Hey, welcome back to the Barry Farrow Show. It's great to have you with us today.
Today, we're going to talk with a religious freedom expert.
You know, on every level, we see this religious exemption being threatened,
challenged. But first, before we jump into that, let's just take a quick moment to review
the latest YouTube policy. You know, they were already censoring anyone that said anything about
vaccine passports that spoke against the vaccine in any explicit way. But now they've gone to a
whole new level. Now, they're expanding to any argument, no matter how factual it is,
that's in conflict with the CDC narrative, even from around the world with respected
scientists and medical doctors. The problem with the position that YouTube is taking
is they've expanded to the presumption that they know everything. And as smart as those guys are,
they don't know everything. You know, they claim that something's a falsehood, when in fact,
it's merely a controversy, or it might even be a set of facts that they disagree with. Of course,
even the creation of the data analytics software that they rely on to develop and do all their
great algorithms, the very software they work with, they had to go against the mainstream to
get it developed. And you know, most of the innovations that we enjoy today rely upon new
school, not old school technology driven by going against the consensus view. Plus, by just shutting
down every alternative view to the COVID-19 narrative, they further deepen mistrust. They
show that they're really trying to hide something, or it sure seems that way. I mean, why not broadcast
Merck's latest drug that seems to work as a therapeutic beautifully, and it's just a pill?
Or why not broadcast the proven monoclonal that's being used in Texas and Florida to
give it more traction to helping people, saving lives? I mean, why not shout from the mountaintops
that the latest studies from around the world on natural immunity actually proved natural
immunity is pretty darn good. God kind of knows what he's doing. You know, truth really shouldn't
be intimidated by anyone else's view. If the vaccine is as safe and non-intrusive as they
claim, they could just simply point to the adverse reactions page on CDC's website, and they could
make their counterclaim with simple math, if it's true. This, in conjunction with the Federal Medical
License Board's punitive impact on doctors who disagree with the current narrative, just really
goes in the opposite direction of free speech and open society. And it really leads to the
suppression of truth. And they're in fact responsible for a one-sided view, and that leads to expansion
of misinformation, not the other way around. In other words, by trying to clamp down on what they
think is true, but they don't really know for sure is true, they in fact eliminate the possibility
of discovering truth. And you know, that's exactly what happened to Galileo. He's way back in the 17th
century. He's known as the father of science, the father of astronomy, the father of the scientific
method, yet he was branded as a heretic and under house arrest for a large chunk of his adult life.
And that's because he went against the consensus view, but the consensus was wrong. If the consensus
in this case is right, they have nothing to fear and they shouldn't clamp down. Well, hey, today
we've got an expert from First Freedom Institute, Jeremy Dice. He's special counsel for litigation
and communications. You know, in the episode, Jeremy, where YouTube censored me a couple of
weeks ago, I was simply retelling the story of a fantastic young man who has been attempting to
get his religious exemption processed through the airline that he works for. And you know,
we got censored, we got canceled out. We still got a lot of views on Rumble and thankfully we've got
a kind of a backup plan, but I guess YouTube just didn't like the facts. I mean, it was simply a
story, this guy's journey. And he and hundreds of other pilots are claiming that they really
weren't given a reasonable accommodation because though they were technically given the religious
exemption, and that was after a whole series of intrusive questions, they were given it without
pay and without benefits. So it doesn't seem like that much of a reasonable accommodation.
What are your thoughts on the airlines? I know the one I'm talking about you don't represent.
Do they have any, so maybe you can speak more freely about it. Do they have any chance of
prevailing in court? Yeah, look, I don't represent any of the airlines, thankfully,
so I think I can be kind of clear on all of us. In fact, we're suing one of them,
which I'll tell you about in a moment. But first of all, thanks for having me on the show today.
Thanks for letting us catch up with you on the shooting range. I know that that's more important,
but thanks for giving.
some time. Where else would you find a first amendment scholar but exercising his second
amendment rights, right? So yeah, look, look, these are tough issues. And for the airlines,
I get it. Look, we're talking right now. And the latest news is that I think 1000 or 2000 flights
from Southwest Airlines were canceled. And they're saying that's weather, but that's not
weather. There are sick outs being called in all over the country in protest of these vaccines.
