Wife saw the ticker on Newsmax that said Abbott had done the same in Texas. Sounds good to me.Sweet! Will any other smart states follow? Pretty pretty please?
Wife saw the ticker on Newsmax that said Abbott had done the same in Texas. Sounds good to me.Sweet! Will any other smart states follow? Pretty pretty please?
I may be proven wrong, but I think employers are putting themselves at risk over this issue. At least those terminating employees for no jab.My son will likely be fired from Bell on Dec 8th for not getting it.
They are taking religious exemptions but the faith you claim must have it written in their teachings
Many of the exemptions will probably be denied
Hope those fuckers go broke and then to Hell for doing him like this
Okay, how about this one:I don’t think SB968 says what that article implies. The enrolled version is available below.
87(R) SB 968 - Enrolled version - Bill Text
capitol.texas.gov
Governor Greg Abbott today issued an executive order stating that no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination by any individual, including an employee or consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.Okay, how about this one:
I don't like needles would be a personal conscience.Governor Greg Abbott today issued an executive order stating that no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination by any individual, including an employee or consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.
Does personal conscience include "I don't like the risk of an unproven vaccine"?
I'm sure that would be considered going against the executive order, they had better come up with another reason.Of course, some will point out that Texas is an "at will" state and employers can fire them for not taking the vaccine anyhow.
You can't prove I held a gun to his head.Well now it is banned, with an EO and a special session agenda item addition for legislation to replace that EO. Not ten minutes after you made that post.
TLAR.Okay, how about this one:
Way past "getting".........This is getting out of hand.
It's been out of hand for awhile.This is getting out of hand.
The feds still have not officially changed any law or issued any official order regarding any of mandate beyond bidens speech.
Could it be he was correct to begin with and doesn't have the power and now cant figure out a way to do this that doesn't violate several parts of existing laws or the equal protection clause due to all the exemptions?
Please let me know if I missed the osha law change.
Nope you are correct. They did accomplish part of their goal anyway. They got companies to preemptively issue a vax mandate. That speech gave SWA, United, AA and other businesses cover to do so.The feds still have not officially changed any law or issued any official order regarding any of mandate beyond bidens speech.
Could it be he was correct to begin with and doesn't have the power and now cant figure out a way to do this that doesn't violate several parts of existing laws or the equal protection clause due to all the exemptions?
Please let me know if I missed the osha law change.
Dems didn’t have a problem with sanctuary cities, so I don’t see a problem with using their playbook to our advantageStates vs Federal, seen this before and hope we can make it work the second time around.
Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
You think Austin, Dallas, and Houston won't do the same?Dems didn’t have a problem with sanctuary cities, so I don’t see a problem with using their playbook to our advantage
Which won't be a problem, as long as they don't make it obvious that it's just an excuse for not following the clot shot non-policy. Something like "you're not a team player" or "I don't like your face".I'm sure that would be considered going against the executive order, they had better come up with another reason.