penalty for violating the laws. The Civil Rights Act IDAHO STATUE 73-402 prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace, which includes hiring, firing, promotions, and other aspects of employment. The law also requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees who wish to practice their religion without restraint. 

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination in numerous settings including: employment, education, voting, and public accommodations.

    This flyer is for educational purposes and may be used to show business associates, but it does not guarantee your entry into any particular business establishment.

    Laws Protecting your Right to NOT Wear a Mask in Public

    IDAHO STATUE 73-402.  
    FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED. 
    (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.(2)  Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
    (3)  Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:(a)  Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
    (b)  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
    (4)  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter against a government shall recover attorney’s fees and costs.
    (5)  In this section, the term “substantially burden” is intended solely to ensure that this chapter is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.History:[73-402, added 2000, ch. 133, sec. 2, p. 353.]

    For Other State Statue visit: https://civilrights.findlaw.com/

    Refer to the 1964 FEDERAL Civil Rights Act (a federal law).

    Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation

    SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. (SOURCE)

    (1) US BILL OF RIGHTS
    Click here for link

    (2) Civil Rights and Non-Discrimination LAWS protect your right to enter any place of business without a mask:

    Reference 6: ADA Information and links: 42 U.S. Code § 12181.
    See thisPublic entities, including grocery stores, cannot discriminate based on disability

    Definition of a disability from the ADA website

    When a public entity provides services, programs, or activities to the public, no qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity on the basis of disability. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.

    Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165

    The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165 and the relevant regulations implementing Title II, 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 and 49 C.F.R. pt. 37.

    Contact the ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301

    (3) Your medical condition is private and does not need to be disclosed to anyone. HIPAA Privacy Rule

    (4) US CODE Title 18, Section 242 (Civil Rights Code)
    Click here for link

    §242. Deprivation of rights under color of law [meaning law enforcement]
    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Find all the laws in your state! Click HERE

    Find your public officials: Click HERE

    Find STATE laws. Click HERE

    Read about your US CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION HERE

  • Vaccine Exemptions Are A Necessary Part of Religious Toleration

    Likely to be lost amid all the liberal preening about the mandatory vaccination bill signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week is the fact that, during the period covered by the so-called “epidemic,” not a single person has died from a confirmed case of measles in the state of New York. The sun and moon have not dropped from the sky and the red-splotched corpses of thousands of victims do not litter the streets of Brooklyn.

    Nor are they likely to do so. Everyone involved knows this. The new law is legislation of the very worst kind — passed in a fit of self-aggrandizing indignation and meant to affect a single group of people who are all but named. I am referring to the minority of Orthodox Jews in New York who have refused to vaccinate their children and whose objections were, until last week, granted specific legal protection. This is not a question of so-called “association” or “public accommodations.” No one is demanding the right to send unvaccinated children to public schools, nor are the post-faith bobos of today’s Williamsburg likely to send their own children, if they have any, to receive an Orthodox education. 

    The new law is about power and control for their own sake.

    Let me be clear at the outset. I am a father of three small children, all of whom have received measles and other vaccinations. I do not oppose the consensus such as it is about the necessity of all these shots, though I do find it absurd that in many of our hospitals they begin before a mother has so much as nursed her child for the first time. I could quibble by pointing out that when I was a child in the not-so-distant 1990s we got less than half the number of vaccinations said to be the sole bulwark against various public health emergencies today — what was so wrong with getting the chicken pox, I wonder? — or that my daughters who were both born in Virginia were required to receive many more shots than their brother has in Michigan. Could it be that we have defined “necessary” in this context down the way we have virtually everything else? But this is irrelevant to my real argument.

    I do not share or even quite understand the objections made by those Orthodox who refuse to have their children vaccinated against measles and other diseases. The content of these objections is of very little interest to me because I am not Jewish. 

    But I do believe in religious toleration — the rather antique notion that one can freely confess the falsehood of a sect or a doctrine while believing that its blameless adherents ought to be allowed to do as they wish.

    It is odd to me, too, that so few have discussed the way in which the coverage of measles cases in New York makes effortless use of tropes about Jews as somehow unclean or contaminated and thus requiring a mandatory purification by the authorities. 

    This is not the first time that black hats and long beards have become outward signifiers of an unspeakable interior pollution.

    These do not exhaust my concerns. There was a time when one could expect a certain degree of epistemic humility from good liberals who had read their Thomas Kuhn. No longer. Science has joined “the economy” as one of those first-order goods whose pursuit we are told cannot be questioned. The ease with which all moral and prudential questions are being subsumed into the rhetoric of “science,” “health,” and “safety” should worry all persons of humane views and skeptical temperament.

    As I write this, many of New York’s yeshivas have been closed until further notice. This will not end with vaccines. 

