Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Rolovich out at WSU for refusing to get vaccinated

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OT: Rolovich out at WSU for refusing to get vaccinated

    Just saw this on Twitter and ESPN, but apparently he was terminated for refusing to get the vaccine, which is required for all state employees. Is he the first coach in college football to have this happen?

  • #2
    Originally posted by canadarican View Post
    Just saw this on Twitter and ESPN, but apparently he was terminated for refusing to get the vaccine, which is required for all state employees. Is he the first coach in college football to have this happen?
    Fine by me! Former Maverick Defensive coordinator Jake Dickert has been named the interim head coach so I hope he does well to keep the job on a permanent basis!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Really not that hard to figure out. If your job requires you to achieve a certain skill or qualification, and you don't have it, then you don't get that job anymore. If my job required me to learn how to do a new process to do my job, and I refuse to do it, I don't expect to remain employed with them. It is something that impacts how you are able to do your job you are hired for. So figure it out or get a new job.

      Comment


      • #4
        Additional context: This guy tried to get a religious exemption even though he's catholic and the pope said it's okay

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mk63NuclearBomb View Post
          Additional context: This guy tried to get a religious exemption even though he's catholic and the pope said it's okay
          Puts him just behind Kyrie as the dumbest anti-vaccer out there.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mk63NuclearBomb View Post
            Additional context: This guy tried to get a religious exemption even though he's catholic and the pope said it's okay
            A religious objection is about personal conviction not organized religion.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Brandon View Post

              A religious objection is about personal conviction not organized religion.
              Tell that to young men who had a "personal conviction" about fighting in Vietnam. Unless you were a Quaker or a member of some other historically pacifist sect, your chances of getting CO, conscientious objector, draft status were very remote. In this scenario if you are a Christian Scientist I would say a religious objection to vaccination would be valid. No other religion that I'm aware of makes any mention of a broad objection to vaccination and I would highly suspect the use of a religious objection in this instance is an obvious political ruse. People who would endanger public health for political reasons should be shunned.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by canadarican View Post
                Just saw this on Twitter and ESPN, but apparently he was terminated for refusing to get the vaccine, which is required for all state employees. Is he the first coach in college football to have this happen?
                First head coach I am aware of, but Navy fired an assistant last month for not getting the vaccination.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                  A religious objection is about personal conviction not organized religion.
                  There needs to be some kind of boundaries to that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SW_Mustang View Post

                    There needs to be some kind of boundaries to that.
                    Yeah more government intervention. That’l help

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                      A religious objection is about personal conviction not organized religion.
                      Well... yes and no. It's about personal conviction in the sense that you actually believe in good faith that your religion disallows something, but you'll get laughed out of the room if you can't point to a widely accepted religious practice*. You need to connect it to organized religion, but the pope said it's cool, so Rolovich more-or-less said "I know the head of my religion said it's cool but I disagree." Which is fine! But it's also not grounds for allowing a religious exemption.

                      *I'm pretty sure that's the legal term, if anyone knows for sure feel free to speak up

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by codeblack View Post

                        Yeah more government intervention. That’l help
                        I can’t speak for SW_Mustang but I think he meant more context behind it. As in more than just claiming “religious objection”.

                        I agree with you but also feel it shouldn’t be like Lethal Weapon 2 and just shout diplomatic immunity.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          6 managers out at Hanford were let go for the same reason. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...accine-mandate has more on this and 1,887 people were fired, resigned, or retired from it. This includes state patrol, teachers, and early child care givers. The latest lawsuit about it was for more than 100 people and thrown out in Thurston County Superior Court on Monday.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by codeblack View Post

                            Yeah more government intervention. That’l help
                            I know I'm a dying breed - but I still believe in law and order, and I dislike anarchy. See: Portland.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Purple Mav Man View Post

                              I can’t speak for SW_Mustang but I think he meant more context behind it. As in more than just claiming “religious objection”.

                              I agree with you but also feel it shouldn’t be like Lethal Weapon 2 and just shout diplomatic immunity.
                              Bingo. It should be an actual religious exemption with context. Otherwise, anyone can claim it - even non-religious people, which defeats the purpose.

                              Comment

                              Ad3

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X