wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

I would not settle with an anti vaxxer. His religious exemption is a loser based on the Pope's position. If a jury ruled in his favor keep appealing. With 700,000 Americans in the marble orchard because of Covid, vax mandates will be upheld. You are free not to get vaxxed but you are not free to spew your variant aerosols on the sane. Go to Idaho, North and South Dakota, Florida, etc and swap your aerosols with your fellow morons….and if you childish buffoons that worship at the altar of tRump want Bannon's Civil War, we'll bring that ruckus to you as well. People of good will and conscience are tired of you maladjusted, bitter a@ssholes.

We have long since reached a point where any adult who wants to be vaccinated is now vaccinated.

And if you're vaccinated, you've nothing meaningful to worry about. The chance you'll get the virus from a vaccinated or unvaccinated person are minimal- and the chances you'll be hospitalized are infinitesimal.

Accordingly, and on the other hand, if you choose not to get vaccinated you're only putting yourself, and other unvaccinated people, at any meaningful risk.

There are many reasons to get vaccinated (I am)… and there are also reasons not to get vaccinated (eg you've already had Covid and now have natural immunities, or you're a young/healthy person where the vaccine might do more harm than good, etc)

So, there's no rational reason to care whether anyone else is vaccinated. And so there's no reason for government mandates.

And if you believe that we should mandate vaccines to manage down hospitalizations and health care costs, then you should also be for banning cigarettes, alcohol, ice cream, and a 25mph speed limit on all roads…

It really should be up to each individual to make the decision that is best for them. "My body, my choice" applies more - much more- in this context than in the context it's most used in…

Although I wouldn't have made the same decision, I applaud Rolovich for sticking to his guns. A selfish decision? Hardly. He's forfeited a lot of coin. It's easy to fight a fight when there are no personal costs. Far more difficult when the costs are your livelihood…

It was quite ridiculous that Rolovich was terminated. Best of luck to him and the many others who have been forced out of their jobs by overreaching authoritarians.

los altos bear said:

---

We have long since reached a point where any adult who wants to be vaccinated is now vaccinated.

And if you're vaccinated, you've nothing to worry about. The chance you'll get the virus are minimal- and the chances you'll be hospitalized are infinitesimal.

If you choose not to get vaccinated you're only putting yourself, and other unvaccinated people, at risk.

There are many reasons to get vaccinated (I am)… and there are also reasons not to get vaccinated (eg you've already had Covid and now have natural immunities, or you're a young/healthy person where the vaccine might do more harm than good, etc)

So, there's no rational reason to care whether anyone else is vaccinated. And so there's no reason for government mandates.

And if you believe that we should mandate vaccines to manage down hospitalizations and health care costs, then you should also be for banning cigarettes, alcohol, ice cream, and driving over 25mph…

It really should be up to each individual to make the decision that is best for them. "My body, my choice" applies more - much more- in this context than in the context it's most used in…

Although I wouldn't have made the same decision, I applaud Rolovich for sticking to his guns. A selfish decision? Hardly. He's forfeited a lot of coin. It's easy to fight a fight when there are no personal costs. Far more difficult when the costs are your livelihood…

It was quite ridiculous that Rolovich was terminated. Best of luck to him and the many others who have been forced out of their jobs by overreaching authoritarians.

---

"If you choose not to get vaccinated you're only putting yourself, and other unvaccinated people, at risk."

See, here's the thing. That's just not true. Vaccinated people are at risk, too, just less risk.

For sake of argument let's assume it is true, though, and only unvaccinated people are at risk.

I have two people in my family who can't be vaccinated. One has an autoimmune disorder and the other one is in poor health and doctors have advised against it.

A caregiver for the person in poor health refused to get vaccinated and was fired. I think that's the right thing to do. She was putting my family member (and others in that situation) at risk.

If she was a day trader working from home there's a lot less reason to be vaccinated, but even then there's the chance that she leads a reckless lifestyle, goes to a lot of bars and casinos, and infects a vaccinated person who then passes that on to my family member. Not to mention that as the virus continues to spread it continues to mutate and makes the vaccines less effective.

In this society we can't be at a point where the virus continues on because a large percentage of people won't get vaccinated, won't wear masks, and will continue to behave however they want because they feel THEY aren't at risk.

