wifeisafurd said:
71Bear said:
txwharfrat said:
71Bear said:
txwharfrat said:
ducky23 said:
txwharfrat said:
Bow down to the fascist government or else. Let's see how this plays out in the courts.
what, in your mind, would be rolovich's argument?
That his medical history is his private business and that the State government has no business forcing him to do this.
And the Court respectfully disagrees with you. If you choose to live in this country, you must abide by the law. You don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey.
I strongly disagree with many decisions that have been made by the Court but I accept them because that is what intelligent American citizens do……
It will be some time before this issue is fully "settled" by the court. He didn't violate any law. He made a choice. And he has faced the consequences of that choice. I did not make the same choice personally because I don't share his convictions. That doesn't mean i can't agree with his right to make that choice.
Being pro-vaccine and being anti government mandates are two different things.
You probably need to review the cases pertaining to this issue that have come to the Supreme Court's attention before making the statement in your post. The Supreme Court addressed the issue earlier this year by denying to take the case involving Indiana University.
Done and dusted….
'71 has to stop playing lawyer. SCOTUS choosing not to hear an appeal happens in almost all cases and that decision does not set a precedent on the matter at issue, except in the Circuit or state court that ruled on the matter that was not heard by SCOTUS. SCOTUS can always hear the issue in another case and rule in a manner that overturns the applicable statue. Citing a case in Indiana has no precedent in the Ninth Circuit r Washington court where a challenge to the Washington Governor's action would be heard.
Under labor laws in most states, employers have the right to set their terms and conditions of employment including taking vaccines. If a worker doesn't comply, a company can give them the ax. This also applies for COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling. This is statutory and administrative law, which a court can declare void constitutionally, depending on the terms of the law or ruling. The courts can also determine that portions of these laws not applicable due to other federal or state laws, such as accommodation based on medical reasons or sincerely held religious belief. Then it becomes a facts and circumstances issue: for example, the consequence of some vaccines that have been administered for years are well known relative to C-19 vaccines; thus, a court likely provides medical compromised people more latitude in refusing to take C-19 vaccines. There are plenty of health care workers who have LEGALLY not had C-19 vaccines on medical or religious grounds currently in California. I don't know enough about Rolo's objections to comment in the instant case. As a matter of public policy, I support the employer's right to impose a vaccination mandate on employees who interact with other employees and the public generally.
Ah, a lawyer playing lawyer tells a lawyer playing lawyer to stop playing lawyer. Funny.
Yes, the situation is more complicated than either you or 71Bear make it out to be, and yes, SCOTUS choosing not to hear doesn't create precedent, but 71Bear doesn't say it does. 71Bear's question is a good one, what makes anybody think they'll change their minds? A good answer is, the right set of facts might make them "change their minds." Rolo's case wouldn't seem to be one.
Aside from the "reasonable accommodation" issue, a big problem in 2021 for those who want to escape mandates is the "sincerely held religious belief" issue. "Sincerely held" being a key. While C-19 vaccines being relatively new may give more latitude in approving refusal to take a vaccine for medial reasons, it doesn't really impact religious reasons. "My faith says vaccines are bad unless they have been around for at least 10 years." That would be made up crap, the faith traditions that oppose vaccines don't care how long they have been around. May as well say, "I worship the asphalt in my parking lot, and the asphalt is giving me a divine message not to take the vaccine." Good luck with getting that religious exemption granted.
Unless you belong to a Christian Science or Dutch Reformed church (even the latter raises issues), proving a "sincerely held religious belief" in opposition to vaccines is a difficult one. There are some non-denominational "pastors" out there trying to support applications for exemptions, mostly for people unaffiliated with their own churches, but that scam is pretty transparent and unsuccessful. There's a reason why, in 2021, such a small percentage of applications for religious exemption are granted -- most are bogus. If you can establish that you have had a "sincerely held" religious objection to vaccines since before the COVID outbreak, at least you have a start, otherwise, you are more in the Rolo position. And good luck with that.
