congregation was it because he had filed things in fact said things to his employer which he relied on in a complaint that showed he felt passionately about vaccines should have to have them and and the court said that's not a religion other words the court's decision was a focus on congregation or not congregation it was trying to focus on is this a religious school i did say that that's what the that submission not the twenty page document that your jordan just referenced but he says quote might quotation marks my conscience that's the name of his religion complaint we referenced the the assayed in the complaint not for the truth of the complaint but to say that he had filed the essay with the employer who rejected it in two thousand and fourteen only because mr fallon could no longer submit a personal statement of religious belief he now was required to submit a statement from a clergy person i thought i thought you said in the complaint explicitly that the essay and letter quote  filed a formal motion that said with some some additional information no way i don't believe that we are required to file a motion to amend it when we were when we had been motion to dismiss  pointed out to the court that motions to dismiss or are really granted when they are the court should at least grant leave to amend if you could any time have before the submission from you indicating what your amended pleading sincerely held religious belief and had said nothing else the court still would have dismissed the complaint because the court accepted and extrinsic documents to say w different issues so i think right now we're just trying to get at the first issue and the first issue that your race was it was wrong for the district court or a wild guess and on that issue on that issue i think i've heard your knowledge but you do say in the complaint he said for this for palin provided an extensive and detail this is the defendant on most occasions explaining his sincerely held beliefs the same message twice been so yes it does give background but you put it in the this were but the judge had said ok you know we'll treat this as a motion for summary judgment and we'll look at this record evidence of sites that well what would you have done differently in other words maybe this is asking the same question that judge roth asked earlier would you have said differently what would you have put in the record differently because we've got that there's any other or better or different explanation of your client time i attempted to do that i told the judge we have a harvard theologian who's provided us with an expert report we have mr failon has been extensively interviewed that he will have no trouble at all showing that he has a   twenty nine c f r sixteen zero five point one two places where the issue of religion does exist the commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right or wrong which are sincerely held with the screens of prediction of religious views the standard was developed by united states versus seeker and well first united states by the united states supreme court that has been followed by courts in every circuit in this country relied heavily on the africa yes pain of this court how can you bring your proper definition of religion within the definition within the concept of  a religion that was in braced by this court in africa ok because this court in africa was not looking at the title seven cases been absolutely should have different standards of what religion is for purposes of pile seven and  shook persons act forty two u s c two thousand c c def one itzhak if mr africa today brought that case it would be brought under a completely different law and that was the find religion like title seven to find religion you'll help mr sure if you recognize that even though it seems perhaps an equitable to you it will work better if when one of us towards the top you stop because then we will speak over each other and then one day when we want to go back perhaps and listen to the  argument fresh ourselves it won't be just the cap and he polices over each other so i recognize it's a it's a it's a little bit of a it's not worth nearly conversation but it's the way it needs to work otherwise we don't get t ask questions we'd like to ask and we can't get any answers for seeking and presumably that's why you're here and what you want to help us with under so with that understood since you were lying on title seven as a distinguishing feature why don't you explain how title seven that he has seen regulation that you cite with us or which relies on the conscientious objector decisions like seeker how how title seven in that regulation should be read more broadly than the first minute when seger itself and in person in that cases excuse me conscientious objector cases off first of many cases and in fact make the distinction between religion and somebody says personal moral code that's the language seeker uses but there's a difference between so much quote personal moral code unquote and of religion why why would we look at the title suddenly go away shouldn't say that's a bigger when it's rooted in cedar which makes the very mandate that language is not the law it is not the law in first amendment cases anymore it is not the law in title seven cases help me out because i'm i'm trying to ask a specific question you said title seven and the as i read you see regulation have a broader definition for religion then for some of the cases that's a kind of a remarkable proposition that the regulations are bigger than that and more religious does exactly what it does what is it you are lying on to say that the title seven e e o c definition is broader than the first amendment at least twelve separate federal cases that i just came out i would appreciate the opportunity to supplement alright thank you very much to have you back on the  a sincerely held religious belief we certainly recognize as this court didn't africa but few tasks that confront the court require more circumspection than that of determining whether a particular set of ideas constitutes religion yet as the supreme practices to include quote moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong sincerely held with the strike the traditional religious views so looks like the sea has got a spirit which says are there other edition that we should be looking at here or thinking about because as you started out saying this is a particularly delicate area certainly your honor i do think that that should be the think it is an expert of you know this who are they helpful or they meaningful in other words taken in a back door here to the procedural question was it wrong for the district court to say i'm not going to hear what the duty so mr feel included within his response brief in reference that should the court decide that the complaint is insufficient that amendment would be requested not necessarily where you want to go but but she did not technically file a motion to amend the docket reflects that he did not provide a proposed amendment we did in our motion to dismiss make very clear what the basis of our concerns were with regard to the forth positions he wanted to work with or so i think the record doesn't support that if you look at the transcript which we submitted in our supplemental appendix i think that it shows that judge patrick district certainly did not abuse its discretion in denying the request that mr shaw provided on the record and included in his brief to to amend his complaint i think clearly he had every he's a strong moral or ethical conviction similar to a religious belief i think ultimately under paid all seven needs to come forth with a complaint that alleges that his congregation or the failure before comedy was due to his statement of why he didn't want the flu vaccine it's been the complaint that they never allowed him to explain his religious beliefs i thought there was a i thought it was the case that there had been after after the hospital said we're not going to accept this as adequate anymore there was a period of back and forth between your client and the hospital where they said person and he said i don't have a clergy person what do you want me to do and they said you're fired that's the sum and substance of the communication between him and his employer and right there and that's what we when you're quoted to say he has a strong ethical or moral belief now is that a bad vaccine yes exactly whether i did you mention that he had a strong ethical or moral belief because that was why we were there was objected to the flu vaccination and he was asked why by his employer and he presented his reasons why the same reasons they had accepted in two thousand and twelve and two thousand and thirteen and they recognize there is nothing of that any other own ethical or moral belief that we've never had a chance your honor to make that record we filed the complaint we will make a record we have a theologian he can be deposed he'll be able a legal code lucian you've got to give enough facts and somebody can actually understand what you're talking about and and the assertion that if you're watching could come in and tell you why destroy phallus believe this religious prompts me to wonder why mr fallon's own repeated and passionately stated at wake statements are in fact the very best understood basis on which to understand what his beliefs are