dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

Rushinbear said:

---

cccbear04 said:

---

Yup he has every right to not get the vaccine but zero right to remain a state employee…

---

The courts will decide and I think they'll come down on his side.

Those of you who are belittling him - do you know if he's had COVID? do you know his religious beliefs? do you know if he's been advised by his doctor not to get vaccinated because of some other health condition he might have? do you know if he doubts the CDC and FDA's evidence? do you know if he's just exercising his Constitutional rights? How much do you know about this case?

Guy's got balls, I'll tell you that. Would you give up that gig because of your personal beliefs?

---

Balls but no brain. What a way to go through life!

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

MSaviolives said:

---

On the religious exception, the vast majority of requests for that exception are denied because the individual was otherwise vaccinated for all manner of diseases without previous objection, and had no basis to claim a religious objection to this particular vaccine. Most organized religions are fine with the vaccine as well. I suspect that is what happened with Andrew Wiggins and the WSU coach.

The Pope has been vaccinated.

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sincere question: What are these religious exemptions based on? I know the Christian Science faith teaches its followers to eschew a lot of medical treatments. No doubt there are others, but I am not aware of them. Seems like people are crying "religious exemption" right and left, WAY out of proportion to any religious beliefs that I have ever heard about. Let's say the pastor of a church signs off on a religious exemption, shouldn't he/she have to cite known held beliefs of that religion?

Where do religious exemptions end? Can I use one to walk around naked in public (don't worry, I don't want to)? Can I use one to not pay taxes? To not follow traffic laws?

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

I get your point, and I agree with it.

Having said that, neither one us will have to pay the price for this position.

It is always the less fortunate who will pay the price. And I feel guilt that others will pay for what needs to be done. And no amount of social engineering will fix this. You and I will always have access to the best doctors, because we can afford it, including paying extra for special access. Less fortunate will pay the price for reduction in medical care. You and I can pay our way through inflationary spikes due to further strain on supply chain and transportation and may even grow our wealth, but those whose wage increase have not kept up with inflation will feel it even more. No police force is being reduced where I live, and I will mostly be safe. It's those already living in high crime areas who will be further victimized.

So, not saying there is a easy way out of this, but I cannot take too much moral pride in claiming something I know is right when I won't be paying the price. Kind of like saying we need to invade a country to prevent genocide when it is others' children who will die for that principle. It may be the right thing to do (e.g., WWII), but it is always easier to stand on principle when we are doing so on someone else' back.

---

I appreciate you trying to look at this through an equity lens; it's a perspective that is sadly all too missing from public discourse. But some questions that come to mind... What price are the less fortunate paying by everybody getting a vaccine that prevents disease/death with minimal side-effects? Is reducing the number one cause of hospitalizations right now really going to result in a reduction in medical care? Are those who live in high crime areas, who have been asking/pleading/begging/demanding/protesting for the diversion of police resources to social supports actually paying the higher price of a reduced police force?

concernedparent said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

I get your point, and I agree with it.

Having said that, neither one us will have to pay the price for this position.

It is always the less fortunate who will pay the price. And I feel guilt that others will pay for what needs to be done. And no amount of social engineering will fix this. You and I will always have access to the best doctors, because we can afford it, including paying extra for special access. Less fortunate will pay the price for reduction in medical care. You and I can pay our way through inflationary spikes due to further strain on supply chain and transportation and may even grow our wealth, but those whose wage increase have not kept up with inflation will feel it even more. No police force is being reduced where I live, and I will mostly be safe. It's those already living in high crime areas who will be further victimized.

So, not saying there is a easy way out of this, but I cannot take too much moral pride in claiming something I know is right when I won't be paying the price. Kind of like saying we need to invade a country to prevent genocide when it is others' children who will die for that principle. It may be the right thing to do (e.g., WWII), but it is always easier to stand on principle when we are doing so on someone else' back.

---

I appreciate you trying to look at this through an equity lens; it's a perspective that is sadly all too missing from public discourse. But some questions that come to mind... What price are the less fortunate paying by everybody getting a vaccine that prevents disease/death with minimal side-effects? Is reducing the number one cause of hospitalizations right now really going to result in a reduction in medical care? Are those who live in high crime areas, who have been asking/pleading/begging/demanding/protesting for the diversion of police resources to social supports actually paying the higher price of a reduced police force?

---

From syphilis experimentation based on lies. From Que Mala Harris insisting that she wouldn't get vaxxed with Trump's vaccine. From wear masks to masks not necessary to masks mandatory. From COVID came from China to COVID came from the US to COVID came from China again. From COVID coming from a lab to COVID coming from the wet market to COVID coming from a lab, after all - a lab that may have been subsidized with US money. From vax mandate to no mandate to mandate. You get the idea.

A large portion of the "less fortunate" are not being denied the vax, they are refusing it. Can't imagine why.

concernedparent said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

I get your point, and I agree with it.

Having said that, neither one us will have to pay the price for this position.

It is always the less fortunate who will pay the price. And I feel guilt that others will pay for what needs to be done. And no amount of social engineering will fix this. You and I will always have access to the best doctors, because we can afford it, including paying extra for special access. Less fortunate will pay the price for reduction in medical care. You and I can pay our way through inflationary spikes due to further strain on supply chain and transportation and may even grow our wealth, but those whose wage increase have not kept up with inflation will feel it even more. No police force is being reduced where I live, and I will mostly be safe. It's those already living in high crime areas who will be further victimized.

