Vaccine law suit-

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Fortunately that is just a judge, the deep state presidents cleaned house a lot and put they're own stooges in, this could be one of them, I have heard that a "vaccine" cannot be made manditory if there is a treatment/treatments available, and there is, although the "medical professionals" have tried hard to denigrate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 49
I don't know. Seems like the fight is just beginning. I think that this case me the ground zero for it. Looks to me there a lot of lawyers on both sides that are going to make a bundle.

Anyway. We are planing a mask burning on July 4. I'm thinking about getting the largest bottle rocket I can find, wrapping the masks around it and launching them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shittim
shittim said:
Fortunately that is just a judge, the deep state presidents cleaned house a lot and put they're own stooges in, this could be one of them, I have heard that a "vaccine" cannot be made manditory if there is a treatment/treatments available, and there is, although the "medical professionals" have tried hard to denigrate it.
Click to expand...
shouldn't be mandatory anyway unless/until we know w hat the h... is in it
 
JesusWhereRU said:
shouldn't be mandatory anyway unless/until we know w hat the h... is in it
Click to expand...

but we do know what is in it. no secret there at all. there are threads here that reference what is in it, with links provided to back up the info

and it is not an actual vaccine either :cautious:
 
shittim said:
Fortunately that is just a judge, the deep state presidents cleaned house a lot and put they're own stooges in, this could be one of them, I have heard that a "vaccine" cannot be made manditory if there is a treatment/treatments available, and there is, although the "medical professionals" have tried hard to denigrate it.
Click to expand...

apparently the judge said that taking the un-vacc was no different than being required to perform other duties when you are hired

that is absolute nonsense and there is no comparison. sweeping the floor or whatever, is comparable to receiving into your body something that manifests multiple different kinds of side effects, some of which are permanent?
 
SophieT said:
apparently the judge said that taking the un-vacc was no different than being required to perform other duties when you are hired

that is absolute nonsense and there is no comparison. sweeping the floor or whatever, is comparable to receiving into your body something that manifests multiple different kinds of side effects, some of which are permanent?
Click to expand...
what if no one took vax in order to get a job

company would have no employees

time to stand together against tyranny
 
I wonder if the requirement to take the poison will now shift liability where previously the manufacturer had none.
 
JesusWhereRU said:
i don't quite get this... Manufacturers have often had liability... ??
Click to expand...

you are not paying attention. big pharma was given exemption because of the desire to come up with a vaccine. in other words, people can drop like flies and they can just shrug

however, I am going to go ahead and state when enough nasty substance hits the fan, there will be lawsuits regardless
 
  • Like
Reactions: Genipher
Please don't insult by claiming someone is not paying attention.
If neccessary I am willing to arm wrestle you over this.:giggle:
I already know about the protection for liability, but it was done long ago, long before this event.
That is why I have the question about the employers requirement opening them up to liability.
According to this, 1988 was the act limiting liability, without me going through all the fine print.
best wishes
 
shittim said:
Please don't insult by claiming someone is not paying attention.
If neccessary I am willing to arm wrestle you over this.:giggle:
I already know about the protection for liability, but it was done long ago, long before this event.
That is why I have the question about the employers requirement opening them up to liability.
According to this, 1988 was the act limiting liability, without me going through all the fine print.
best wishes
Click to expand...

smh

what are you talking about? I was not talking to you. there is no liability for these jabs and that has been covered over and over in this forum and you can thank Donald for that. I don't thank him for that
 
shittim said:
donald wasn't president in 1988-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
Agreed, the manufacturer is not liable, the employer requiring the vaccination is what I am alluding to, the employer may be making themselves liable since there is a treatment available.
Click to expand...

I understand what you said.

And I did not insult anyone. A little touchy today? ;)

I really do not think you understood my point, but that's fine. I am actually puzzled at your reaction because I did not say what you seem to think I said.
 
no, I meant it in jest, would you and I be speaking one on one you would have laughed.
bless you
 
From the employer's POV. The liability is small because, the employee's only recourse will result in a small payout, but the patient payout when treated by an unvaccinated employee can be huge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back