Wrong. See Jacobson v Massachusetts, a decision of the UNITED STATES Supreme Court, and still the controlling case in this country. It is an incredibly well established principle in American law.

Did you not read what I posted?

I spoon fed it to you...

Again, a case from 1905

Give me something more current

Did your actually read that case? She had been diagnosed with severe anxiety long before this incident, and had a letter from a physician saying so. She didn't just claim to be nervous, she was being treated before the request to get vaccinated showed up, and her doctor wrote a letter that said so.

I think you're wilfully blind.

Yes if you get a letter from your physician saying that the vaccine is not recommended in your case you're going to get an exception. I think the employer overreach in that case was trying to second guess her doctor's medical opinion.

That's not what you said a page ago:

My statement is correct.

She had a disability that prevented her from getting the vaccine and had a doctor's statement saying so.

She did not simply refuse.

Absolutely if you can persuade a physician to write a letter stating that vaccinating is not recommended in your case you get an exception.

That's different than refusal.

Martin just got owned.

Nope. He cited an example of someone who had a doctor's letter, which a few pages back I already said gets an exception.

Jacobson v Massachusetts still controls. The principle that liberty can be limited when it results in harm to others is a fundamental American value well established in a zillion supreme court decisions.

Still...not...getting...it

I shudder to even get into religious exemptions

Three Letters: A D A

They would face the same test as religious exemptions from the draft. You would need to show it is a bona fide belief backed up by existing practice, or it won't fly.

The grounds for these kinds of exceptions have been well established in cases relating to mandatory vaccines for kids in schools.

They aren't just "nah didn't want to".

And, he keeps going back and editing his arguments...

Let's sum up where we are.

RS got American law wrong, I corrected him with the controlling ruling from the Supreme Court.

He claimed the notion that freedom is limited by harm to others is Canadian, I reminded him it was a United States Supreme Court ruling.

He claimed that the passage of the ADA changed everything, I pointed out that refusal isn't a disability.

He listed a case of a woman with a diagnosed medical condition getting an exception, I pointed out that means she has an actual disability and referred back to my original post that started this discussion where I noted the vaccine passport proposals all make exceptions with a doctor's letter.

He brought up religious exceptions and I pointed out there's a standard they have to meet as well.

I'm feeling pretty good.

\

That IS the most important part for a conservative.