|
|
Post by beavaristotle on Aug 11, 2022 11:12:09 GMT -8
Rolovich suing WSU for 25 million for firing him for not getting the vaccine and denied his religious exemption. Could be a test case
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 11, 2022 13:23:58 GMT -8
Rolovich suing WSU for 25 million for firing him for not getting the vaccine and denied his religious exemption. Could be a test case Could be an actual case. When the state starts making mandates that touch on your freedom of religion (First and Fourteenth Amendments), you better be damned sure that you are right. Also, when you refuse any sort of religious accommodation, man, you better be right. Also also, when the guy is making $3.2 million per year, mistakes tend to get very costly very quickly. It should be an interesting case to be sure. Also also also (as to your point, Aristotle), if the state loses the Rolovich suit, there could be a huge class suit that follows. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 11, 2022 13:46:20 GMT -8
The state of Washington did not prevent him from exercising his right to worship as he pleases, as often as he pleases, wherever he pleases and with whomever he pleases. Which is what "freedom of religion" means.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Aug 11, 2022 14:12:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 11, 2022 16:23:57 GMT -8
Rolovich suing WSU for 25 million for firing him for not getting the vaccine and denied his religious exemption. Could be a test case Anyone can bring a suit against anyone for anything. He knows he has no case. He’s just posturing for a settlement payday to make him go away. I doubt he’ll be successful even with that. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Aug 11, 2022 20:17:36 GMT -8
So is big Joe...who got the vaxx and all the boosters and still got it...twice...No idea if Rolovich ever get Covid? You have no point. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 12, 2022 15:00:02 GMT -8
Your post is very offensive for a couple of reasons and is probably bigoted against Catholics and racist against Slavic people, like myself. I would complain to the moderator, but.......... To my knowledge, the pope has never spoken ex cathedra about vaccines. What the pope said is his opinion but it would be akin to and carry only slightly more weight than me stating my opinion or Rolovich stating his opinion. When the pope is not speaking ex cathedra, he is basically speaking as a first among equals. Otherwise, everyone's moral opinion on the subject carries about equal weight. As proof of the concept, the Diocese of Spokane does not mandate vaccination, at least not at that time. Multiple other archdioces and diocese did and do mandate vaccination but not the Diocese of Spokane. The Catholic Church teaches that an individual's conscience is the moral reason of an individual. Every individual can prayerfully have a religious conscientious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine, despite what the pope said. The Catholic Church is an enormous tent that encompasses a tapestry of generally-aligned beliefs. As for me myself, I prayerfully agree with Pope Francis that you should get vaccinated. However, other Catholics can prayerfully come to a different conclusion and the State should respect those beliefs, if sincere. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 12, 2022 19:15:55 GMT -8
"Pope Francis suggested Monday that getting vaccinated against the coronavirus was a "moral obligation" and denounced how people had been swayed by "baseless information" to refuse one of the most effective measures to save lives.
Francis used some of his strongest words yet calling for people to get vaccinated in a speech to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, an annual event in which he takes stock of the world and sets out the Vatican's foreign policy goals for the year.
The Vatican's doctrine office has said it is "morally acceptable" for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses. Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI have been fully vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech shots.
Sounds to me like the Pope was pretty clear. And the Vatican as well. The dude in Spokane does not speak for the church. In fact, he seems to directly contradict Rome. www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071785531/on-covid-vaccinations-pope-says-health-care-is-a-moral-obligation
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 12, 2022 19:21:55 GMT -8
Your post is very offensive for a couple of reasons and is probably bigoted against Catholics and racist against Slavic people, like myself. I would complain to the moderator, but.......... To my knowledge, the pope has never spoken ex cathedra about vaccines. What the pope said is his opinion but it would be akin to and carry only slightly more weight than me stating my opinion or Rolovich stating his opinion. When the pope is not speaking ex cathedra, he is basically speaking as a first among equals. Otherwise, everyone's moral opinion on the subject carries about equal weight. As proof of the concept, the Diocese of Spokane does not mandate vaccination, at least not at that time. Multiple other archdioces and diocese did and do mandate vaccination but not the Diocese of Spokane. The Catholic Church teaches that an individual's conscience is the moral reason of an individual. Every individual can prayerfully have a religious conscientious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine, despite what the pope said. The Catholic Church is an enormous tent that encompasses a tapestry of generally-aligned beliefs. As for me myself, I prayerfully agree with Pope Francis that you should get vaccinated. However, other Catholics can prayerfully come to a different conclusion and the State should respect those beliefs, if sincere. Just because they fired him doesn't mean they didn't respect his personal opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Aug 12, 2022 19:24:31 GMT -8
Although I completely disagree with the mandates, Rolo is embarking on a losing venture here.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 12, 2022 21:16:13 GMT -8
"Pope Francis suggested Monday that getting vaccinated against the coronavirus was a "moral obligation" and denounced how people had been swayed by "baseless information" to refuse one of the most effective measures to save lives.