And look, I'm not going to take a position one way or the other on vaccines, everybody can have
their own position on it all. And that's what we used to call freedom in this country. And that's
what I care about. When you have United Airlines right now insisting that every member of their
staff get vaccinated, that level of mandate is going to actually have the opposite intended
effect. And so if they're intending for people to help save lives and protect health, or going
about it, I think the backwards way of doing so because they've clearly never parented a teenager,
when you tell somebody to do one thing, they want to do the opposite thing every time. And I think
that's where we find ourselves right now is people wanting to figure out, okay, wait, I was on the
fence about this. But now that you tell me I have to do it. Well, by golly, I'm not going to do it
whatsoever. Right? And that's really kind of an unfortunate situation to find ourselves in. Will
United Airlines be successful? That's the million dollar question all these things. What I think we
can all agree on is that by not offering or not respecting religious accommodations or exemptions,
I think they're further entrenching the us versus them mentality on things. A religious
exemption exists when people recognize that religion is a valid thing for us to live our lives
by. Let me let me interrupt you real quick. What is a religious exemption? What's the definition of
Yeah, the simple statement is that you are exempted from some sort of requirement based
upon your religious beliefs or conscience. And that's the very simple idea of that. But underlying
all that is the philosophical side of things, which says that if the why do we accommodate
religion in general, opposed to we understand what a medical exemption would be, I have a
medical condition that would require me to be exempted from an otherwise valid requirement.
Well, it's the same sort of thing when we recognize that there is something to which we
owe a higher duty and responsibility, God in this case, in that practice with the divine, that
vertical relationship that we have requires a recognition either by our employers or by the
government itself, that we need to give them the space to be able to have that freedom. And this
is all that our foundation stone of freedom is built upon this respect for one's relationship,
not just horizontally with our neighbors here, but vertically with our God, there are some things
that the divine requires us to do, that the government may want to get in on and say you
can't do. But because of that vertical relationship, we're going to afford them the
space to be able to have that, that freedom to do that thing. And so when employers in this case,
don't respect that religious belief, or in some cases, as I think we've seen too many times now,
they view it as sort of this magic fairy dust that we can sprinkle on things to get out of
otherwise require other requirements, that has a real danger to not only showing tolerance and
respect, but also to undermining our very freedoms that we have come to know and love so much.
So what are the different ways to credibly apply for a religious exemption in this situation? So I
I kind of walked that journey with this pilot, and he is of the Christian faith. And it's a
classical, traditional faith, it's not brand new to just the vaccine, I think it predates the vaccine
by a couple 1000 years. And so he argued in two ways. Number one, he's very, very pro-life,
very sensitive to that issue. And people can have different opinions on this. But he
sincerely believes that anything that's connected to abortion in any way, shape or form is evil. So
even if you have a aborted fetus, and I know some people argue, well, now that it's abortus, you go
ahead and use what you need to advance science. Others say, no, you can't have any connection
with that whatsoever, because that's a violation of my deeply held belief. Is that a legitimate
religious exemption? Well, I believe so. Look, I would actually back that train up a little bit
further down the track, which is to say that if someone says I have a sincere religious belief
that requires me to not do x, or maybe the best state of the other way around that prevents me
from doing what you require me to do, that ought to really end the matter. And the problem that
we're having, so you ask, but what's the process? Well, the process is you assert that in writing,
or to your HR person in an email, or by voice. And then they have to figure out a way to be
able to accommodate you so long as it does not pose an undue hardship to the company that you're
working for. But that's not what they did.
No, I know. But that's not what they did. They came back and asked him a series. I saw all the emails.
It was four or five series of intrusive questions going back in time, asking him whether or not he
was a was a real, genuine Christian, as if those secular humanists had any idea how to assess that.
That's exactly what I'm getting. That is that that first statement says I have a sincere
religious belief. This is where the divide is in our country right now, is that there is a divide
between the sincere and the insincere, if I can put it that way. People who sincerely believe
religious beliefs have meaning and impact upon their not only lives, but their eternal souls.
