blungld said:

---

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.

---

I am personally in favor of the vaccine but at the same time understand that many individuals and groups have questions about it. I don't find the commentary of the "pro vaxers" to be very tolerant or understanding....they actually sound much more shrill and demanding.

I find it interesting that the same people who demand everyone take a vaccine don't want to tell others not to abuse marijuana and drugs-which do great harm to society.

NVBear78 said:

---

blungld said:

---

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.

---

I am personally in favor of the vaccine but at the same time understand that many individuals and groups have questions about it. I don't find the commentary of the "pro vaxers" to be very tolerant or understanding....they actually sound much more shrill and demanding.

---

In the pro-vaccine column: Science
in the anti-vaccine column: "NVBear78" perceived shrillness in argument.

Got it.

Former WSU head football coach Nick Rolovich is suing the university after he was fired for failing to comply with the state's coronavirus vaccine requirement.

His attorney alleged the coach was fired for "being devout in his Catholic faith."https://t.co/jSDdbwSTsq

— Axios (@axios) October 20, 2021

A tough sell when the leader of The Church won't back him.

Pope Francis urges people to get vaccinated against Covid-19 - Vatican News


https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-08/pope-francis-appeal-covid-19-vaccines-act-of-love.html

* Naturally he will argue, like all RWNJ Catholics do, that the Pope is the Antichrist and not the real leader of the Church. Opus Dei Catholics are every bit as wacky as Evangelicals.

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.

---

Talk about speculative and opinionated. His own lawyer says they denied his exemption claim but your bias makes you think it must have been granted. If you're right he better get a different attorney if he's gonna get the settlement you're rooting for.

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.

---

The not letting him say goodbye complaint is a weird one to me. In any of your past employment have you seen someone fired for cause and then allowed to hold a staff meeting? Generally people who are fired are walked out. Heck, it's fairly common to see those who give notice get walked out if they're going to a competitor. And if he really wants to talk to the players there's nothing preventing him from doing it on his own time and with his own resources.

Rushinbear said:

---

This is a tough call on both sides, except for two things: 1. Executive powers are being exercised in violation of the US Constitution;

---

Again, I would caution people about legal pronouncements made here. The one case that made it to SCOTUS re: enforcement of a vaccine mandates, is inapplicable since it deals with State legislative action, as opposed to State executive action, which is the case here by order of the Washington Governor. What is clear is that Rolo's lawyers say he will sue, so I guess we will find out what exactly the court's conclude the law to be.


https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32437269

Here is the NYT article which describes the procedure. Chun could not have made the decision he made without the Committee first granting the waiver.

Edit: And yet another weirdness. The exemption was in fact denied by the committee, but for some reason WSU also had Chun determine there was no accommodation. So either the NYT has the procedure wrong, or WSU didn't follow its own procedures. Rolo's counsel's statement made a big deal that (1) both the Committee and Chun denied the exemption and that (2) ) Chun was acting in bad faith. This suggests (speculation here) the narrative will be that WSU (Chun) used the vaccination mandate inappropriately to find a way to fire Rolo without paying severance, and that WSU's failure to follow its own procedures is evidence of that.

maxer said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

blungld said:

---

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.

---

I am personally in favor of the vaccine but at the same time understand that many individuals and groups have questions about it. I don't find the commentary of the "pro vaxers" to be very tolerant or understanding....they actually sound much more shrill and demanding.

---

In the pro-vaccine column: Science
in the anti-vaccine column: "NVBear78" perceived shrillness in argument.

Got it.

---

Just wondering why it is so hard these days to be willing to hear and give respect to different perspective, even if we don't agree.

I may be pro-vaccine, but it is not a black and white matter as we try to make it out to be, and I don't pretend to be the final arbiter on what people should feel or believe. I encourage everyone in my circle to get vaccinated, and the only way I have been successful is try to understand what is causing the hesitation and see if I have the better argument. If not, my emotions alone or bullying usually won't work.

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

Quote:

---

The termination of Washington State football coach Nick Rolovich on Monday...came after Coach Rolovich's request for a religious exemption from the vaccine was denied by the University.

---

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

calumnus said:

---

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.

---

I think it is a bit more nuanced than this. First, I suspect the reference to the US Constitution may be relating to Biden's executive order. Not sure that it exceeded his executive authority to engage federal contractors as long as he is not discriminating against protected classes. His order does not seem to be usurping the legislative powers and allows for the necessary exemptions. I think Biden's executive order should be fine.

