SKETCHPAD 4.7 SKETCHPAD 3.7 ONLINE FULL

Now, a federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order to prevent Western Michigan University, a public school, from requiring its student-athletes to be vaccinated. Until last month, no state or federal court had ever granted a religious exemption when the government had to demonstrate compelling interest in requiring a vaccine. The unvaccinated also endanger people who are vaccinated because no vaccination is 100% effective, as is evident from the number of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in the U.S.

The unvaccinated endanger people who are immunosuppressed or cannot be vaccinated because of their age or any other medical reason. The government has a compelling interest in preventing significant threats to other people’s health, and especially so in a pandemic.

SKETCHPAD 4.7 SKETCHPAD 3.7 ONLINE FULL

The Supreme Court has never been clear about the full range of what counts as “compelling,” but some cases are clear. The most stringent standard is that the government should not require people to violate their conscience without a compelling reason.

There are a variety of ways to present a religious liberty claim, each with a different set of rules. But the legal basis of Americans’ supposed right to a religious exemption to vaccination is less clear than such policies’ popularity would suggest.Īs a lawyer and scholar who focuses on religious liberties, I have supported religious exemptions for a baker who refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, a family-owned business that refused to provide emergency contraception to its employees, a Muslim prisoner who was obligated to grow a beard and many others.Įven so, I believe that under the general law of religious liberty – including the Constitution and state and federal religious freedom laws – the government has an easy case to refuse religious exemptions from vaccines against infectious disease.

Sketchpad 4.7 sketchpad 3.7 online