Those who think that that is just simply insincere talk about wanting to get out of something that
they want you to do. What that divide is leading to is this horrible thing where you have people
that are saying, hey, you don't really believe that. And so we're going to force you to violate
your conscience. Now, hold on a second. What what is the implications of that? This is really dire
stuff, if you think about it. What someone is saying is that I have a sincere religious belief
that if I violate this standard, my life is not just simply in jeopardy. My eternal soul is in
jeopardy. If that is the case, this is genuinely how people feel. Exactly right. And so there is a
growing number of people, unfortunately, that believe that they're just simply trying to grab
a magic pixie dust and throw religion on this to say, hey, I want to get out of waiting in line
for something. That is beyond the pale. What we're actually arguing about is if you force me to do
this, whether it is violate my conscience on the issue of aborted fetal matter or just simply
violate my conscience on putting something in my body that is untested or whatever the
justification for it actually is, if you force me to violate that, it's not simply that my mind is
broken or that my heart is disaffected. It means that my eternal soul is in jeopardy here. And that
level of intolerance is really concerning in a society that otherwise believes itself to be free.
So does the government have a right to deny a religious exemption?
Well, we're kind of mixing things here a little bit here. So the government itself is an employer
and employees are employees of private corporations. And so there is a law that's called Title 7
and that protects employers of 50 or more employees. And so if they are, if you're in,
so most employees are subject to this kind of requirement, Title 7 requires.
I'm actually talking about, I'm actually talking about the employees of the government. So they've
got a few million employees. Do they have the right to deny the religious exemption as they
apparently have been doing with him? So it's the same kind of analysis,
just kind of going down two different tracks here. Yeah. So employers like the government,
if you're a government employee, you still have religious liberty. You still have the rights as
an employee to, to have your religion at work. And so you cannot be forced by the government
to violate those convictions. Now I should be very clear on this point. If you're an employee
of the government, there is a mandate supposedly out there for you. But if you're a private employee,
there is an announced mandate that is supposed to be coming, but is yet to come.
So does the mandate, does that mandate have the force of law? It's a mandate from the
chief executive, I guess, of your employer with the government, but does, is it an actual law
when he makes the mandate? It should be right. I mean, this is administrative law. So yes,
it has the force and effect of law. It has to be rooted upon an act of Congress in order for it to
give full force and effect. In other words, it has to be derived from something the legislature
has said, you go here and execute these laws. If OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration cannot root itself in that law, then of course it's not a valid force of law.
That I think is what is going to be the substance of the legal debate once that mandate for private
employers is actually fully announced by OSHA. Hasn't come yet. Now, if you're a government
employee, I do understand there to be a mandate in effect. We see this right now with our members
of the military and contractors that are having a certain amount of time to get their shot put
in place or not. And so I think we're going to see more and more challenges arising to these things
as the conscience objections are denied by the federal agencies around the country.
So let's go to a different thought, and that's just what the typical business guy has
asked. Is there anything that a host like me can do to sue YouTube? I mean, I was canceled for
simply retelling the story of an airline pilot's journey. Is there any claim for an implied in
fact contract? You know, we're like a restaurant expects to be paid after the meal is delivered.
So even though that customer didn't sign a contract, it's pretty obvious he came in there,
he ordered food, he ate the food. And then if he gets
up and just leaves without paying you know the restaurant owner could have some kind of a claim
I'm not sure it'd be worth chasing but if you wanted to he could claim based on an implied
in fact contract as I understand it. So in a similar vein could a YouTube host expect
to keep their following expect to be able to say as long as it's legal whatever they want to
or is there any way that litigation would prevail using some kind of a logic like that?
Maybe and I hate to use the law school answer that it depends here but this is where we're
right in the middle of a discussion about this right now. Look we sued America or I'm sorry
Alaska Airlines a couple weeks ago. We filed an employment complaint against them as I guess it
would be the more proper designation. We made a video telling our this is the flight attendant
who used their internal server to make some comments about her faith on that and then she
was summarily fired for doing so. Actually even ushered off the plane. It's really quite shocking.