And being a Governor does not grant absolute power over federal employees if it violates either the US Constitution (such as equal protection) or state constitution (who knows what is in Washington's constitution - they have things like no income tax so who knows), federal privacy or disability laws (maybe HIPAA), etc. I suspect it will be fine, but let's also not pretend that it is an obvious answer or your explanation is the full exposition on the necessary legal analysis.

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

---

Well, if that is the case, then no one can say whether anything is in violation of the Constitution. I think you would go by precedent until the prior holding has been overturned.

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

---

This case likely will never be heard SCOTUS. Astronomically low percentage cases get that far, and the job of a football coach has to be a fairly low priority.

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

---

This case likely will never be heard SCOTUS. Astronomically low percentage cases get that far, and the job of a football coach has to be a fairly low priority.

---

I suspect the way this will end is that there will be a lot of preening and PR, and the matter will be settled on a confidential basis.

bearister said:

---

Former WSU head football coach Nick Rolovich is suing the university after he was fired for failing to comply with the state's coronavirus vaccine requirement.

His attorney alleged the coach was fired for "being devout in his Catholic faith."https://t.co/jSDdbwSTsq

— Axios (@axios) October 20, 2021

A tough sell when the leader of The Church won't back him.

Pope Francis urges people to get vaccinated against Covid-19 - Vatican News


https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-08/pope-francis-appeal-covid-19-vaccines-act-of-love.html

* Naturally he will argue, like all RWNJ Catholics do, that the Pope is the Antichrist and not the real leader of the Church. Opus Dei Catholics are every bit as wacky as Evangelicals.

---

Yeah, Rolo doesn't seem like much of a "faithful Catholic" if he is taking a position contrary to that of the official Church position, The Pope's clear position, the position of the Catholic Church, is "get the vaccine -- it is an act of love."

The mRNA vaccines at most have been tested using fetal tissue. But I pretty much GUARANTEE that Rolo's trainers/team doctors routinely give his players drugs that have been tested using fetal tissue, and that Rolo has taken drugs that have been tested using fetal tissue. As one Catholic priest wrote in an article last January, if we "reject a medication merely for being tested on a fetal cell line, most of a standard pharmacy would be immoral." If Rolo had a consistent position to avoid any drugs that had been tested using fetal tissue, wouldn't he have said so?

Heck, the Catholic church was dealing with the use of fetal tissue in PRODUCTION since well before COVID, and using a balancing test, saying that even if fetal tissue is used in PRODUCTION and not just testing, the right to refrain from getting the vaccine should only be exercised if children and the population as a whole are not thereby subjected to significant health risks. Yeah, pre-COVID, the Catholic Church was saying that it is OK to use vaccines whose PRODUCTION uses fetal tissue if helps avoid significant health risks.

Use in testing? Again, the Catholic Church would pretty much have to tell you not to use just about ANY drugs or vaccines if we're going down the testing road. And the Church doesn't do that, so really hard to use your "faithful Catholic" position to avoid the mRNA vaccines.

You want a religious exemption? Better do more than say, "I'm a faithful Catholic," since the Church position, and that of MOST U.S. Catholic authorities, is that it isn't a basis for a religious exemption. And if you want to get into beliefs about fetal tissue used in testing that are NOT supported by the Catholic Church, better show a history of pretty much not using any drugs or vaccines, not just opposing this one vaccine without a rational basis to distinguish it from other things you use.

calbear93 said:

---

Just wondering why it is so hard these days to be willing to hear and give respect to different perspective, even if we don't agree.

I may be pro-vaccine, but it is not a black and white matter as we try to make it out to be, and I don't pretend to be the final arbiter on what people should feel or believe. I encourage everyone in my circle to get vaccinated, and the only way I have been successful is try to understand what is causing the hesitation and see if I have the better argument. If not, my emotions alone or bullying usually won't work.

---

What you and others are not getting is that NO ONE is saying he can't make his choice. What we are saying is he can't make the choiuce and act like the consequences are unjust or that he is npt getting vaccinated serving some higher cause or that he should be "respected" for being stupid or held up as an example. He is just an uneducated person making a dumb choice--fine. That is his right. But people here defending him as though he is emblematic of rights or being treated unjustly, that's the problem.

calumnus said:

---

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.

---

There are some bad assumptions here. The federal government can dictate, subject to certain limits, what happens to State employees after SCOTUS overturned National League of Cities. That means the Governor generally has to comply with Federal legislation and regulatory rulings. That is why California has been very lenient in granting State employees medical and religious exemptions based on federal law. Basically you just need a doctor's note or statement about your religious objections. Cal has a few unvaccinated players, and they just provide current C-19 tests and otherwise are part of the team. No one even is allowed to know how they are technically. Washington, in practice, does it quite differently.

