Blue Cross-Pay Up

[AuEagle]

First of many? 

I hope more companies & the ,g0v are held responsible for forcing the poison on people.

 

Jury Rules in Favor of Freedom: Blue Cross BlueShield of Tennessee Ordered to Pay Almost $700,000 to Employee Fired for Refusing COVID Vaccine | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Edited July 3 by AuEagle

[ianb]

I'm on both sides of this issue. People should have full control of what they put in their bodies but I fully support that Tennessee is a right to work state. 

[Smith]

43 minutes ago, ianb said:

I'm on both sides of this issue. People should have full control of what they put in their bodies but I fully support that Tennessee is a right to work state. 

Right to work in no way means a right to violate constitutional rights. This has long been established in every constitutional concept. There is an assumption of good will on both parties in right to work.

In the same way 2A assumes good will and responsibility of intention. 1A ect.

[ianb]

48 minutes ago, Smith said:

Right to work in no way means a right to violate constitutional rights. This has long been established in every constitutional concept. There is an assumption of good will on both parties in right to work.

In the same way 2A assumes good will and responsibility of intention. 1A ect.

I'm not sure what right is violated so long as long as work done is paid for. Are you saying that there is a constitutional right to future employment? State laws might guarantee that but I'm not aware of such in Tennessee. Please explain. I'm learning here. 

[Smith]

7 hours ago, ianb said:

I'm not sure what right is violated so long as long as work done is paid for. Are you saying that there is a constitutional right to future employment? State laws might guarantee that but I'm not aware of such in Tennessee. Please explain. I'm learning here. 

You equated the right to work and medical/health related requirements for employment as opposite sides of the same issue. They are not related in this scenario.

The vaccination requirement violated religious liberty protections/rights in addition to being a stipulation unrelated to the job as agreed to in the hiring and continued employment agreement and understanding. Right to work had nothing to do with the case. I'm big on right to work, these are unrelated in this case. Right to work only came up as a horrible attempt to justify a bad faith attempt at an illegal procedure unrelated to the employee/employer agreement. The judgement agreed.

It's like when people use Scripture out of context to justify a principal the scriptures have clearly defined for centuries. 

That was my point.

[ianb]

Interesting. Thanks. 

I've always considered the "right to work" as working both ways. If an employee doesn't want to work, they don't have to. If an employer doesn't want to hire someone, they don't have to. (Exceptions being discrimination of the protected classes) 

I can see where the religious discrimination applies. As for the hiring and continued employment agreement, id feel cheated on that one. 

I'm really, really glad that I'm not involved in such issues.