Well we went to the Seattle airport we took our cameras we took video of the Alaska
airline planes kind of driving around the tarmac and has their logo on the side of the plane as
you remember. Well we put that out as soon as we announced the case we put that story out and that
was the b-roll so that section that where you don't have somebody talking it's just kind of
background noise that's out there of those planes going around the airport. We shot the video they
were in public view there is there's no copyright violation here or any other expectation of privacy
I put that on YouTube and Alaska Airlines actually complained they flagged that video
to YouTube and got that video shut down over the weekend. Unbelievable. Now I was really
bothered by that. You guys have it up on rumble? It's up on rumble but it got back up on YouTube.
Now let me tell you the rest of the story what happened here and this is why I think this is
such a nefarious thing that we need to start working on here. What happened is that they
asserted a claim to their copyright. There was no legitimate claim to their copyright but as soon as
they assert that claim on copyright Google is required by I think it's called the Uniform
Millennial Data Privacy Act or something like that they're required to take that video down.
It's a must language in a statute they have to take it down and if they don't the copyright owner
can can hit them for a five-figure penalty. Well that's pretty substantial and I can understand
that. Now here's the here's the trick there's no equal and opposite movement to that. In other
words Alaska Airlines pulled this as a litigation trick so that our client having violated their
her religious rights as an employee now was denying their her rights as a First Amendment
as a citizen under First Amendment rights. That I think is very very concerning here and so I'd
like to have a discussion with the Senate with the Congress saying look I get the fact that you want
to protect the employers and these companies with their copyrights. I understand that. I think we
can all agree upon that but when they use this for negative and nefarious purposes like they did
in this case to shut down the free speech rights of citizens that are otherwise just simply trying
to assert their rights with legal counsel I might add that goes a bridge too far and I think the
same penalty that is imposed against Google and YouTube ought to be imposed against the employers
for trying to pull this kind of a stunt. So when it comes to situations like that I think we can
have the discussion when it comes to situations like yours it's it's a hard thing to figure out
because the First Amendment doesn't traditionally apply within the private sphere of YouTube
but that's where we find ourselves in right now which is why I say it depends. I think there's a
discussion going on right now to figure out is YouTube the next private park right we know the
private public square right you go downtown there's a park you go out there you should be
entitled to be able to hand out literature and say whatever you want on that green. If that is owned
by a private entity that analysis changes a little bit but not fully and so we're gonna we're gonna
figure out now whether YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and all the other socials are these sort of
this public private partnership that is the new public square for us to insert the First Amendment
to fully protect our our residents around the nation. Thank you for that answer yeah
from a business standpoint I would think that that implied in fact contract which hasn't really been
tested to my knowledge would have some potential bearing it's you know when I when I go into
business with someone I've got things that are not mentioned in our contract that always happens
especially in any kind of a complex deal and there are things though that are implied that you have to
hold up your end of the the deal on and for someone to willy-nilly yank someone's potential
for reach or what have you through a platform that they previously believed would allow for a
free use of it I would think would have some bearing but you're saying so far there's there's
I don't think anybody's tried that but you don't know if that would have I'm willing to pick up
every success I'll pick up every stick and rock that's laying on the path on the way to victory
to be able to use it.
I would certainly be glad.
I think there's gonna be all the arguments
that need to be made.
The question mark is what is going to be the outcome on them
and that's what we're trying to figure out.
But what I think we can all agree on and should agree on
is that when companies or even the cancel culture mob
uses those well-meaning laws
for a negative and censorious effect,
we have a right, we have a duty, frankly,
to point that out wherever we possibly can.
And then eventually to say, wait a minute,
we've got to have different adjustments to the law
to make sure things are corrected.
So in the case of our Alaska Airlines case,
the opposite intended effect occurred with that law.
They followed the law,
but it actually negated my client's first member rights,
at least for a period of three or four days.
That's wrong and we can fix that
with a little tweak of the law.
In cases with hosts like you and others,
the cancel culture mob has been regrettably winning
the ideological war on that.
I think that's gonna be a war
that's gonna be more won on the ideological side of things
than is on the litigation side of things.
But I think it may take the litigation
in order to push the policy
and the ideology in the right direction.
Let's move to one more thing.
We just saw that this Michigan judge,
a Bush appointee actually,
denied this claim for natural immunity.
Apparently this gal, an employee of Michigan State,
was able to present that she had two antibody tests.
She was able to show that and that she's healthy.