The other aspects is both the Washington and US Constitutions provide protections against unilateral executive State action (as opposed to legislative action which has its own set of rules) called substantive and procedural due process (two separate standards). So in that case, the courts determine the extent to which the Governor's action, as enforced by WSU, meets constitutional standards.

calbear93 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

---

This case likely will never be heard SCOTUS. Astronomically low percentage cases get that far, and the job of a football coach has to be a fairly low priority.

---

I suspect the way this will end is that there will be a lot of preening and PR, and the matter will be settled on a confidential basis.

---

I suspect you are right.

WalterSobchak said:

---

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.

---

Talk about speculative and opinionated. His own lawyer says they denied his exemption claim but your bias makes you think it must have been granted. If you're right he better get a different attorney if he's gonna get the settlement you're rooting for.

---

You didn't even read what you highlighted. The committee apparently recommended the exemption. Chun apparently overruled them.

calbear93 said:

---

maxer said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

blungld said:

---

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.

---

I am personally in favor of the vaccine but at the same time understand that many individuals and groups have questions about it. I don't find the commentary of the "pro vaxers" to be very tolerant or understanding....they actually sound much more shrill and demanding.

---

In the pro-vaccine column: Science
in the anti-vaccine column: "NVBear78" perceived shrillness in argument.

Got it.

---

Just wondering why it is so hard these days to be willing to hear and give respect to different perspective, even if we don't agree.

I may be pro-vaccine, but it is not a black and white matter as we try to make it out to be, and I don't pretend to be the final arbiter on what people should feel or believe. I encourage everyone in my circle to get vaccinated, and the only way I have been successful is try to understand what is causing the hesitation and see if I have the better argument. If not, my emotions alone or bullying usually won't work.

---

Well maybe because the former football coach is basing his decision not to get vaccinated by a fictional book that has caused, and still causes, much harm to society.

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

---

The US Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document. It is a statement which says what its wording says, subject to those few serious times when the will of the people is clear and their will survives the most stringent of hoops. Its meaning can be interpreted, again through a series of stringent hoops. Molding it to the whim of the current generation(s) is not what was intended. If you care to go back in time, maybe you could debate it out with the Founders, but otherwise, it is what it is.

Rushinbear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

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.

---

Talk about speculative and opinionated. His own lawyer says they denied his exemption claim but your bias makes you think it must have been granted. If you're right he better get a different attorney if he's gonna get the settlement you're rooting for.

---

You didn't even read what you highlighted. The committee apparently recommended the exemption. Chun apparently overruled them.

---

My understanding is that the religious reasonable accommodation request was determined to be sincerely held belief. Like if it was an ADA request, whether an employee had an ADA recognized disability. Just the first step of the reasonable accommodation process. But the part about whether Wazzu could reasonably accommodate him, they determined they could not. Which is odd. They could have had him take a weekly or even a daily test and having him mask up everywhere. I'm not an anti-vaxxer by any means but I think Rolo has a decent legal challenge that Wazzu violated his Title VII rights by basically accepting his religious accommodation request, but made an arbitrary and capricious political case out of him by saying they could not reasonably accommodate him. Like I said, some easy accommodations would have been frequent testing and masking. I don't think Wazzu could claim undue hardship for that - they could afford that and they have already been letting him coach 6 games even without testing, so by their actions they didn't see it as such a direct threat to their players, coaches and administrative staff. Now if testing as a reasonable accommodation was not allowed for anyone -- either because they claimed it was not reasonable or it was an undue hardship, Wazzu would be in a better position to defend. Anyway, all of this is a cluster-f.

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

---

This case likely will never be heard SCOTUS. Astronomically low percentage cases get that far, and the job of a football coach has to be a fairly low priority.

---

Especially if it's only a Pac 12 coach. Now, if it were an upper-tier Big 10 or SEC coach...

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

---

Can either you or the guy you responded to cite any decision by SCOTUS dealing with a vaccination mandate by a state executive officer (hint: there is none)? No need to even go there. He just threw out the words executive powers violating the US Constitution without any supporting arguments as to what is violated, legal cites or compelling evidence.