If they don't want to be vaccinated, then fine. However, then you can't be a person with a job like a police officer or a caregiver. I am not sure "football coach" is one of those jobs where a vaccine mandate makes sense, but maybe it does given how they are in contact with thousands of people each week given the travel schedule and so on.

Government mandates shouldn't be necessary, but there are a lot of people in this country that think that the rules of a polite society don't apply to them. It seems draconian, I agree, but sometimes you use a carrot and other times you need to use a stick.

" And if you're vaccinated, you've nothing to worry about. The chance you'll get the virus are minimal- and the chances you'll be hospitalized are infinitesimal."

My sister is 75 years old, walks 5 miles a day and is skinny. She got the Pfizer spike 6 months ago. She got Covid from an un vaxed 80 year old at church 2 weeks ago. After a couple of days of doing ok she started cratering and ended up in the ER getting a monoclonal infusion. She is sound as a pound now. If she was poor, she probably would have died.


*I personally will continue to attend Mass online until I'm convinced it's safe…even though the good Archbishop Cordelione announced that those that don't attend Mass in person officially qualify for eternal damnation again.

BearForce2 said:

---

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

---

I feel bad for you. Good luck, you'll need it.

bearister said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

I would not settle with an anti vaxxer. His religious exemption is a loser based on the Pope's position. If a jury ruled in his favor keep appealing. With 700,000 Americans in the marble orchard because of Covid, vax mandates will be upheld. You are free not to get vaxxed but you are not free to spew your variant aerosols on the sane. Go to Idaho, North and South Dakota, Florida, etc and swap your aerosols with your fellow morons….and if you childish buffoons that worship at the altar of tRump want Bannon's Civil War, we'll bring that ruckus to you as well. People of good will and conscience are tired of you maladjusted, bitter a@ssholes.

---

Bearister, you didn't exactly address how governmental entities address things now.

Sounds like you are substituting your views for that of your client, at your client's peril. Your client desires a stable football situation, a team and fan base that is not dived, and with good morale. Its athletic department finances depend on that. 25% of the team is not vaccinated if you believe ESPN. You face a socially conservative jury base with some degree of litigation risk. And your client wants to know how you can make this all go away?

You know what is 7 miles from Pullman? Idaho. Your State Senator for your jury pool is one Joe Schmick, an American farmer, businessman and GOP politician who introduced legislation to give away 130 miles of the John Wayne trail back to private landowners effectively closing a large part of the longest Rail-to-Trail in the country. Want to guess what is views on C-19 and masks are like? Or on the Governor's C-19 mandates? Or Pullman's Washington House Representative Mary Dye, who wait for it, is an American farmer, businesswoman and GOP politician and in office for a long time. Usually gets close to 70% of the voters. Thinks C-19 is a fraud. The Congressional Rep is Cathy Rodgers since 2004. She is a protege of Mike Pence. When an audience member asked in her last debate against a Democratic contender how old the candidates believed the earth to be: Rodgers said she believed the account in the Bible. SHE WAS THE VICE CHAIR OF TRUMP'S TRANSITION TEAM. So you plan to tell your client you want to tell your views to that jury base, or are you going to try and change venues to really piss off your clients' donors and fan base? Good luck on that. Someone earlier said stupid is as stupid does. You have a moderate college in a right wing area, with anyone from the college not being seated on a jury since their employer is a party. Well done.

Reading Rolo's attorney's short statement, that jury will hear how your client's hypocritical athletic director and top department members flaunted C-19 protocols, got sick and put many others, particularly donors, at risk. Every C-19 remark or joke that was made by Washington State admisnister will be put on the table, not to mention a detailed account of the Athletic Director's "dishonesty" about C-19 (take any short cuts on C-19 rules up on the Palouse?). I'm not sure what AD Chun's "animus towards Coach Rolovich's sincerely held religious beliefs" is all about, but I'm sure the jury will find out if you left this case go to trial. This is being setting up to be more about a retaliatory firing by religion hating liberal elites by this nice local lawyer, than a debate on C-19 vaccines.

There is a reason guys like Mike Price, Mike Leach and Rolo get head coaching jobs in Pullman. There is a reason the AD's grin and bear it when they make remarks or do things that would be uncouth in Berkley. So you get up there with your prime witness, Mr. Patrick Chun, the first Asian AD, new to his job and whose first major decision was to fire Coach Rolo, just when Rolo had his troops one game behind the Division leaders. Yup Patrick Chung, the Chair of the Pac's Social Justice & Anti-Racism Advisory Groups, gonna discuss why he dissed Coach Rolo's religious views to those white Christian farmers on the jury. You do consider the views of your audience when you practice? Get an air tight non-disclosure. Just make sure Rolo can't discuss his anti-vax views as part of the settlement. He likely just wants a pay day.

if it was me, I would have pulled an SC and fired the guy when the team sucked earlier in the year, and negotiated a buy out to make Rolo go away without all this drama now. You really can't be telling your students and faculty to get vaccinated, and not have a major campus leader (sorry but that is what the head football coach is these days) not pushing vaccinations. Now you got a crises on your hand and being self-righteous in Pullman seems like a loser to me. Even in you eventually win on appeal. This case probably goes to Gary Libby the senior district judge in Pullman (the other Judge just got elected). What happens if that nice elderly Republican Judge hits you with a restraining order preventing Rolo from being terminated?

maxer said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

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

---

I feel bad for you. Good luck, you'll need it.

---

Ginsberg: I feel bad for you.
Draper: I don't think about you at all.

dimitrig said:

---

los altos bear said:

---

We have long since reached a point where any adult who wants to be vaccinated is now vaccinated.

And if you're vaccinated, you've nothing to worry about. The chance you'll get the virus are minimal- and the chances you'll be hospitalized are infinitesimal.

If you choose not to get vaccinated you're only putting yourself, and other unvaccinated people, at risk.

There are many reasons to get vaccinated (I am)… and there are also reasons not to get vaccinated (eg you've already had Covid and now have natural immunities, or you're a young/healthy person where the vaccine might do more harm than good, etc)

So, there's no rational reason to care whether anyone else is vaccinated. And so there's no reason for government mandates.

And if you believe that we should mandate vaccines to manage down hospitalizations and health care costs, then you should also be for banning cigarettes, alcohol, ice cream, and driving over 25mph…

It really should be up to each individual to make the decision that is best for them. "My body, my choice" applies more - much more- in this context than in the context it's most used in…

Although I wouldn't have made the same decision, I applaud Rolovich for sticking to his guns. A selfish decision? Hardly. He's forfeited a lot of coin. It's easy to fight a fight when there are no personal costs. Far more difficult when the costs are your livelihood…

It was quite ridiculous that Rolovich was terminated. Best of luck to him and the many others who have been forced out of their jobs by overreaching authoritarians.

---

"If you choose not to get vaccinated you're only putting yourself, and other unvaccinated people, at risk."

See, here's the thing. That's just not true. Vaccinated people are at risk, too, just less risk.

For sake of argument let's assume it is true, though, and only unvaccinated people are at risk.

I have two people in my family who can't be vaccinated. One has an autoimmune disorder and the other one is in poor health and doctors have advised against it.

A caregiver for the person in poor health refused to get vaccinated and was fired. I think that's the right thing to do. She was putting my family member (and others in that situation) at risk.

If she was a day trader working from home there's a lot less reason to be vaccinated, but even then there's the chance that she leads a reckless lifestyle, goes to a lot of bars and casinos, and infects a vaccinated person who then passes that on to my family member. Not to mention that as the virus continues to spread it continues to mutate and makes the vaccines less effective.

In this society we can't be at a point where the virus continues on because a large percentage of people won't get vaccinated, won't wear masks, and will continue to behave however they want because they feel THEY aren't at risk.

If they don't want to be vaccinated, then fine. However, then you can't be a person with a job like a police officer or a caregiver. I am not sure "football coach" is one of those jobs where a vaccine mandate makes sense, but maybe it does given how they are in contact with thousands of people each week given the travel schedule and so on.

Government mandates shouldn't be necessary, but there are a lot of people in this country that think that the rules of a polite society don't apply to them. It seems draconian, I agree, but sometimes you use a carrot and other times you need to use a stick.

---

Well said

calbear93 said:

---

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.

---

They don't want it known that anyone is leaving the reservation and, if someone leaves (actually or symbolically), there will be payback, including denigration. The wall must not be breached.

bearister said:

---

"..got Covid from an un vaxed 80 year old at church 2 weeks ago"

---

^ idle hands wonder whether the unvaxed lady survived?

BearForce2 said:

---

maxer said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

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

---

I feel bad for you. Good luck, you'll need it.

---

Ginsberg: I feel bad for you.
Draper: I don't think about you at all.

---

That sounds like something a sociopath would say.

maxer said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

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

---

I feel bad for you. Good luck, you'll need it.

---

It's who he is. Everything must be boiled down to simplistic memes and gifs.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

It's who he is. Everything must be boiled down to simplistic memes and gifs.

---

It's strange for someone like BF to arrive at the status of "village idiot" and either not know it or not care. It's like the class clown, only not funny and without the vulnerable kid underneath who still has a chance to learn and grow.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

maxer said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

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

---

I feel bad for you. Good luck, you'll need it.

---

It's who he is. Everything must be boiled down to simplistic memes and gifs.

---

Interesting. I guess he is the only one that does this and therefore you felt the need to call him out specifically on this.

What is so controversial about Big Pharma being pro-vaccine? Of course they are, and they will push for boosters. They deserve to be rewarded for taking the risk and the R&D investments, but let's not act as if they are not also one of the largest lobby groups. These for-profit organizations not surprisingly are not profit indifferent. I don't cast ulterior motive on NIH, but I question the necessary competence of CDC and NIH (especially during the prior administration but even now) and question the ego of Fauci who was heroic with the AIDS pandemic but willingly compromised his integrity during this pandemic (why play cute with whether masks helped - just say let's prioritize for those who are most at risk) with trying to be a social engineer or lawyer. So, instead of all of us being cultish on one side or another and taking any questioning of the mantra as heresy and great offense, let's think about what went wrong (credibility of the scientific and journalist should not have been so easily compromised and so loosely valued because it hurts all of us) and what we can do better going forward. I for one am convinced that I do not have everything figured out and maybe can learn from others good faith perspective.

But seriously, why does something as interesting as sharing perspective and prediction on vaccine mandate in the sports world denigrate to name calling by a few typical bullies here? What does one get out of that? Wings for the day and check the box on good deed for the week? It's quite boring.

" Of course they are, and they will push for boosters."

Sure they will…but aren't health experts also pushing them? I now know 6 people who have had break through Covid six months out from their original spike (all had Pfizer). One of them is 27 years old.

bearister said:

---

" Of course they are, and they will push for boosters."

Sure they will…but aren't health experts also pushing them? I now know 6 people who have had break through Covid six months out from their original spike (all had Pfizer). One of them is 27 years old.

---

You must hang out with a wild crowd.

There are several people in my immediate family who haven't been vaccinated and they haven't had COVID yet.

I can't imagine so many people being vaccinated and STILL getting it unless they are being reckless.

bearister said:

---

" Of course they are, and they will push for boosters."

Sure they will…but aren't health experts also pushing them? I now know 6 people who have had break through Covid six months out from their original spike (all had Pfizer). One of them is 27 years old.

---

I think there is a question on the risk/reward. Without the risk, the booster would be a no-brainer. However, since the original vaccination, even with reduced immunity over time, still teaches the immune system to fight effectively the symptoms, there is a question as to whether it is necessary for those not currently at high risk (i.e., over 65). I would like to get the booster (I am generally risk tolerant) when I can, but I will wait for those in their 60s to get it first. If they authorize use for over 40 like I think they eventually will, I will get it.

Having said that, there is a reason why FDA and CDC put the brakes on the huge push by the Moderna and Pfizer on booster for everyone.

I feel 20 mentally/emotional maturity. How does that impact when I qualify for a booster?

bearister said:

---

I feel 20 mentally/emotional maturity. How does that impact when I qualify for a booster?

---

Well, then you wouldn't have gotten the original vaccination because you think you are bulletproof and cannot bother yourself to do something for the common good and protection of grandma when you are so busy making a difference in the world by shaming people for something inarticulate someone said 20 years ago.

