Under Federal and State Law you have a right to receive a religious or medical exemption. And you don't have to be a member of a religious organization to have a "sincerely held religious belief" which is the standard the law is based upon. A religious belief is generally one that answers the question of why we're here. If your belief would preclude you taking the shot, then it qualifies. Be aware that the company may ask you to explain it, even though several legal opinions clearly state such questioning is illegal.
If the religion you belong to has officially stated they are not opposed to the shots, (example: the Vatican is mandating the shot for all visitors) that doesn't mean you have to subscribe to that belief. Israel is almost universally vaccinated, but many Jewish believers and Rabbis disagree.
Our goal is to educate you so that you can confidently apply for an exemption. You're not asking for permission, you're asserting your rights under law.
The EEOC guidelines can be found HERE.
In summary, you have the right to file for and receive a religious or medical exemption if you follow the guidelines.
The Arizona Statutes can be found HERE.
IARS 23-206 strengthens the EEOC protections and demands your employer SHALL give you an exemption if you follow the guidelines.
The Pacific Justice Org has info on filing Religious Redemption Letters HERE
In United States v. Seeger(1965) 380 U.S. 163, 165. The Court wrote:
“Congress, in using the expression ‘Supreme Being’ rather than the designation ‘God,’ was merely clarifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. We believe that under this construction, the test of belief ‘in a relation to a Supreme Being’ is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption.”
As an objective test relating to the existence – or non-existence – of a belief itself, the test does not concern itself with the truth of the belief. In other words: “Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others.’ Local boards and courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them ‘incomprehensible.’ Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.”
Some years later, the Supreme in Court Welsh v. U.S. (1970) 398 U.S. 333, 340, further explained the state of the law and Constitutional mandate with respect to the individual right of conscience. In that case, the Court wrote:
“If an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source and content but that nevertheless impose upon him a duty of conscience to refrain from participating in any war at any time, those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that individual ‘a place parallel to that filled by * * * God’ in traditionally religious persons. Because his beliefs function as a religion in his life, such an individual is as much entitled to a ‘religious' conscientious objector exemption under s 6(j) as is someone who derives his conscientious opposition to war from traditional religious convictions.” Welsh v. U.S. (1970) 398 U.S. 333, 340.(See John Howard response to Invasive Questions)