So, not saying there is a easy way out of this, but I cannot take too much moral pride in claiming something I know is right when I won't be paying the price. Kind of like saying we need to invade a country to prevent genocide when it is others' children who will die for that principle. It may be the right thing to do (e.g., WWII), but it is always easier to stand on principle when we are doing so on someone else' back.

---

I appreciate you trying to look at this through an equity lens; it's a perspective that is sadly all too missing from public discourse. But some questions that come to mind... What price are the less fortunate paying by everybody getting a vaccine that prevents disease/death with minimal side-effects? Is reducing the number one cause of hospitalizations right now really going to result in a reduction in medical care? Are those who live in high crime areas, who have been asking/pleading/begging/demanding/protesting for the diversion of police resources to social supports actually paying the higher price of a reduced police force?

---

Not saying really more than the obvious observation that reduction in necessary services or increases in prices will impact the poor first.

The vaccine mandate (which I agree is now required since time for persuasion is over) will result in increased reduction in work force, especially among those who are critical to mitigating this supply chain issues. Just as a point of reference, a lot of my acquaintances are executives at large companies. And the impact on retention, work force (especially companies with manufacturing) and morale adding pressure to supply chain issue and accumulating backlog of orders was one of the main concerns with previously not adopting vaccine mandate (as well as potential lawsuit until there was OSHA, federal or state mandate and FDA approval). As one of my friends told me, in his 25 years managing large operations, he has never seen supply chain issues like the last year or so. Orders that usually required 1 to 2 week lead time are now requiring one year, with companies paying a premium to get in front of the line. Add to that reduction in work force for transportation and shipment, it is amazing that we have not been further impacted. Most companies have been able to pass the price increase to customers up the vertical, and it will only get worse, with the ultimate price increase going to consumers.

Imagine adding to this additional loss of work force from the mandate. The inflation is only going up. And when there is inflation, owners of assets like us usually benefit and people barely making by but not having their wages keep in line with inflation are hurt the most. This cannot be solved by providing more money to the underprivileged since the issue is there isn't enough supply, delivery or work force to meet even the current demand. Stimulating demand without increase in work force and supply is only going to make this worse and increase inflation.

Same with reduction in hospital care. Most of us my age who have been professionals for long enough have special access to top medical care. While we will also be impacted, I suspect reduction in medical care personnel would impact the poor first. I agree that vaccination will reduce the demand on hospitals and allow them to focus again on elective surgery. However, there will be a lag between vaccination mandate and hospitalization rate.

Same with police protection. It may be possible that many folks here claiming reduction in police force will help those living in high crime areas do not actually live there. In any case, further reduction in police force may limit ability to respond to emergencies or engage in preventative patrol. In neighborhoods where most of us live, we won't be impacted by reduction in police force. Our police protection is not getting reduced, or, if it does, we will get private security (as some of my VC and PE acquaintances have already done).

That's all I am saying. The unintended consequences to our moral positions usually fall on those least able to withstand the cost of our choices.

calbear93 said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

I get your point, and I agree with it.

Having said that, neither one us will have to pay the price for this position.

It is always the less fortunate who will pay the price. And I feel guilt that others will pay for what needs to be done. And no amount of social engineering will fix this. You and I will always have access to the best doctors, because we can afford it, including paying extra for special access. Less fortunate will pay the price for reduction in medical care. You and I can pay our way through inflationary spikes due to further strain on supply chain and transportation and may even grow our wealth, but those whose wage increase have not kept up with inflation will feel it even more. No police force is being reduced where I live, and I will mostly be safe. It's those already living in high crime areas who will be further victimized.

So, not saying there is a easy way out of this, but I cannot take too much moral pride in claiming something I know is right when I won't be paying the price. Kind of like saying we need to invade a country to prevent genocide when it is others' children who will die for that principle. It may be the right thing to do (e.g., WWII), but it is always easier to stand on principle when we are doing so on someone else' back.

---

I appreciate you trying to look at this through an equity lens; it's a perspective that is sadly all too missing from public discourse. But some questions that come to mind... What price are the less fortunate paying by everybody getting a vaccine that prevents disease/death with minimal side-effects? Is reducing the number one cause of hospitalizations right now really going to result in a reduction in medical care? Are those who live in high crime areas, who have been asking/pleading/begging/demanding/protesting for the diversion of police resources to social supports actually paying the higher price of a reduced police force?

---

Not saying really more than the obvious observation that reduction in necessary services or increases in prices will impact the poor first.

The vaccine mandate (which I agree is now required since time for persuasion is over) will result in increased reduction in work force, especially among those who are critical to mitigating this supply chain issues. Just as a point of reference, a lot of my acquaintances are executives at large companies. And the impact on retention, work force (especially companies with manufacturing) and morale adding pressure to supply chain issue and accumulating backlog of orders was one of the main concerns with previously not adopting vaccine mandate (as well as potential lawsuit until there was OSHA, federal or state mandate and FDA approval). As one of my friends told me, in his 25 years managing large operations, he has never seen supply chain issues like the last year or so. Orders that usually required 1 to 2 week lead time are now requiring one year, with companies paying a premium to get in front of the line. Add to that reduction in work force for transportation and shipment, it is amazing that we have not been further impacted. Most companies have been able to pass the price increase to customers up the vertical, and it will only get worse, with the ultimate price increase going to consumers.

Imagine adding to this additional loss of work force from the mandate. The inflation is only going up. And when there is inflation, owners of assets like us usually benefit and people barely making by but not having their wages keep in line with inflation are hurt the most. This cannot be solved by providing more money to the underprivileged since the issue is there isn't enough supply, delivery or work force to meet even the current demand. Stimulating demand without increase in work force and supply is only going to make this worse and increase inflation.