Seeing lots of misunderstanding on this board. First of all, you can't assume that someone who hasn't shown symptoms of Covid hasn't had Covid. Most cases are asymptomatic. Second, as some have noted, a high percentage of vaccinated people have come down with it with SYMPTOMS, so there are no doubt far more such cases than thought because most would be asymptomatic. Given how easily transmissible the delta etc. variants are, I think we need to assume that EVERYONE will get it. Unvaccinated, your odds of dying from Covid rise from tiny for the young/healthy to significant for the old/sick. Want to reduce your odds of dying from it to ZERO and reduce (but not eliminate) the rate at which you give it to other people? Simple - get vaccinated! And it's not a freaking new thing - vaccines have been mandatory for babies and children for a very long time (and so have restrictions on entering public facilities - can't attend school without them!), and the vaccine tech is very similar to that for existing vaccines. I guess it's a different story for the people for whom the vaccine itself would be life-threatening (some immunocompromised, or very old/sick).

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

I would not settle with an anti vaxxer. His religious exemption is a loser based on the Pope's position. If a jury ruled in his favor keep appealing. With 700,000 Americans in the marble orchard because of Covid, vax mandates will be upheld. You are free not to get vaxxed but you are not free to spew your variant aerosols on the sane. Go to Idaho, North and South Dakota, Florida, etc and swap your aerosols with your fellow morons….and if you childish buffoons that worship at the altar of tRump want Bannon's Civil War, we'll bring that ruckus to you as well. People of good will and conscience are tired of you maladjusted, bitter a@ssholes.

---

Sounds like you are substituting your views for that of your client, at your client's peril.

---

You could have stopped after the above, but the rest of your post was excellent as well.

The only thing I question - will Rolo be motivated to settle? If money was his object, he probably would have vaxed. He might want revenge and to make a political statement. Whether he feels that way after months a tough litigation remains to be seen. But I wouldn't be surprised to see one of the conservative public interest law groups take his case (or a similar one).

As a separate matter, I don't think the Pope or Church's official position on vaccines matters. If Rolo has a sincerely held religious belief that is at odds with "mainstream" Catholicism, that is probably enough. And by offering exemptions, the state has opened the door to lots of legal arguments.

boredom 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 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.

---

I think you're missing some of the context. On the day Rolo was fired, the press asked the AD Chun if Rolo met with the team. Chun said something to the effect of Rolo "left as soon as meeting was over" and it was widely reported he didn't meet with the team.

In the media and on social media, the same people being sanctimonious about the Rolovich's vax status/decision (Wilner being among the worst) then piled on saying he was a coward/classless/etc. for not meeting with his team.

So if he was escorted from campus - thereby prevented from meeting with the team - that is relevant to that issue. Particularly when Chun's statement was (I think correctly) generally interpreted as saying Rolo left voluntarily and did not want to meet with the team.

Well then he should pick a religion that backs his anti vax beliefs (The only Christian denominations who cite a theological reason for opposing vaccines are the Dutch Reformed Church and Church of Christ, Scientist) because it ain't the Catholic Church, unless of course you don't believe the Pope has the authority to speak for the Church (Opus Dei Catholics would poison him if they thought they could get away with it).

An individual does not get to make up what the beliefs of the Church are. They are his individual beliefs, and you better believe his anti vax stance is part of a "bundle of beliefs" tied to his political beliefs.

And both sides are not equally bad. What is your position on the Republicans that voted in support of Steve Bannon's position today? This festering cancer spread by tRumpism needs to be excised from the body politic….and it is going to be. Decent people are fed up with guys like that Shaman and Marjorie Taylor Greene telling us how things are going to be.

" But I wouldn't be surprised to see one of the conservative public interest law groups take his case (or a similar one)."

Boy, I bet that is a crack team of towering minds of the legal profession. The biggest challenge these days for the Conservative bar is keeping their law licenses from being yanked for knowingly asserting patently absurd and bad faith arguments in court that violate the Canons
of Ethics which governs their conduct.

bearister said:

---

Well then he should pick a religion that backs his anti vax beliefs (The only Christian denominations who cite a theological reason for opposing vaccines are the Dutch Reformed Church and Church of Christ, Scientist) because it ain't the Catholic Church, unless of course you don't believe the Pope has the authority to speak for the Church (Opus Dei Catholics would poison him if they thought they could get away with it).

An individual does not get to make up what the beliefs of the Church are. They are his individual beliefs, and you better believe his anti vax stance is part of a "bundle of beliefs" tied to his political beliefs.

And both sides are not equally bad. What is your position on the Republicans that voted in support of Steve Bannon's position today? This festering cancer spread by tRumpism needs to be excised from the body politic….and it is going to be. Decent people are fed up with guys like that Shaman and Marjorie Taylor Greene telling us how things are going to be.