    Health is a remarkably fluid concept in the modern liberal imagination. A day will come when refusing to affirm the latest fashionable nonsense about gender theory will be considered a threat to “health” by the relevant medical authorities. Catholic schools will be shut down because they do not instruct children in the art of contraception. In British Columbia it is already considered child abuse for a parent to refuse to allow naïve adolescents to undergo elective hormonal therapy — or even to refer to one’s own children by their given names and the pronouns associated with persons of their sex. Only a fool would believe that this could never happen in this country, or that many of our progressives are not already in favor of it.

    My prayers, and those of every person of faith and good will, belong with New York’s Orthodox Jews, who have become the victims of a fideistic campaign of persecution.

    This article originally appeared at: https://theweek.com/articles/847598/vaccine-exemptions-are-necessary-part-religious-toleration.

    CDC table: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6817e1.htm

  • Hospital Violates Right of Vaccine Exemption for Sick Kids

    Is a major children’s hospital now denying treatment to un vaccinated or under vaccinated children? According to this letter, effective November 1st, the clinic will no longer accept patients who are unvaccinated or on an alternative vaccine schedule or those with religious exemptions. Did you know that as of January 2018, federal protections were put in place that are designed to keep hospitals, facilities and care programs from this form of discrimination!  

    FAMILIES WHO ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST CAN FILE A COMPLAINT. This hospital has the potential of losing the federal funding if they violate an individual’s right of exemption to vaccines for religious or moral conscience. 

    *This new division of HHS ensures that all vaccine coercion at a state level is stopped from a federal level.  

    Catch Up or Else

    This hospital is denying treatment to sick children demanding that they get caught up on their vaccines. They give 90-days notice to those currently out of compliance to rectify the situation. Have you seen the CDC catch up schedule? 

    “The CDC has just launched a program that will calculate a catch-up schedule for children who were not vaccinated on schedule. A 5-year-old child who was not previously vaccinated would be required to receive 19 vaccines in one month, including 6 doses of aluminum-containing injections! This catch-up schedule was NOT tested for safety to determine the immediate or long-term risk of neurological or immunological damage.” (own emphasis)

    Following the links provided by Miller, it appears that the CDC table of vaccinations required in their catch-up program had been approved by the following organizations:

    Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip)

    American Academy of Pediatrics – ( www.aap.org)

     American Academy of Family Physicians – ( www.aafp.org)

     American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – ( www.acog.org)

    HFI wants to know: How is it that Hospitals and Doctors can discriminate against patient’s religious beliefs while being protected by their own? 

    Vaccines were created on the bodies of aborted babies and contain human DNA, created using pig, cow, and other animal parts and contain animal DNA. Injecting these types of human/animal products into the body is against many religious tenants and personal beliefs. In 2018 the HHS just created a department to PROTECT the religious beliefs of Doctors so they can discriminate against patients?

    aborted fetal DNA: http://soundchoice.org/aborted-fetal-products/

    aborted cow DNA:https://www.fda.gov/…/…/QuestionsaboutVaccines/ucm143521.htm

    porcine (pig), dog, monkey and other animal material: http://www.actip.org/…/human-vaccines-produced-with-animal…/

    HHS Religious Protection for Healthcare workers: https://www.hhs.gov/…/hhs-ocr-announces-new-conscience-and-…  

    Vaccine Exemptions on the basis of religious or philosophical grounds is NOW PROTECTED by HHS! 

    If an entity (hospital, healthcare facility, etc..) receives any federal funding through HHS but does not allow an individual the right to a religious or moral exemption from vaccine requirements, it is considered discrimination and a violation of personal rights and therefore subject to investigation by the federal government.

    Employees, clients, consumers who use a facility that is supported in part by federal funds MUST have access to vaccine exemptions.
    If you are denied these exemptions you have the right to file a complaint of conscience. 

    What is the consequence to the employer who forces vaccines and participates in moral/religious discrimination?

    An entity receiving federal funding through HHS has the potential of losing the federal funding if they violate an individual’s right of exemption to vaccines for religious or moral conscience. This is an opening to ensure that all vaccine coercion at a state level is stopped from a federal level.  

    Are you a family that was denied access to care by a facility (this or another) from an agency or entity that receives federal funding from Health and Human Services?

    Clients & Consumers Seeking Access to Shelter

    • denied entry into a facility serving persons with disabilities or group home

    Clients & Consumers Access to Programs

    • Headstart program
    • Developmental Disability Programs
    • Foster care Licensing

    Clients & Consumers Denied Care

    • Denied care or discriminated against in a hospital, 
    • Denied care at health care provider office or inpatient or outpatient healthcare facilities

    How to File a Conscience Complaint

    You can file a complaint online or via mail, fax, or e-mail. Learn more about how to file a complaint with OCR. https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/complaints/filing-a-complaint/index.html

    https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/01/18/hhs-ocr-announces-new-conscience-and-religious-freedom-division.html

    LEARN MORE as Health Freedom Idaho hosts an informational seminar December 1st online and in person. *This event is for ANY PERSON/FAMILY denied access to healthcare resources, employment, services specifically due to their religious, moral conscience opposition to vaccines. 

    LEARN MORE REGISTER FOR HFI’s INFORMATIONAL MEETING DECEMBER 1st, 12:00 – 1:30