Same with reduction in hospital care. Most of us my age who have been professionals for long enough have special access to top medical care. While we will also be impacted, I suspect reduction in medical care personnel would impact the poor first. I agree that vaccination will reduce the demand on hospitals and allow them to focus again on elective surgery. However, there will be a lag between vaccination mandate and hospitalization rate.

Same with police protection. It may be possible that many folks here claiming reduction in police force will help those living in high crime areas do not actually live there. In any case, further reduction in police force may limit ability to respond to emergencies or engage in preventative patrol. In neighborhoods where most of us live, we won't be impacted by reduction in police force. Our police protection is not getting reduced, or, if it does, we will get private security (as some of my VC and PE acquaintances have already done).

That's all I am saying. The unintended consequences to our moral positions usually fall on those least able to withstand the cost of our choices.

---

Ryan leaf offers to coach the offense.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2021/10/19/nick-rolovich-and-others-out-washington-state-need-coaches/8527282002/

oskidunker said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

This issue playing out day by day across the country-https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1281854

---

Screw Southwest. Wont fly that airline.

---

I flew Southwest the other day, the flight went smoothly, then had a Chick-fil-a chicken sandwich for lunch, it was delicious.

BearForce2 said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

This issue playing out day by day across the country-https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1281854

---

Screw Southwest. Wont fly that airline.

---

I flew Southwest the other day, the flight went smoothly, then had a Chick-fil-a chicken sandwich for lunch, it was delicious.

---

Well if the food was good I might reconsider.

Big C said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sincere question: What are these religious exemptions based on? I know the Christian Science faith teaches its followers to eschew a lot of medical treatments. No doubt there are others, but I am not aware of them. Seems like people are crying "religious exemption" right and left, WAY out of proportion to any religious beliefs that I have ever heard about. Let's say the pastor of a church signs off on a religious exemption, shouldn't he/she have to cite known held beliefs of that religion?

Where do religious exemptions end? Can I use one to walk around naked in public (don't worry, I don't want to)? Can I use one to not pay taxes? To not follow traffic laws?

---

That is a misconception about Christian Science, also held by some Christian Scientists. The core theology is your faith in God/your innate health is what heals you, but that can easily come through the appearance of medicine or a vaccine. Most take medicine AND affirm their health.

I will say I know people who only eat organic raw vegan food, who avoid all sorts of chemicals in shampoos, soaps, etc who are antivax, I am sympathetic to that position. At least they are consistent.

calumnus said:

---

That is a misconception about Christian Science, also held by some Christian Scientists. The core theology is your faith in God/your innate health is what heals you, but that can easily come through the appearance of medicine or a vaccine. Most take medicine AND affirm their health.

I will say I know people who only eat organic raw vegan food, who avoid all sorts of chemicals in shampoos, soaps, etc who are antivax, I am sympathetic to that position. At least they are consistent.

---

CS has a nuanced and balanced view--they are not dogmatic on what their practitioners should do. They preach that mandatory vaccinations should be followed, but if exceptions are allowed then it is up to the individual whether to seek the exception. https://www.christianscience.com/press-room/a-christian-science-perspective-on-vaccination-and-public-health

Quote:

---

For more than a century, our denomination has counseled respect for public health authorities and conscientious obedience to the laws of the land, including those requiring vaccination. Christian Scientists report suspected communicable disease, obey quarantines, and strive to cooperate with measures considered necessary by public health officials. We see this as a matter of basic Golden Rule ethics and New Testament love.

As for the issue of exemptions for vaccination in the law, Christian Scientists' perspective on this issue may be unique. In the past, many public officials have been broadly supportive of exemptions when these have not been considered a danger to the wider community. In more recent years, public health concerns relating to vaccinations have risen as exemptions from them have been claimed by larger numbers. Christian Scientists recognize the seriousness of these concerns.

Most of our church members normally rely on prayer for healing. It's a deeply considered spiritual practice and way of life that has meant a lot to us over the years. So we've appreciated vaccination exemptions and sought to use them conscientiously and responsibly, when they have been granted.

On the other hand, our practice isn't a dogmatic thing. Church members are free to make their own choices on all life-decisions, in obedience to the law, including whether or not to vaccinate. These aren't decisions imposed by their church.

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sincere question: What are these religious exemptions based on? I know the Christian Science faith teaches its followers to eschew a lot of medical treatments. No doubt there are others, but I am not aware of them. Seems like people are crying "religious exemption" right and left, WAY out of proportion to any religious beliefs that I have ever heard about. Let's say the pastor of a church signs off on a religious exemption, shouldn't he/she have to cite known held beliefs of that religion?

Where do religious exemptions end? Can I use one to walk around naked in public (don't worry, I don't want to)? Can I use one to not pay taxes? To not follow traffic laws?

---

That is a misconception about Christian Science, also held by some Christian Scientists. The core theology is your faith in God/your innate health is what heals you, but that can easily come through the appearance of medicine or a vaccine. Most take medicine AND affirm their health.

I will say I know people who only eat organic raw vegan food, who avoid all sorts of chemicals in shampoos, soaps, etc who are antivax, I am sympathetic to that position. At least they are consistent.

---

Thanks. As I said, I don't really have a solid idea to what extent any of these religious exemptions are actually based on known tenets of the faiths in question.

As for Christian Scientists, I just wish they had told Tommy Vardell to eschew touchdowns in November of 1991.

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sounds like a recipe for litigation. With ADA cases, an unreasonable accommodation defense is the last thing you want to rely upon, at least with real estate cases such as dealing with disabled parking spaces. My understanding is that the university used a blind evaluation process, meaning the two-person committee that evaluated Rolovich's request did not have access to any identifying information while making its determination. That committee granted the exemption. AD Chun said Rolovich's "accommodation request" was then denied by him as is boss, which indicates an evaluation was made beyond the initial exemption request. I assume Chun worked closely with University lawyers, but that is a gutsy call, at least from my perspective having been out in the trenches. Maybe Washington is a lot more employer oriented than California.

Something not touched upon and mentioned in the ESPN article is that there also are unvaccinated players facing the Monday deadline that will not be allowed to enroll next quarter. No bueno for roster depth. According to the article, "roughly two dozen players -- would not be able to return to WSU in the spring."

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sounds like a recipe for litigation. With ADA cases, an unreasonable accommodation defense is the last thing you want to rely upon, at least with real estate cases such as dealing with disabled parking spaces. My understanding is that the university used a blind evaluation process, meaning the two-person committee that evaluated Rolovich's request did not have access to any identifying information while making its determination. That committee granted the exemption. AD Chun said Rolovich's "accommodation request" was then denied by him as is boss, which indicates an evaluation was made beyond the initial exemption request. I assume Chun worked closely with University lawyers, but that is a gutsy call, at least from my perspective having been out in the trenches. Maybe Washington is a lot more employer oriented than California.

---

Per The Athletic, in early September, the Seattle Times reported that only 7 of 3891 cases at WSU were granted both a religious exemption and were given an accommodation.

Another number cited by The Athletic - the number of terminations at WSU total less than 50 (out of 10,000+ employees).

Helton got fired from USC mid-season for losing to Stanford. Gruden got fired for 10 year old emails.
People saying Rolovich has a case against getting fired for violating health and safety protocols seem to be thinking about other professions.
The only litigation is how much of the contract is he owed.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sincere question: What are these religious exemptions based on? I know the Christian Science faith teaches its followers to eschew a lot of medical treatments. No doubt there are others, but I am not aware of them. Seems like people are crying "religious exemption" right and left, WAY out of proportion to any religious beliefs that I have ever heard about. Let's say the pastor of a church signs off on a religious exemption, shouldn't he/she have to cite known held beliefs of that religion?

Where do religious exemptions end? Can I use one to walk around naked in public (don't worry, I don't want to)? Can I use one to not pay taxes? To not follow traffic laws?

---

That is a misconception about Christian Science, also held by some Christian Scientists. The core theology is your faith in God/your innate health is what heals you, but that can easily come through the appearance of medicine or a vaccine. Most take medicine AND affirm their health.

I will say I know people who only eat organic raw vegan food, who avoid all sorts of chemicals in shampoos, soaps, etc who are antivax, I am sympathetic to that position. At least they are consistent.

---

Thanks. As I said, I don't really have a solid idea to what extent any of these religious exemptions are actually based on known tenets of the faiths in question.

As for Christian Scientists, I just wish they had told Tommy Vardell to eschew touchdowns in November of 1991.

---

I don't claim to fully understand all the religious basis, but I've read that one claimed basis is that the vaccines were developed with fetal tissue/cells.

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sounds like a recipe for litigation. With ADA cases, an unreasonable accommodation defense is the last thing you want to rely upon, at least with real estate cases such as dealing with disabled parking spaces. My understanding is that the university used a blind evaluation process, meaning the two-person committee that evaluated Rolovich's request did not have access to any identifying information while making its determination. That committee granted the exemption. AD Chun said Rolovich's "accommodation request" was then denied by him as is boss, which indicates an evaluation was made beyond the initial exemption request. I assume Chun worked closely with University lawyers, but that is a gutsy call, at least from my perspective having been out in the trenches. Maybe Washington is a lot more employer oriented than California.

---

I made this point in another thread - it seems to me that WSU has a real issue here. Once the exemption was found to be valid, I believe WSU has the burden of showing there could not be accommodations without an undue burden. The strict scrutiny standard seemingly would apply to a religious based claim ("least restrictive means").

I can think of a lot of accommodations that would seem to be both reasonable and not impose any real burden. For example, Rolovich could agree to be tested every day, mask, socially distance most of the time, and "bubble" himself outside football activities. They played football last year with these protections - before the vaccine - and those risks were adjudged acceptable. Why does the existence of the vaccine change that?

I'm not sure if they'll admit it, but WSU may say that they didn't want to deal with the optics of Rolovich undercutting the pro-vaccine policy of the state/school. Not sure that's a great argument.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Something not touched upon and mentioned in the ESPN article is that there also are unvaccinated players facing the Monday deadline that will not be allowed to enroll next quarter. No bueno for roster depth. According to the article, "roughly two dozen players -- would not be able to return to WSU in the spring."

---

Didn't Dennis Ericson make a career out of recruiting JC players that didn't return in the spring after playing their one year in the fall?

Rolovich to sue, claiming his devout Catholic faith prevents him getting a vaccine.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32437269/ex-washington-state-coach-nick-rolovich-sue-firing

Interesting stand to make considering the pope is vaccinated and is actively encouraging vaccines.

Article also says he was escorted from campus and not allowed to address team.

Is Rolovich's application for exemption admissable in court and can it become public?

This tweet has a full statement from the attorney:

Just received this from an attorney representing Nick Rolovich, who plans to sue #WashingtonState for illegal termination. Accuses AD Pat Chun of “discriminatory and vindictive behavior.” pic.twitter.com/KTOnIchKXD

— Adam Rittenberg (@ESPNRittenberg) October 20, 2021

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sounds like a recipe for litigation. With ADA cases, an unreasonable accommodation defense is the last thing you want to rely upon, at least with real estate cases such as dealing with disabled parking spaces. My understanding is that the university used a blind evaluation process, meaning the two-person committee that evaluated Rolovich's request did not have access to any identifying information while making its determination. That committee granted the exemption. AD Chun said Rolovich's "accommodation request" was then denied by him as is boss, which indicates an evaluation was made beyond the initial exemption request. I assume Chun worked closely with University lawyers, but that is a gutsy call, at least from my perspective having been out in the trenches. Maybe Washington is a lot more employer oriented than California.

---

I made this point in another thread - it seems to me that WSU has a real issue here. Once the exemption was found to be valid, I believe WSU has the burden of showing there could not be accommodations without an undue burden. The strict scrutiny standard seemingly would apply to a religious based claim ("least restrictive means").

I can think of a lot of accommodations that would seem to be both reasonable and not impose any real burden. For example, Rolovich could agree to be tested every day, mask, socially distance most of the time, and "bubble" himself outside football activities. They played football last year with these protections - before the vaccine - and those risks were adjudged acceptable. Why does the existence of the vaccine change that?

I'm not sure if they'll admit it, but WSU may say that they didn't want to deal with the optics of Rolovich undercutting the pro-vaccine policy of the state/school. Not sure that's a great argument.

---

It now seems like the religious exemption had not been granted.

What baffles me is why they included a superfluous statement that, even if the exemption had been granted, they could not accommodate. Why give fodder to the plaintiff's counsel and create bad PR?

If they had approached this as, we looked at the narrow path allowed for religious exemption and could not conclude that granting the exemption is authorized under the government mandate, they could have most likely escaped this. I would have advised them to state that his mandate is a requirement from the state and under the September executive order for federal contractors and our hands are tied. What we won't do is openly violate the law and put our great organization at risk. We wish him well and are grateful for his services.

That's all they needed. It seems odd the path they approached here.

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sounds like a recipe for litigation. With ADA cases, an unreasonable accommodation defense is the last thing you want to rely upon, at least with real estate cases such as dealing with disabled parking spaces. My understanding is that the university used a blind evaluation process, meaning the two-person committee that evaluated Rolovich's request did not have access to any identifying information while making its determination. That committee granted the exemption. AD Chun said Rolovich's "accommodation request" was then denied by him as is boss, which indicates an evaluation was made beyond the initial exemption request. I assume Chun worked closely with University lawyers, but that is a gutsy call, at least from my perspective having been out in the trenches. Maybe Washington is a lot more employer oriented than California.

---

I made this point in another thread - it seems to me that WSU has a real issue here. Once the exemption was found to be valid, I believe WSU has the burden of showing there could not be accommodations without an undue burden. The strict scrutiny standard seemingly would apply to a religious based claim ("least restrictive means").

I can think of a lot of accommodations that would seem to be both reasonable and not impose any real burden. For example, Rolovich could agree to be tested every day, mask, socially distance most of the time, and "bubble" himself outside football activities. They played football last year with these protections - before the vaccine - and those risks were adjudged acceptable. Why does the existence of the vaccine change that?

I'm not sure if they'll admit it, but WSU may say that they didn't want to deal with the optics of Rolovich undercutting the pro-vaccine policy of the state/school. Not sure that's a great argument.

---

It now seems like the religious exemption had not been granted.

What baffles me is why they included a superfluous statement that, even if the exemption had been granted, they could not accommodate. Why give fodder to the plaintiff's counsel and create bad PR?

If they had approached this as, we looked at the narrow path allowed for religious exemption and could not conclude that granting the exemption is authorized under the government mandate, they could have most likely escaped this. I would have advised them to state that his mandate is a requirement from the state and under the September executive order for federal contractors and our hands are tied. What we won't do is openly violate the law and put our great organization at risk. We wish him well and are grateful for his services.

That's all they needed. It seems odd the path they approached here.

---

I agree.

There is a weird dynamic going on here - Chun (the AD) seems to have a lot of animus toward Rolovich which caused him to say/do things that did not help his legal case. First he implied that the exemption was granted (it wasn't) and that Rolo stormed off after being fired and didn't speak to his team (which Rolo took a lot of flack for). Today Rolo is claiming security escorted him off campus. Someone is not telling the truth on that issue.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32437269/ex-washington-state-coach-nick-rolovich-sue-firing

https://twitter.com/ESPNRittenberg/status/1450821793107824642/photo/1

Interesting info/details in this article:

https://247sports.com/college/washington-state/Article/Nick-Rolovich-WSUs-Pat-Chun-Kirk-Schulz-say-decision-to-fire-Rolovich-4-football-assistants-was-months-in-the-making-173423725/

I'm intrigued by this statement -

"Schulz said that there has been a lot of internal frustration from WSU employees about such a prominent employee (the face of a Power 5 university is its football coach), not being vaccinated. He added that over 90 percent of WSU employees and 97 percent of WSU students are vaccinated -- with only seven active COVID cases in Pullman. Those numbers show the vaccine work, and is safe and effective, Schulz noted."

"Schulz said the situation has been a public relations headache and that the school has been in the national media "again and again and again for Coach Rolovich's particular stance on vaccines and his personal decision on whether or not to be vaccinated." He added he felt it was certainly affecting the perception of Washington State."

I'm not sure what to make of the above. It will be interesting to see if any religious exemptions were granted by WSU. Is the "prominent" head coach held to a different standard because he doesn't support vaccine mandates and the school doesn't like the political impacts? Is support of the mandate a prerequisite to employment?

It is hard for WSU to argue that Rolovich's refusal to be vaccinated presented a health and safety risk when you have 90%+ vaccination rates (97% with students, which is incredible) and low covid cases.

Calypso said:

---

This tweet has a full statement from the attorney:

Just received this from an attorney representing Nick Rolovich, who plans to sue #WashingtonState for illegal termination. Accuses AD Pat Chun of “discriminatory and vindictive behavior.” pic.twitter.com/KTOnIchKXD

— Adam Rittenberg (@ESPNRittenberg) October 20, 2021

---

Catholic faith? Hmmm...what about the sanctity of life the catholics are always using to prevent people from having a medical procedure?

BearGoggles said:

---

I agree.

There is a weird dynamic going on here - Chun (the AD) seems to have a lot of animus toward Rolovich which caused him to say/do things that did not help his legal case. First he implied that the exemption was granted (it wasn't) and that Rolo stormed off after being fired and didn't speak to his team (which Rolo took a lot of flack for). Today Rolo is claiming security escorted him off campus. Someone is not telling the truth on that issue.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32437269/ex-washington-state-coach-nick-rolovich-sue-firing

https://twitter.com/ESPNRittenberg/status/1450821793107824642/photo/1

Interesting info/details in this article:

https://247sports.com/college/washington-state/Article/Nick-Rolovich-WSUs-Pat-Chun-Kirk-Schulz-say-decision-to-fire-Rolovich-4-football-assistants-was-months-in-the-making-173423725/

I'm intrigued by this statement -

"Schulz said that there has been a lot of internal frustration from WSU employees about such a prominent employee (the face of a Power 5 university is its football coach), not being vaccinated. He added that over 90 percent of WSU employees and 97 percent of WSU students are vaccinated -- with only seven active COVID cases in Pullman. Those numbers show the vaccine work, and is safe and effective, Schulz noted."

"Schulz said the situation has been a public relations headache and that the school has been in the national media "again and again and again for Coach Rolovich's particular stance on vaccines and his personal decision on whether or not to be vaccinated." He added he felt it was certainly affecting the perception of Washington State."

I'm not sure what to make of the above. It will be interesting to see if any religious exemptions were granted by WSU. Is the "prominent" head coach held to a different standard because he doesn't support vaccine mandates and the school doesn't like the political impacts? Is support of the mandate a prerequisite to employment?

It is hard for WSU to argue that Rolovich's refusal to be vaccinated presented a health and safety risk when you have 90%+ vaccination rates (97% with students, which is incredible) and low covid cases.

---

As Wilner (I know he's not popular here, but he's right on this) said, claiming you're making some heroic stand and then declining to explain it is not the behavior of a leader.

All this bellyaching about being escorted off campus is noise, and suggests to me this is more PR oriented than it is a real legal argument. That's what happens when people get fired.

The school is right to be frustrated with the highest paid public employee in the state abdicating his leadership position this completely (I would argue, regardless of the fact that he should have gotten vaccinated, at the very LEAST he should have explained his position).

I also take issue with your last statement about being a health and safety risk when 90%+ of the campus is vaccinated. A few reasons off the top of my head:

- He goes into recruits homes -- who knows what their status is
- There are immuno-compromised people on a campus of that size that he is likely to come across

Good riddance to Rolovich and I predict WSU will settle with him for less than the cost of litigation would be to them. He can claim that as a victory and go coach at Liberty U or somewhere similar.

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sounds like a recipe for litigation. With ADA cases, an unreasonable accommodation defense is the last thing you want to rely upon, at least with real estate cases such as dealing with disabled parking spaces. My understanding is that the university used a blind evaluation process, meaning the two-person committee that evaluated Rolovich's request did not have access to any identifying information while making its determination. That committee granted the exemption. AD Chun said Rolovich's "accommodation request" was then denied by him as is boss, which indicates an evaluation was made beyond the initial exemption request. I assume Chun worked closely with University lawyers, but that is a gutsy call, at least from my perspective having been out in the trenches. Maybe Washington is a lot more employer oriented than California.

---

I made this point in another thread - it seems to me that WSU has a real issue here. Once the exemption was found to be valid, I believe WSU has the burden of showing there could not be accommodations without an undue burden. The strict scrutiny standard seemingly would apply to a religious based claim ("least restrictive means").

I can think of a lot of accommodations that would seem to be both reasonable and not impose any real burden. For example, Rolovich could agree to be tested every day, mask, socially distance most of the time, and "bubble" himself outside football activities. They played football last year with these protections - before the vaccine - and those risks were adjudged acceptable. Why does the existence of the vaccine change that?

I'm not sure if they'll admit it, but WSU may say that they didn't want to deal with the optics of Rolovich undercutting the pro-vaccine policy of the state/school. Not sure that's a great argument.

---

It now seems like the religious exemption had not been granted.

What baffles me is why they included a superfluous statement that, even if the exemption had been granted, they could not accommodate. Why give fodder to the plaintiff's counsel and create bad PR?

If they had approached this as, we looked at the narrow path allowed for religious exemption and could not conclude that granting the exemption is authorized under the government mandate, they could have most likely escaped this. I would have advised them to state that his mandate is a requirement from the state and under the September executive order for federal contractors and our hands are tied. What we won't do is openly violate the law and put our great organization at risk. We wish him well and are grateful for his services.

That's all they needed. It seems odd the path they approached here.

---

Did WSU actually say that they would've fired him even if he had gotten the exemption? I saw that Rolo's lawyer is supposedly claiming it but that alone doesn't make it true.

Sounds like they have a morality clause basis on top of the vaccine directive basis to me.

As a retired Catholic this news gives me more confidence in my decision. Lawsuits and putting others at risk but no vaccine due to belief in the Catholic faith. Imagine if Jesus declined the crucifixion due to a nail allergy. Perfect.

boredom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I would think everybody here is aware that multiple groups of people have resisted or been slow to embrace the vaccination; this includes young people, ethnic groups, police and firemen, home health providers and nurses.

For those of you cheering on the firing of the WSU coach do you also applaud the pending loss of livelihood for those groups as well?

---

Yes, if they won't get the vaccine.

I cannot imagine being a nurse, EMT, home health provider, policeman, or firefighter and not WANTING to be vaccinated. Doctors and dentists should be, too.

As a member of the populace, I EXPECT such individuals to be vaccinated.

If they won't do it then they need to be relieved of their duties.

---

Per a NYT article about half the unvaccinated workers nationally, say they won't get shots. In Orange County many health workers have gotten religion.

---

Per several articles on the subject, it appears that Rolovich was granted a religious accommodation; however, the AD, acting as Rolovich's supervisor, indicated the accommodation requested was unworkable. Therefore, the only course of action was termination.

---

Sounds like a recipe for litigation. With ADA cases, an unreasonable accommodation defense is the last thing you want to rely upon, at least with real estate cases such as dealing with disabled parking spaces. My understanding is that the university used a blind evaluation process, meaning the two-person committee that evaluated Rolovich's request did not have access to any identifying information while making its determination. That committee granted the exemption. AD Chun said Rolovich's "accommodation request" was then denied by him as is boss, which indicates an evaluation was made beyond the initial exemption request. I assume Chun worked closely with University lawyers, but that is a gutsy call, at least from my perspective having been out in the trenches. Maybe Washington is a lot more employer oriented than California.

---

I made this point in another thread - it seems to me that WSU has a real issue here. Once the exemption was found to be valid, I believe WSU has the burden of showing there could not be accommodations without an undue burden. The strict scrutiny standard seemingly would apply to a religious based claim ("least restrictive means").

I can think of a lot of accommodations that would seem to be both reasonable and not impose any real burden. For example, Rolovich could agree to be tested every day, mask, socially distance most of the time, and "bubble" himself outside football activities. They played football last year with these protections - before the vaccine - and those risks were adjudged acceptable. Why does the existence of the vaccine change that?

I'm not sure if they'll admit it, but WSU may say that they didn't want to deal with the optics of Rolovich undercutting the pro-vaccine policy of the state/school. Not sure that's a great argument.

---

It now seems like the religious exemption had not been granted.

What baffles me is why they included a superfluous statement that, even if the exemption had been granted, they could not accommodate. Why give fodder to the plaintiff's counsel and create bad PR?

If they had approached this as, we looked at the narrow path allowed for religious exemption and could not conclude that granting the exemption is authorized under the government mandate, they could have most likely escaped this. I would have advised them to state that his mandate is a requirement from the state and under the September executive order for federal contractors and our hands are tied. What we won't do is openly violate the law and put our great organization at risk. We wish him well and are grateful for his services.

That's all they needed. It seems odd the path they approached here.

---

Did WSU actually say that they would've fired him even if he had gotten the exemption? I saw that Rolo's lawyer is supposedly claiming it but that alone doesn't make it true.

---

Fair point. Not sure. Hope they were smarter that what is being claimed by his lawyer.

Rolo has no sincere conviction. He is not standing for a great enduring principle. He is a product of propaganda and right-wing media-political cabal.

Agree or disagree with their stands, but Muhammad Ali had conviction and took a position of sincere principle. Eric Liddell had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; Colin Kaepernick had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; Jesse Owens had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; and Tommie Smith had conviction and took a position of sincere principle.

Rolo is a rube masking his own selfish ignorance in the false flag of righteousness and patriotism.

And just because you (apologist) yourself watch FOX news or don't want to get a vaccine does not make him a hero or his actions defensible. An actual principled stand would be "I personally do not want to get a vaccine, but Rolo and other public officials need to set a good example, be educated, follow the law, and educate themselves." When you sublimate your own opinion, belief, action to the greater good or the best intent of law, then you are behaving with conviction and principle--not when you just whine and complain and buck the system because it is inconvenient or you have given into tribalism and misinformation. Non-compliance as protest only works when you are on the higher ground, not when you are down in the low mud of stupidity and partisanship.

blungld said:

---

Rolo has no sincere conviction. He is not standing for a great enduring principle. He is a product of propaganda and right-wing media-political cabal.

Agree or disagree with their stands, but Muhammad Ali had conviction and took a position of sincere principle. Eric Liddell had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; Colin Kaepernick had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; Jesse Owens had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; and Tommie Smith had conviction and took a position of sincere principle.

Rolo is a rube masking his own selfish ignorance in the false flag of righteousness and patriotism.

And just because you (apologist) yourself watch FOX news or don't want to get a vaccine does not make him a hero or his actions defensible. An actual principled stand would be "I personally do not want to get a vaccine, but Rolo and other public officials need to set a good example, be educated, follow the law, and educate themselves." When you sublimate your own opinion, belief, action to the greater good or the best intent of law, then you are behaving with conviction and principle--not when you just whine and complain and buck the system because it is inconvenient or you have given into tribalism and misinformation. Non-compliance as protest only works when you are on the higher ground, not when you are down in the low mud of stupidity and partisanship.

