In cases like these the law should take precedence before your personal / religious believes.

Vaccines is a very good example. I believe they should be mandatory and if you feel like your government is doing a "crime" in forcing you to take a vaccine, then you are free to sue your country (literally).

As someone said, possibly Billy Connelly, to paraphrase, "Good on them, another idiot out of the gene pool"

Not sure why they are allowed to not wear helmets as I understood that the religious doctrine for Sikhs was to not cut their hair. The turban simply keeps the hair in place. Inconvenient yes, undoctrinal, no. I may be missing something here though

If it endangers the public, no exemptions. If it only endangers themselves, cool. It is called thinning out the herd, or natural selection if you prefer.

Reeligolious people can wear beards in the military. Sikhs and Norsemen have waivers.

No exemptions for any religion, for anything, period.
If they don't like it, too fucking bad.

medical exemptions only

I’ve been an open heart nurse for more than twenty years. I volunteer my services to the community and to the schools as well. I’ve also spent a good deal of time moonlighting in the ER when they’re short.

We refer to people in motorcycle accidents as organ donors, helmet or not. Hate to be blunt.. but you have very little protection on a bike. There are already many exclusions on the books for people to get out of wearing a helmet. It’s their funeral, I say!! We are there to try to put the pieces back together again.

As for vaccinations, this angers me. There is a perception that is the uneducated or poor people that are not vaccinating their kids. It’s the exact opposite. It’s the ignorant suburbanite that reads debunked from one celebrity and goes crazy. They put children that cannot have vaccines for medical reasons at risk. I have yet to have anyone show me any literature that proves religious exception.

My ex was a former JW and I once asked him to show me when they got the no blood thing. It’s an obscure passage that they twist. It doesn’t say that at all of course because as I told him there was no blood transfusions at that time.

Sorry it’s so long

I don’t believe there should be any exceptions, on any grounds. The laws and rules must apply to all equally, special status for religious groups is special treatment and wrong,

Personally I think that using religion as a justification for anything is idiotic, justifications for actions can stand on their logical merits or not at all.
The JW ban on blood transfusions is a case in point, most operations can take place using Ringer's lactate solution and there are none of the side effects associated with blood that may be contaminated as was the case with the Red Cross a couple of decades ago which was quietly swept under the rug. I would choose Ringer's over whole blood or use my own banked blood if I needed an operation, yet the medical community swears by the donated blood system. I'm not against blood transfusions I just think the risks are lower if I used a blood substitute and I am not about to take on greater risks to my health because the medical community hasn't put aside its bias for donated blood. It took decades to get surgeons to scrub up before surgery and poor disinfecting procedures are still a major cause of infection, we humans certainly are a recalcitrant lot when it comes to progress.

Another one of my favorite quotes:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

--John Stuart Mill

The helmet exemption for Sikhs has been in force in the UK since the law was introduced in the early 70s. Fair enough its their life and small accommodations are the price of a free and multi-cultural society. The more recent example was the first Sikh to be a guardsman. All the rest have bearskin hats.
The Hindu vaccination thing however is a crock. How do you think they eradicated small pox in India?
My friend takes exception to being told to take off her helmet when she pays for petrol. No one asks for a burka to be removed

Silly and foolish as there are helmets that accomodate Sikh headwear. Vaccinations must be required, with rare, genetic / health (i.e., nonreligious) exceptions, for the safety of the society as a whole. The 'all life is sacred' philosophy evidently doesn't include plant life? Finally, not all vaccinations are viral; some are bacterial. If a bacteria is deemed 'sacred' our immune system is conducting a holocaust.

I think that the government should be using science-based logic to create Health laws and regulations. And once this is done these laws and regulations should be uniformly enforced for everyone. If you allow groups of individuals to avoid otherwise mandatory inoculations against viruses that threaten the public health you create a hole in the herd immunity and will allow the reemergence of viruses and plagues. Using religion as an end run around health regulations is totally bogus and should not be allowed.