" But I wouldn't be surprised to see one of the conservative public interest law groups take his case (or a similar one)."

Boy, I bet that is a crack team of towering minds of the legal profession. The biggest challenge these days for the Conservative bar is keeping their law licenses from being yanked for knowingly asserting patently absurd and bad faith arguments in court that violate the Canons
of Ethics which governs their conduct.

---

You are coming off so reasonable and well balanced in this thread.

If you look at supreme court case law (e.g., US v Seeger), you'll find that the pope or catholic church's official positions are not dispositive to a claim of sincerely held religious belief. The belief does not need to be tied to a recognized or formal religion - or even a belief in a deity/higher power.

"Local boards and courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them "incomprehensible." Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious."

That was a slightly different context (federal statute giving draft exemption to conscientious objectors), but it is actually fairly analogous to this situation where a person is asserting a religious belief per a statutory permitted exemption. Once the exemption is there, it opens the door.

Since that time, most government agencies (including those in CA), simply allow people to attest that they have a sincerely held religious belief and then they grant exemptions. The reason for that is largely practical - once the party asserts it is their sincere believe, what evidence can the government assert to disprove that?

And your disparagement of conservative legal groups is equally silly. The fact that you don't like their politics does not make them bad lawyers. The reality is that these groups have a pretty solid history of winning in court including many (not all) recent COVID cases. And for the record, 20 years ago, the ACLU likely would also have supported Rolovich in this type of claim.

Your not providing good faith legal arguments; just invective and partisan opinions. I'm sure there's a thread on the off topic board you can move that to - maybe I'll join you over there to discuss the Bannon stuff. Doesn't really belong here.

"The belief does not need to be tied to a recognized or formal religion - or even a belief in a deity/higher power."

But he is trying to tie it to the Catholic Church when, according to you, he doesn't need to do that. He is using the Church as a prop or to give his claim some weight. Catholicism has nothing to do with his beliefs. It's like me saying I am a Buddhist, thus it is against my religion to eat meat on Friday during Lent.

Sonofoski said:

---

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.

---

---

Plus he has said it is the moral duty of all good Catholics to get vaccinated. And he has discouraged bishops from being too free in giving out religious exemptions.
Part of his "Care for your neighbor" philosophy.

The debate reduced to its essence:

At this stage of the game, unless you have a medical reason for not getting vaxxed, you are an a@sshole that has been radicalized.

bearister said:

---

The debate reduced to its essence:

At this stage of the game, unless you have a medical reason for not getting vaxxed, you are an a@sshole that has been radicalized.

---

99% However, I do know people who worry so much about what they come into contact with they would never even eat an organic vegetable that has been cooked. They worry about their cleaning products. Of course they would worry about the chemicals in vaccines. However, even though he is from Marin, that is not Rolovich.

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.

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.

---

(Over 700,000 People in the US dead plus many more thousands being incapacitated with along Covid) vs (hundreds of thousands getting stoned and suffering from the Munchies)
Which is worse? Boy that's a tough question.

bearister said:

---

The debate reduced to its essence:

At this stage of the game, unless you have a medical reason for not getting vaxxed, you are an a@sshole that has been radicalized.

---

The radicals are those who currently hold power in the federal government. The current president is polling in the 30's among independents and he's only 9 months in, His response to opposition to the vaccine mandate is below. Keep in mind he just got his booster shot in front of the cameras on a fake set but he also has dementia:

Quote:

---

"Freedom!," POTUS said mockingly. "I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID. No, I mean, come on! Freedom?

---

GivemTheAxe 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.

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.

---

(Over 700,000 People in the US dead plus many more thousands being incapacitated with along Covid) vs (hundreds of thousands getting stoned and suffering from the Munchies)
Which is worse? Boy that's a tough question.

---

If the Democratic leadership and media didn't spread doubt and fear over the vaccines in 2020 prior to the election, thousands more would have been saved. If the left wing corporate media didn't spread doubt and fear over alternative treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, thousands more would have been saved. More people have died from Covid in the U.S. in 2021 than in 2020.

Rushinbear said:

---

Oh, boy. Tell us you didn't grad Cal.