---

SMH at the opinionated, speculative, hateful, even, positions expressed by many here. I thought a liberal education meant that students learned to see both sides. Maybe no longer at Cal.

This is a tough call on both sides, except for two things: 1. Executive powers are being exercised in violation of the US Constitution; 2. Judgments about a person's personal, private values are illegitimate - it should not surprise anyone that a faithful Catholic should question the product of aborted baby tissue used to propagate these vaccines, if that is what is being done. You don't know Rolo's faith and you can't castigate it.

Other notes: they wouldn't even let him say goodbye to his team; just escorted him off campus summarily? Sounds like an exemption committee made a recommendation in his favor - they couldn't have worked it out, had not the prez or chancellor or whatever Chun is made a snap decision? If so, Rolo is gonna get a lotta money.

Rushinbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Rolo has no sincere conviction. He is not standing for a great enduring principle. He is a product of propaganda and right-wing media-political cabal.

Agree or disagree with their stands, but Muhammad Ali had conviction and took a position of sincere principle. Eric Liddell had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; Colin Kaepernick had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; Jesse Owens had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; and Tommie Smith had conviction and took a position of sincere principle.

Rolo is a rube masking his own selfish ignorance in the false flag of righteousness and patriotism.

And just because you (apologist) yourself watch FOX news or don't want to get a vaccine does not make him a hero or his actions defensible. An actual principled stand would be "I personally do not want to get a vaccine, but Rolo and other public officials need to set a good example, be educated, follow the law, and educate themselves." When you sublimate your own opinion, belief, action to the greater good or the best intent of law, then you are behaving with conviction and principle--not when you just whine and complain and buck the system because it is inconvenient or you have given into tribalism and misinformation. Non-compliance as protest only works when you are on the higher ground, not when you are down in the low mud of stupidity and partisanship.

---

SMH at the opinionated, speculative, hateful, even, positions expressed by many here. I thought a liberal education meant that students learned to see both sides. Maybe no longer at Cal.

This is a tough call on both sides, except for two things: 1. Executive powers are being exercised in violation of the US Constitution; 2. Judgments about a person's personal, private values are illegitimate - it should not surprise anyone that a faithful Catholic should question the product of aborted baby tissue used to propagate these vaccines, if that is what is being done. You don't know Rolo's faith and you can't castigate it.

Other notes: they wouldn't even let him say goodbye to his team; just escorted him off campus summarily? Sounds like an exemption committee made a recommendation in his favor - they couldn't have worked it out, had not the prez or chancellor or whatever Chun is made a snap decision? If so, Rolo is gonna get a lotta money.

---

It's not hateful. It's called not letting him get away with pretending to be asserting an actual moral or closely held religious belief. That is BS. It's using illegitimate "for show" conviction as an excuse for his ignorance.

Show me that long-standing Catholic position on vaccines. You can't. But I can show you quotes of the head of the church, that guy called the Pope who talks to God, basically saying that people who do not get vaccines are idiots.

You don't get to accuse people who will not tolerate political or religious tripe as being close-minded. There is no real position or opinion being offered by Rolo to debate or consider. It's you who is either not actually seeing "both sides" or living up to a Cal education--you know, where you have an educated discourse based on facts.

Rushinbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Rolo has no sincere conviction. He is not standing for a great enduring principle. He is a product of propaganda and right-wing media-political cabal.

Agree or disagree with their stands, but Muhammad Ali had conviction and took a position of sincere principle. Eric Liddell had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; Colin Kaepernick had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; Jesse Owens had conviction and took a position of sincere principle; and Tommie Smith had conviction and took a position of sincere principle.

Rolo is a rube masking his own selfish ignorance in the false flag of righteousness and patriotism.

And just because you (apologist) yourself watch FOX news or don't want to get a vaccine does not make him a hero or his actions defensible. An actual principled stand would be "I personally do not want to get a vaccine, but Rolo and other public officials need to set a good example, be educated, follow the law, and educate themselves." When you sublimate your own opinion, belief, action to the greater good or the best intent of law, then you are behaving with conviction and principle--not when you just whine and complain and buck the system because it is inconvenient or you have given into tribalism and misinformation. Non-compliance as protest only works when you are on the higher ground, not when you are down in the low mud of stupidity and partisanship.

---

SMH at the opinionated, speculative, hateful, even, positions expressed by many here. I thought a liberal education meant that students learned to see both sides. Maybe no longer at Cal.

This is a tough call on both sides, except for two things: 1. Executive powers are being exercised in violation of the US Constitution; 2. Judgments about a person's personal, private values are illegitimate - it should not surprise anyone that a faithful Catholic should question the product of aborted baby tissue used to propagate these vaccines, if that is what is being done. You don't know Rolo's faith and you can't castigate it.

Other notes: they wouldn't even let him say goodbye to his team; just escorted him off campus summarily? Sounds like an exemption committee made a recommendation in his favor - they couldn't have worked it out, had not the prez or chancellor or whatever Chun is made a snap decision? If so, Rolo is gonna get a lotta money.

---

According to the Washington state constitution the Governor is the elected executive in charge of state employees. The Governor issued a vaccine mandate for state employees to create a safe working environment. How do you think that violates the US Constitution? Who else do you think should make that decision according to the US Constitution?

I understand if you disagree, but you are not the elected Governor of the State of Washington. It is not your decision.