And her doctors told her
she didn't need to get the vaccine at this time
because they felt like her natural immunity
was strong enough.
So she faces this termination from the university
for not complying with Michigan State's mandate
that everybody, students and staff, have to get the shot
unless they have a medical or religious exemption.
So she's going on a different basis.
She's attempting to go on a health claim.
Basically, wake up everyone,
look at all these arguments for the natural immunity.
And now we've got over a dozen studies
that are peer-reviewed worldwide
that say that natural immunity is equal or better
than the actual vaccine.
So you can take the vaccine,
you can have the natural immunity,
and those two are at least equal.
Anyway, the judge denied her lawsuit.
He said the mandate didn't violate her fundamental rights.
He pointed to this 1905 ruling.
What are your thoughts about that?
Is there any way to update that 1905 Supreme Court ruling
or how does that work?
And what are your thoughts?
This is a really, really tough issue
because of that case in 1905,
the Occasion versus Massachusetts, it was smallpox.
And so we're trying to figure out
whether or not that applies today or not.
The Supreme Court really just hasn't given us
any guidance on that.
Ultimately, that's gonna be the answer
is what the Supreme Court ultimately says
about the whole thing.
Now, common sense would seem to kick in here, right?
If you have natural immunity to the chickenpox,
do you really need a booster shot?
The science is pretty well settled on that one,
I would think here.
Look, it's gonna take a while for us
to sort this whole thing out, unfortunately.
And regrettably, the common sense doesn't seem
to be that terribly common right now
to carry these things through.
So I would continue to encourage folks
to go to firstliberty.org and kind of look at our guidance
that we have on there at the top of the page.
It'll help you think through and walk through the steps
that you need to take in order to request
a religious accommodation and religious exemption.
I wanna kind of give a little bit of hope here
because there have been many that have followed those steps
and received a religious accommodation.
If you're an employer in a private company,
let me remind you, there is no federal mandate right now
for your employees to be vaccinated.
You're simply following the bully pulpit of the president
saying, I'm gonna issue a mandate
for every employee to be vaccinated.
But you can hold out for right now, if you want to,
you don't have to, if you wanna issue the mandate,
that's between you, your shareholders, or your board
to figure out whether or not that's the best thing
for your employees.
But I think we should all be taking a pause here
to recognize how important the issue of religious liberty
and accommodating that, however possible, can be.
I have a friend, actually, he's an elder at my church,
as a matter of fact, who had COVID, recovered from COVID,
works remotely, still works remotely,
and they're requiring their entire remote staff
to become vaccinated.
Now, that doesn't seem to have a real bearing
on the protecting of people in the workplace.
He's got natural immunity, he's not in the office,
but I understand, he's older in age
and he can't right now go out to run and get a job.
Look, I think that is every bit as despicable
and intolerant of someone's religious beliefs
and their age, for that matter,
to demand that someone who depends upon a livelihood
of work to go and get something
that they may or may not need.
Look, again, I'm not gonna say anything for
or against the vaccine, that's between you,
your doctor, and your God,
but I think employers need to take a long, hard look
at these vaccine mandates and not follow the popular.
trend that may be to say, hey, we're going to demand that people go out. Southwest Airlines
is facing a real problem right now with their staff saying, we're not going to get the shot,
we're walking off the job. The economic impact of that, as you well know, is going to be enormous,
simply because they refuse to recognize a vast majority of people that have a common sense
rationale, but also a religious or medical problem with getting these vaccines. At one time,
we were the enemy of the free world in recognizing people's religious conscience.
When can we get back to that? To recognize that our neighbors are not scary monsters because they
are religious, but instead they are people of genuine goodwill who simply are trying to abide
by their faith in a manner that pleases the divine. We ought to have room in this country
for that to occur. Amen. Thank you, Jeremy. Fascinating stuff. Thank you for being all
about freedom. First Freedom Institute listeners, great organization. Why do they call it the First
Freedom Institute? Well, if you look at the First Amendment, the first part of the First Amendment
is religious freedom. It's the freedom to believe, the freedom to freely exercise that belief.
Thank you for fighting for us, Jeremy. You and your organization are great.
God bless you and to your freedom. We'll see you next time.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai