Snafu
Freshman
Posts: 155 
|
Post by Snafu on Oct 18, 2021 18:34:37 GMT -8
Actually I’m not on board with that decision......I’m sure Inslee had a part in it .....nuff said on that a-hole guv I thought I read somewhere that the religious exemptions in Washington state were decided by a blind committee... nobody on the committee supposedly knew who the applicant was. I would assume job titles were not included to make that the case. It's basically his decision unless he had a note from a minister in a faith healing religion backing him up, anything less could have been regarded as dubious by the committee. Supreme Court ruled many years ago that Religious exemptions did not need to be backed up by any organization or church. It is legally defined as ones own personal convictions. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Oct 18, 2021 18:39:19 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2021 18:42:38 GMT -8
I respect the man for drawing the line, and standing up for what he feels is right. I wish him the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 18, 2021 19:11:07 GMT -8
I thought I read somewhere that the religious exemptions in Washington state were decided by a blind committee... nobody on the committee supposedly knew who the applicant was. I would assume job titles were not included to make that the case. It's basically his decision unless he had a note from a minister in a faith healing religion backing him up, anything less could have been regarded as dubious by the committee. Supreme Court ruled many years ago that Religious exemptions did not need to be backed up by any organization or church. It is legally defined as ones own personal convictions. You sure about that? I can't find it readily. www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/whats-the-law-on-vaccine-exemptions-a-religious-liberty-expert-explains-166934"Under the current law of the Constitution, people have no right to a religious exemption from a rule unless there is also a secular exception or gap in coverage that would undermine the government’s interests just as much. If there isn’t such a secular exception, the government doesn’t have to show any reason at all to refuse religious exemptions." Perhaps it might be in regards to situations outside of public health? Although I may be mixing personal convictions vs the health situation. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverdreams on Oct 18, 2021 19:18:37 GMT -8
Yikes.....that is some kooky stuff. All I can say is none of those guys, nor the ones on here supporting him, should ever go to the hospital when they're sick. You can't 'selectively believe in science'. Take off the tin foil hats, people. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Oct 18, 2021 19:25:57 GMT -8
I thought I read somewhere that the religious exemptions in Washington state were decided by a blind committee... nobody on the committee supposedly knew who the applicant was. I would assume job titles were not included to make that the case. It's basically his decision unless he had a note from a minister in a faith healing religion backing him up, anything less could have been regarded as dubious by the committee. Supreme Court ruled many years ago that Religious exemptions did not need to be backed up by any organization or church. It is legally defined as ones own personal convictions. Link? What you describe would mean any individual could decide whether or not to comply with any law merely by declaring a personal religious objection. That doesn’t fly. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 18, 2021 19:29:09 GMT -8
Supreme Court ruled many years ago that Religious exemptions did not need to be backed up by any organization or church. It is legally defined as ones own personal convictions. Link? What you describe would mean any individual could decide whether or not to comply with any law merely by declaring a religious objection. That doesn’t fly. Wait. What?? How does that post indicate in anyway that such an exemption applies to "any" law? That "doesn't fly". Little bit a of a jump made there. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Oct 18, 2021 19:39:22 GMT -8
Wow. I was wrong. The power of the government. Rolo will be fine, most likely moving on to just as good of paycheck in a less “restrictive” state. A nice way of saying it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Oct 18, 2021 21:25:58 GMT -8
Wow. I was wrong. The power of the government. Rolo will be fine, most likely moving on to just as good of paycheck in a less “restrictive” state. A nice way of saying it. We shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Oct 18, 2021 21:57:10 GMT -8
I thought I read somewhere that the religious exemptions in Washington state were decided by a blind committee... nobody on the committee supposedly knew who the applicant was. I would assume job titles were not included to make that the case. It's basically his decision unless he had a note from a minister in a faith healing religion backing him up, anything less could have been regarded as dubious by the committee. Supreme Court ruled many years ago that Religious exemptions did not need to be backed up by any organization or church. It is legally defined as ones own personal convictions. According to ESPN, he was likely granted the religious exemption, so it wasn’t the reason he was fired anyway ESPN states that he was terminated because the accommodations required would prohibit him from doing his job as head coach. An article in the Seattle Times about a week ago explained that the process has two parts. First is the petition to be excused on basis of religious belief. The second part is when a supervisor determines if you can continue to fulfill your duties without endangering the public. They said a researcher in his office alone most of the day could, but a food service worker in the dining halls couldn’t. Obviously, head coach has a lot of face time with the public, so it would be a hard sell. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Oct 18, 2021 22:17:51 GMT -8
Supreme Court ruled many years ago that Religious exemptions did not need to be backed up by any organization or church. It is legally defined as ones own personal convictions. You sure about that? I can't find it readily. www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/whats-the-law-on-vaccine-exemptions-a-religious-liberty-expert-explains-166934"Under the current law of the Constitution, people have no right to a religious exemption from a rule unless there is also a secular exception or gap in coverage that would undermine the government’s interests just as much. If there isn’t such a secular exception, the government doesn’t have to show any reason at all to refuse religious exemptions." Perhaps it might be in regards to situations outside of public health? Although I may be mixing personal convictions vs the health situation. Please note that Beth Daley and her quasi-journalistic website is a very left-wing climate journalist and not a lawyer. An individuals' rights to claim a religious exemption from immunization is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If an employee of an employer has a sincerely-held religious belief, that employer cannot terminate the employee. Unless there is undue hardship, the employer must first offer an accommodation. I do not want to get too far down this rabbit hole. If it went to a three-person panel on a religious exemption, they must have found that the religious belief was not sincerely-held. I cannot believe that there would be no reasonable accommodation. Or maybe there was and Rolo turned it down. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Oct 18, 2021 22:51:46 GMT -8
Yikes.....that is some kooky stuff. All I can say is none of those guys, nor the ones on here supporting him, should ever go to the hospital when they're sick. You can't 'selectively believe in science'. Take off the tin foil hats, people. "Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability."--Dr. William Osler (Founder of Johns Hopkins University). |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Oct 19, 2021 5:35:49 GMT -8
Yikes.....that is some kooky stuff. All I can say is none of those guys, nor the ones on here supporting him, should ever go to the hospital when they're sick. You can't 'selectively believe in science'. Take off the tin foil hats, people. "Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability."--Dr. William Osler (Founder of Johns Hopkins University). So what? How does a 100 year old quote about a rapidly changing field like medicine have relevance today? If Ossler were alive today, he would be lost in his own field. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Oct 19, 2021 5:44:06 GMT -8
Supreme Court ruled many years ago that Religious exemptions did not need to be backed up by any organization or church. It is legally defined as ones own personal convictions. According to ESPN, he was likely granted the religious exemption, so it wasn’t the reason he was fired anyway ESPN states that he was terminated because the accommodations required would prohibit him from doing his job as head coach. An article in the Seattle Times about a week ago explained that the process has two parts. First is the petition to be excused on basis of religious belief. The second part is when a supervisor determines if you can continue to fulfill your duties without endangering the public. They said a researcher in his office alone most of the day could, but a food service worker in the dining halls couldn’t. Obviously, head coach has a lot of face time with the public, so it would be a hard sell. In the press conference with WSU President and AD, Patrick Chun confirmed that Rolovich was fired “for cause”. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Oct 19, 2021 6:03:19 GMT -8
Finally, somebody with principles and balls stepped up. Let this be a lesson to WSU and the state of Washington. This tyranny needs to stop.  |
|