There are federal EEOC regulations dealing with religious rights and plenty of law on procedural due process that governs without getting into a SCOTUS case. Moreover, it looks like Rolo's lawyers also are going the standard employment law route of a retaliatory termination, which brings Washington law into play. This probably gets settled with Rolo obtaining some portion of his buy-out.

maxer said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I am personally in favor of the vaccine but at the same time understand that many individuals and groups have questions about it. I don't find the commentary of the "pro vaxers" to be very tolerant or understanding....they actually sound much more shrill and demanding.

---

In the pro-vaccine column: Science
in the anti-vaccine column: "NVBear78" perceived shrillness in argument.

Got it.

---

Pro-vaccine: Big Pharma
Pro-Covid: National Institutes of Health

Seems reduced in stature or size

<a href="https://ibb.co/bd55p04"><img src="" alt="2-FE8-D33-F-E755-4-E85-80-E7-862-EA2-A1418-E" border="0"></a>

Rushinbear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

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.

---

Talk about speculative and opinionated. His own lawyer says they denied his exemption claim but your bias makes you think it must have been granted. If you're right he better get a different attorney if he's gonna get the settlement you're rooting for.

---

You didn't even read what you highlighted. The committee apparently recommended the exemption. Chun apparently overruled them.

---

Walter's right and the previous press reports by ESPN, SI, the NYT and the like are wrong. As I said above,
Rolo's counsel's statement made a big deal that (1) both the Committee and Chun denied the exemption and that (2) ) Chun was acting in bad faith. This suggests (speculation here) the narrative will be that WSU (Chun) used the vaccination mandate inappropriately to find a way to fire Rolo without paying severance, and that WSU's failure to follow its own procedures is evidence of that. The alternative is that the media got the procedure wrong, and the supervisor even ruled when the exemption already was denied first, which makes no sense, but what apparently happened in Rolo's case.

NVBear78 said:

---

I am personally in favor of the vaccine but at the same time understand that many individuals and groups have questions about it. I don't find the commentary of the "pro vaxers" to be very tolerant or understanding....they actually sound much more shrill and demanding.

I find it interesting that the same people who demand everyone take a vaccine don't want to tell others not to abuse marijuana and drugs-which do great harm to society.

---

Also, based on the vitriol here, we may only be a step away in this country where citizens report on their coworkers, neighbors, and own family members on vaccination status or anything else the current government may be interested in knowing.

Rushinbear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

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.

---

Talk about speculative and opinionated. His own lawyer says they denied his exemption claim but your bias makes you think it must have been granted. If you're right he better get a different attorney if he's gonna get the settlement you're rooting for.

---

You didn't even read what you highlighted. The committee apparently recommended the exemption. Chun apparently overruled them.

---

LOL You're very good at wrongly blaming others for doing exactly what you're doing.
I know it's hard, but click the image in the tweet and read the actual words written by Rolovich's lawyer (which I've quoted for you verbatim). Either you're wrong or he is.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Just wondering why it is so hard these days to be willing to hear and give respect to different perspective, even if we don't agree.

I may be pro-vaccine, but it is not a black and white matter as we try to make it out to be, and I don't pretend to be the final arbiter on what people should feel or believe. I encourage everyone in my circle to get vaccinated, and the only way I have been successful is try to understand what is causing the hesitation and see if I have the better argument. If not, my emotions alone or bullying usually won't work.

---

What you and others are not getting is that NO ONE is saying he can't make his choice. What we are saying is he can't make the choiuce and act like the consequences are unjust or that he is npt getting vaccinated serving some higher cause or that he should be "respected" for being stupid or held up as an example. He is just an uneducated person making a dumb choice--fine. That is his right. But people here defending him as though he is emblematic of rights or being treated unjustly, that's the problem.

---

Well, when you start with a statement "what you and others are not getting", you are already closing your mind and your ears.

Maybe before you make a statement like that, you may want to read what was written. Or maybe you can point to something I wrote that supports your statement.

I agree with you that personal freedom does not mean personal freedom from consequences. And I have written that many times in this thread alone. So, you writing that I don't get it probably is not your best moment or indication that you are confident in arguments without trying to shame or moralize.

But also, why do you conclude that he is uneducated? I suspect he is fairly well educated, and he has been very successful. He graduated from Hawaii and has been trained in his field. Maybe he is not a scientist or a doctor, but I suspect you are not either. Maybe he didn't attend UC Berkeley, but we didn't attend MIT either. And just because someone makes a choice you would not have made or has a risk tolerance different from yours does not make him uneducated. If that is what you need to feel better about yourself or your argument, there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with you, is there?