You want to mandate a government prevention that's 90% +/- effective against an infection that has a 99.9% survival rate (versus a 40% death rate for the subject(s) of those court cases)? Is that what you want everyone to swallow?

People try to justify their demand for 100% vaccination by making this into an anti-social act. "Your refusal endangers everyone else." Aside from that's being bollocks, what danger is "everyone else" in if they've all obeyed orders and gotten vaccinated? You are officially empowered to split hairs now.

---

It's shocking to still see such ignorance 1.5 years into this pandemic.
Nearly 750,000 Americans dead and over 1 million kids around the world without a parent.

And you're touting the "99.9% survival rate" and the "If youre already vaccinated, how does my not being vaccinated impact you???" - - - mantra like some Trumptard from Tennessee who only made it through high school?

The vaccine is designed to keep people from incurring serious illness that overwhelms our hospitals and ICU's so that doctors do not have to "allocate" medical care and decide who lives and who dies.

Highly unvaccinated states like Idaho and Montana have had to go into "critical care" mode and allocate resources because their ICU's are filled up with UNVACCINATED people. We're talking over 90%..

"Critical Care" means allocating medical care by identifying who you think is "healthy" enough to make "it" out of the hospital, before you hand out that ICU bed. If you've got comorbidities like diabetes, high blood pressure, being obese, etc (like most of America) the doctor's arent going to be giving you that ICU bed.

Even at UC Davis Medical Center (in a largely vaccinated state), at the end of August, of the 80 hospitalized Covid patients 68 of them were UNVACCINATED (85%). Of the 21 who were in the ICU, 19 were UNVACCINATED. Of the 12 that were on a ventilator, 11 were UNVACCINATED. Of the 2 that were on .ECMO, both were UNVACCINATED. - - - See a pattern here?

Apparently, you werent able to even think about the possibility of you or a loved one being in an auto-accident and requiring ICU care where all of those beds were already taken by UNVACCINATED Covid patients. Sound equitable to you? Sound fair???

You also totally missed out on severely immunocompromised people (such as Gen. Colin Powell) who are at high risk of a "breakthrough" infection even if they've gotten the vaccine.

As you so eloquently put it, "Oh boy, (please) tell us you didnt grad CAL"

Good luck suing the state of Washington, Rollo! Ha!

los altos bear said:

---

We have long since reached a point where any adult who wants to be vaccinated is now vaccinated.

And if you're vaccinated, you've nothing meaningful to worry about. The chance you'll get the virus from a vaccinated or unvaccinated person are minimal- and the chances you'll be hospitalized are infinitesimal.

Accordingly, and on the other hand, if you choose not to get vaccinated you're only putting yourself, and other unvaccinated people, at any meaningful risk.

There are many reasons to get vaccinated (I am)… and there are also reasons not to get vaccinated (eg you've already had Covid and now have natural immunities, or you're a young/healthy person where the vaccine might do more harm than good, etc)

So, there's no rational reason to care whether anyone else is vaccinated. And so there's no reason for government mandates.

And if you believe that we should mandate vaccines to manage down hospitalizations and health care costs, then you should also be for banning cigarettes, alcohol, ice cream, and a 25mph speed limit on all roads…

It really should be up to each individual to make the decision that is best for them. "My body, my choice" applies more - much more- in this context than in the context it's most used in…

Although I wouldn't have made the same decision, I applaud Rolovich for sticking to his guns. A selfish decision? Hardly. He's forfeited a lot of coin. It's easy to fight a fight when there are no personal costs. Far more difficult when the costs are your livelihood…

It was quite ridiculous that Rolovich was terminated. Best of luck to him and the many others who have been forced out of their jobs by overreaching authoritarians.

---

Sadly, your claims are terribly false on so many levels that its downright scary where you get your information. The most glaring is your ignorance regarding "breakthrough" infections with moderately to severely immunocompromised people.

And you couldnt be more wrong about Covid giving you natural immunities enough for prevention of re-infection, especially when it comes to variants like Delta; where the vaccine is much more effective. In fact, data has shown that vaccinated individuals have about half the risk of experiencing a "breakthrough" infection as do naturally immune individuals.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Natural Immunity to Vaccine-Induced Immunity: Reinfections versus Breakthrough Infections | NCRC (jhsph.edu)

BearForce2 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.

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.

---

You mean like in TEXAS?