Francis used some of his strongest words yet calling for people to get vaccinated in a speech to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, an annual event in which he takes stock of the world and sets out the Vatican's foreign policy goals for the year.
The Vatican's doctrine office has said it is "morally acceptable" for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses. Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI have been fully vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech shots.
Sounds to me like the Pope was pretty clear. And the Vatican as well. The dude in Spokane does not speak for the church. In fact, he seems to directly contradict Rome. www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071785531/on-covid-vaccinations-pope-says-health-care-is-a-moral-obligation You are using quotes from an NPR article about their interpretation of a translation of statements made by the pope. It is morally acceptable for Catholics to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and Pope Francis received the Pfizer-BioNTech shot. But his statements are his statements alone, not statements made ex cathedra. The Vatican is more than just the pope. Pope Francis speaks for himself. He does not speak for the Vatican. The primary point of his speech was not even about getting vaccinate or not. The primary focus of Pope Francis' speech was to try and convince the richer countries to allow the poorer countries more access to vaccines. The fact that NPR took a small part of Pope Francis' speech about something completely different and decided to amplify that is pretty much par for the course. The Bishop of Spokane does speak for the Diocese of Spokane. He does not mandate vaccines, just like Pope Francis. Neither does either mandate not getting vaccinated. Their statements on the issue do not invalidate your own prayerful conscientious decision. If you believe that you morally cannot get the vaccine, then you cannot get the vaccine. And you should not be forcibly compelled to by the State. The Church and State are and should remain separate. The State should not usually be allowed to force people to do things that they deem immoral. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Aug 13, 2022 5:49:54 GMT -8
"Pope Francis suggested Monday that getting vaccinated against the coronavirus was a "moral obligation" and denounced how people had been swayed by "baseless information" to refuse one of the most effective measures to save lives.
Francis used some of his strongest words yet calling for people to get vaccinated in a speech to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, an annual event in which he takes stock of the world and sets out the Vatican's foreign policy goals for the year.
The Vatican's doctrine office has said it is "morally acceptable" for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses. Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI have been fully vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech shots.
Sounds to me like the Pope was pretty clear. And the Vatican as well. The dude in Spokane does not speak for the church. In fact, he seems to directly contradict Rome. www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071785531/on-covid-vaccinations-pope-says-health-care-is-a-moral-obligation You are using quotes from an NPR article about their interpretation of a translation of statements made by the pope. It is morally acceptable for Catholics to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and Pope Francis received the Pfizer-BioNTech shot. But his statements are his statements alone, not statements made ex cathedra. The Vatican is more than just the pope. Pope Francis speaks for himself. He does not speak for the Vatican. The primary point of his speech was not even about getting vaccinate or not. The primary focus of Pope Francis' speech was to try and convince the richer countries to allow the poorer countries more access to vaccines. The fact that NPR took a small part of Pope Francis' speech about something completely different and decided to amplify that is pretty much par for the course. The Bishop of Spokane does speak for the Diocese of Spokane. He does not mandate vaccines, just like Pope Francis. Neither does either mandate not getting vaccinated. Their statements on the issue do not invalidate your own prayerful conscientious decision. If you believe that you morally cannot get the vaccine, then you cannot get the vaccine. And you should not be forcibly compelled to by the State. The Church and State are and should remain separate. The State should not usually be allowed to force people to do things that they deem immoral. Great spin. |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Aug 13, 2022 5:55:35 GMT -8
Your post is very offensive for a couple of reasons and is probably bigoted against Catholics and racist against Slavic people, like myself. I would complain to the moderator, but.......... To my knowledge, the pope has never spoken ex cathedra about vaccines. What the pope said is his opinion but it would be akin to and carry only slightly more weight than me stating my opinion or Rolovich stating his opinion. When the pope is not speaking ex cathedra, he is basically speaking as a first among equals. Otherwise, everyone's moral opinion on the subject carries about equal weight. As proof of the concept, the Diocese of Spokane does not mandate vaccination, at least not at that time. Multiple other archdioces and diocese did and do mandate vaccination but not the Diocese of Spokane. The Catholic Church teaches that an individual's conscience is the moral reason of an individual. Every individual can prayerfully have a religious conscientious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine, despite what the pope said. The Catholic Church is an enormous tent that encompasses a tapestry