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

  • #16
    My company of 25,000+ employees is mandating proof of vaccination by a certain date or the employee will be terminated which is fantastic in my opinion.

    Comment


    • #17
      This is getting uglier: https://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ich-sue-firing

      The allegations in the lawsuit go back to April.

      Comment


      • #18
        Judges are not generally fond of parties that attempt to try cases in national media, and announcing the action on ESPN before filing anything certainly smacks of that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by CALUPA69 View Post

          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.
          It should have back then. Forcing someone to kill another person is even worse than making them inject an unwanted substance into their body, in my opinion.

          Some portion of those citing religious exemptions will do so based upon the use of fetal cells in the development and testing, not as a "political ruse."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by SW_Mustang View Post

            Bingo. It should be an actual religious exemption with context. Otherwise, anyone can claim it - even non-religious people, which defeats the purpose.
            Substitute personal for religious and the concept would be applied more applicably.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mk63NuclearBomb View Post
              Judges are not generally fond of parties that attempt to try cases in national media, and announcing the action on ESPN before filing anything certainly smacks of that.
              Can the coach get a jury trial, or will this be tried before a judge?

              Comment


              • #22
                Wow, I didn't think it could be done. You guys are having a discussion about something that outside this forum would be perceived as highly political, yet it wasn't or isn't. That is cool.

                It seems harsh that a person would lose a job over their personal conviction, but the alternative is so much worse, I just wish it didn't have to come to that but again the alternative...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by SW_Mustang View Post

                  Bingo. It should be an actual religious exemption with context. Otherwise, anyone can claim it - even non-religious people, which defeats the purpose.
                  Oh I’m with you, but where it starts to get muddy is when we give government the power to decide what is a religion what isn’t a religion. Once they get power over people they never give it back. And as dumb as it sounds to let a handful of people exploit the system I think it’s necessary to keep government from infringing even further - because the shoe will be on the other foot at some point.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                    Can the coach get a jury trial, or will this be tried before a judge?
                    He can, but that would be a long way down the road. It's much more likely the parties settle between themselves and this doesn't get to trial.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mk63NuclearBomb View Post

                      He can, but that would be a long way down the road. It's much more likely the parties settle between themselves and this doesn't get to trial.
                      If it does to trial and it's seen in front of a jury rather than a judge, the lawyer is attempting to set the narrative with potential jury members before they're even selected to potentially serve. It's a common tactic.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by CALUPA69 View Post

                        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.
                        Bill Rodgers, US marathon champ, got that status and did his alternative service at a hospital near Boston.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Jacobsen v. Massachusetts is a very clear case that supports vaccine mandates.

                          Rolovich is not going to be able to get another coaching job.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Runnin' Cat View Post

                            Bill Rodgers, US marathon champ, got that status and did his alternative service at a hospital near Boston.
                            I had a roommate who also got a CO and did two years as a tech in a hospital but that had more to do with the gungho volunteers in West Pa. If your draft board was filling their quota, it was somewhat easier to get exemptions than otherwise. Really sad to remember.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Mk63NuclearBomb View Post
                              Judges are not generally fond of parties that attempt to try cases in national media, and announcing the action on ESPN before filing anything certainly smacks of that.
                              There were a few cases filed in the state before his by other state workers effected by this mandate. I'm almost sure there will be appeals that will reach the federal courts on at least one or two of those. I'm following this as it also effects state services in the area and the local paper had an article on how it effects schools and hospitals in the area. I actually have a cousin right now in the local hospital with heart problems, so that is reason enough to watch it.

                              There are already articles on how the school mask mandate in the state effected rural communities more than urban ones in the state and it wouldn't surprise me if this one does too.
                              Last edited by Wildcat Khan; 10-20-2021, 05:01 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by codeblack View Post

                                Oh I’m with you, but where it starts to get muddy is when we give government the power to decide what is a religion what isn’t a religion. Once they get power over people they never give it back. And as dumb as it sounds to let a handful of people exploit the system I think it’s necessary to keep government from infringing even further - because the shoe will be on the other foot at some point.
                                I understand what you are saying about government, but to be clear, this is a mandate to state employees by their employer. It is not the state mandating it to all state citizens. Employers from what I have seen and heard lately have that right as the employer to make that business decision for their companies best interest. The NFL did this in their best interest as the employer and some coaches choose not to accept it and were either fired or let go.

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X