And that is what I was referring to in my post you quoted. Why are people so worked up about discussion on a topic that they move to impugn someone's character just because they have a different perspective. Neither our position nor your safety is threatened by what is written here. You lose nothing by trying to understand why someone may disagree.

My take is that WSU probably started becoming more firm with Rolovich (and internally determining that firing was the likely outcome) whenever it was that his position became public. IIRC this was at the PAc 12 football media conference, which IIRC was in June. My speculation is that they have a morals clause in his contract, and as the media attention around his position became significant they became more and more convinced he could be fired for cause based on negative effect on WSU's reputation and goodwill. His lawyer will argue the time delay is proof of a vendetta. WSU's lawyers will argue it is evidence of them giving him every possible chance and accommodation to comply until their hand was forced by the directive's deadline and his denied waiver. In the end it will settle, and he'll get some portion of his contract balance. I doubt he'll get it all and would be shocked to see him get a windfall to vindicate the anti-vaxxer position.

WalterSobchak said:

---

My take is that WSU probably started becoming more firm with Rolovich (and internally determining that firing was the likely outcome) whenever it was that his position became public. IIRC this was at the PAc 12 football media conference, which IIRC was in June. My speculation is that they have a morals clause in his contract, and as the media attention around his position became significant they became more and more convinced he could be fired for cause based on negative effect on WSU's reputation and goodwill. His lawyer will argue the time delay is proof of a vendetta. WSU's lawyers will argue it is evidence of them giving him every possible chance and accommodation to comply until their hand was forced by the directive's deadline and his denied waiver. In the end it will settle, and he'll get some portion of his contract balance. I doubt he'll get it all and would be shocked to see him get a windfall to vindicate the anti-vaxxer position.

---

I suspect he will get it all, if not more, but he will have to be silent about it.

I have a hard time believing that WSU would want to get into the negative consequences of a trial where they may alienate different segments of their fan base, recruiting base, or student body. Pullman is closer to Idaho than Seattle. And Rolovich's lawyer probably knows the value of this claim, especially with so much publicity where there is no win possible for WSU.

But we will never know, because it will be a confidential settlement.

Rushinbear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document that is subject to the interpretation of nine individuals. Since those nine individuals has differing opinions regarding how to interpret the document, no one can say that a particular action taken by the executive branch of the government is a violation of the constitution until a decision is rendered by the nine individuals.

---

The US Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document. It is a statement which says what its wording says, subject to those few serious times when the will of the people is clear and their will survives the most stringent of hoops. Its meaning can be interpreted, again through a series of stringent hoops. Molding it to the whim of the current generation(s) is not what was intended. If you care to go back in time, maybe you could debate it out with the Founders, but otherwise, it is what it is.

---

Of course, it is a living, breathing document. Otherwise, how would the current justices be able to rule on cases that pertain to all current manner and form of life that did not exist when the founders agreed to the document.

I would also add that justices have expressed different interpretations of the document regarding significant issues through the ages. In other words, it is not something that is hard and fast. It is something that must address the concerns of each generation.

The beauty of the constitution is that it was written in a manner to permit various interpretations over the centuries. The Founders were a bright bunch. They understood that change would occur and the document had to be developed in a format that permitted change.

WalterSobchak said:

---

My take is that WSU probably started becoming more firm with Rolovich (and internally determining that firing was the likely outcome) whenever it was that his position became public. IIRC this was at the PAc 12 football media conference, which IIRC was in June. My speculation is that they have a morals clause in his contract, and as the media attention around his position became significant they became more and more convinced he could be fired for cause based on negative effect on WSU's reputation and goodwill. His lawyer will argue the time delay is proof of a vendetta. WSU's lawyers will argue it is evidence of them giving him every possible chance and accommodation to comply until their hand was forced by the directive's deadline and his denied waiver. In the end it will settle, and he'll get some portion of his contract balance. I doubt he'll get it all and would be shocked to see him get a windfall to vindicate the anti-vaxxer position.

---

My experience representing government entities is that if they if they have to fight for a principle, they will fight with every procedural objection and appeal they can, no matter the amount of cost and time. That is the last thing a plaintiff's attorney wants. Now if you accept a settlement and a non-disclose, and the government perceives some risk and bad press otherwise, the check book is open. Bearrister, feel free to weigh in. Long way of saying your last sentence is dead on.

Will the settlement give anything to the assistant coaches?

71Bear said:

---

Of course, it is a living, breathing document. Otherwise, how would the current justices be able to rule on cases that pertain to all current manner and form of life that did not exist when the founders agreed to the document.

---

Plus there are these little things called Amendments,