of generally-aligned beliefs. As for me myself, I prayerfully agree with Pope Francis that you should get vaccinated. However, other Catholics can prayerfully come to a different conclusion and the State should respect those beliefs, if sincere. I don't know about this issue. I'd agree that Pope Francis was not speaking ex cathedra in saying that vaccines are a moral obligation, but by the same analysis there is no way that a Catholic could conclude that Pope Francis spoke ex cathedra in saying that Catholics were prohibited from getting a vaccine. There is nothing about the Catholic Church that mandates that its followers not get the vaccine. But, as lawyers, we could see the point that the Catholic Church advises the jab but seems to leave it up to the conscience of the individual, which means that Rolovich could, as a Catholic, be practicing his religion by refusing the vaccine. I think this will be an interesting case. On a side note, I don't see how you think The Glove is being "bigoted against Catholics" with his innocuous statement, even if you think his statement is inaccurate. He said, "No basis. Rolobitch is an avowed Catholic and the leader of that religion implored it's followers to get the vaccine." There is no mention of Catholics being inherently bad in any sort of way. And to say that it was racist against Slavs...what the F are you talking about? There is no reason to think from Glove's statement or the article he linked that he was being racist against Slavs...unless you have concluded Pope Francis or the Catholic Church is inherently biased against Slavs? See what I did there? This is not the first time that you have tried to link the criticism (even implied criticism) of anti-vaxxers and racism. Why is it your goal to portray people who criticize anti-vaxxers as racist? And when I ask that, I mean beyond the general right-wing goal of portraying the left as racist (so very Karl Rove-ian of you people). I have heard right-wing media outlets trying the same thing, criticizing critics of anti-vaxxers as racist...is that where you are getting it? Are you following your alien overlords on Fox by portraying critics of anti-vaxxers as racist? Seriously...go back and re-read TheGlove's statement and the article he linked...tell us how and in what out-there universe racism and anti-Catholicism was involved in TheGlove's post. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 13, 2022 6:42:04 GMT -8
"Pope Francis suggested Monday that getting vaccinated against the coronavirus was a "moral obligation" and denounced how people had been swayed by "baseless information" to refuse one of the most effective measures to save lives.
Francis used some of his strongest words yet calling for people to get vaccinated in a speech to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, an annual event in which he takes stock of the world and sets out the Vatican's foreign policy goals for the year.
The Vatican's doctrine office has said it is "morally acceptable" for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses. Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI have been fully vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech shots.
Sounds to me like the Pope was pretty clear. And the Vatican as well. The dude in Spokane does not speak for the church. In fact, he seems to directly contradict Rome. www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071785531/on-covid-vaccinations-pope-says-health-care-is-a-moral-obligation You are using quotes from an NPR article about their interpretation of a translation of statements made by the pope. It is morally acceptable for Catholics to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and Pope Francis received the Pfizer-BioNTech shot. But his statements are his statements alone, not statements made ex cathedra. The Vatican is more than just the pope. Pope Francis speaks for himself. He does not speak for the Vatican. The primary point of his speech was not even about getting vaccinate or not. The primary focus of Pope Francis' speech was to try and convince the richer countries to allow the poorer countries more access to vaccines. The fact that NPR took a small part of Pope Francis' speech about something completely different and decided to amplify that is pretty much par for the course. The Bishop of Spokane does speak for the Diocese of Spokane. He does not mandate vaccines, just like Pope Francis. Neither does either mandate not getting vaccinated. Their statements on the issue do not invalidate your own prayerful conscientious decision. If you believe that you morally cannot get the vaccine, then you cannot get the vaccine. And you should not be forcibly compelled to by the State. The Church and State are and should remain separate. The State should not usually be allowed to force people to do things that they deem immoral. You are confusing the issue…or illuminating it in a rather obscure manner. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible, but only when speaking on matters of the faith. So one is not obligated to follow the Pope’s guidance on other matters, like Covid vaccination. I think this is the gist of the your argument. But it is also impossible for the Pope to speak about the vaccine infallibly simply because it does not constitute part of the faith. Which means, there’s no basis for religious exemption. And to suggest that his words should have no bearing over this case is ridiculous. If you put religion over politics, then the approval and encouragement by the leader of your religious group ought to be enough. Even if it is spoken as a fallible leader. His decision, along with others like him, was motivated by politics, not religion. |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Aug 13, 2022 6:47:14 GMT -8
"His decision, along with others like him, was motivated by politics, not religion." Amen
|
|
