College Football Coach Fired For Refusing To Get Vaccinated

On Monday, Navy football offensive assistant Billy Ray Stutzmann shared he was let go from his job due to the school’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

I graduated from West Point, and Navy is, of course, our longest and most bitter rival. Beating Navy is in our blood...but not like this.

www.msn.com...


Starting a New Thread ?



IMPORTANT: New (old) Standards Are Being Enforced (again) For New Threads

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf
F### Joe Biden..
I wonder if that chant will break out at the Army Navy game?

That would be so awesome

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

On Monday, Navy football offensive assistant Billy Ray Stutzmann shared he was let go from his job due to the school’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

I graduated from West Point, and Navy is, of course, our longest and most bitter rival. Beating Navy is in our blood...but not like this.

www.msn.com...

That makes no sense. If he was a Navy coach why would his most bitter rival be the Navy team? Me thinks Navy football team had an Army mole coaching for them.

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

Sounds like he made the decision to not get vaccinated based on religious reasons. Far enough, looks like his dedication to his religion was his top priority.

He had a choice.

a reply to: MDDoxs

He had a choice.

What choice did he have? To vaccinate or loose his job?

Did he had the choice to keep his job without strings attached? No, so please stop the BS.

originally posted by: billxam

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

On Monday, Navy football offensive assistant Billy Ray Stutzmann shared he was let go from his job due to the school’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

I graduated from West Point, and Navy is, of course, our longest and most bitter rival. Beating Navy is in our blood...but not like this.

www.msn.com...

That makes no sense. If he was a Navy coach why would his most bitter rival be the Navy team? Me thinks Navy football team had an Army mole coaching for them.

Damn! You found us out. If you could please simply leave your current address and whereabouts, we'll, I mean I, will be sending you a...ummm...check, yeah that's it, a check containing your reward of $1000...no no...$1,000,000. This is legit...

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

Sounds like he made the decision to not get vaccinated based on religious reasons. Far enough, looks like his dedication to his religion was his top priority.

He had a choice.

That is a violation of civil rights.
www.eeoc.gov...
www.venable.com...

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against employees or applicants for employment because of their religious beliefs in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

Sounds like he made the decision to not get vaccinated based on religious reasons. Far enough, looks like his dedication to his religion was his top priority.

He had a choice.

That is a violation of civil rights.
www.eeoc.gov...
www.venable.com...

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against employees or applicants for employment because of their religious beliefs in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment.

Ohhhhh...you're talking about Used to be America. That is just adorable (pat on head).

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

He had a choice to either follow the policies laid out by the athletics program or not. Yes, he had a choice. Just like he has a choice to follow the head coach's direction, or wear the team colors, or promote the value of the organization. If he chose not to follow those policies then he would not have a job either.

Would you agree?

originally posted by: MDDoxs

Sounds like he made the decision to not get vaccinated based on religious reasons. Far enough, looks like his dedication to his religion was his top priority.

He had a choice.

I think 90%+ of these "religious reasons" are total BS. I believe all the leaders in the main religions have highly suggested to get the vaccine, so as example, when a Catholic says I'm not getting it for religious reasons how can they say that when the Pope says to get it... geez

He did have a choice as you said, I'm personally not risking my families livelihood over something stupid as that though.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

He had a choice to either follow the policies laid out by the athletics program or not. Yes, he had a choice. Just like he has a choice to follow the head coach's direction, or wear the team colors, or promote the value of the organization. If he chose not to follow those policies then he would not have a job either.

Would you agree?

So then policy overrides law?

a reply to: Moon68

It depends, in certain situations yes.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MDDoxs

Sounds like he made the decision to not get vaccinated based on religious reasons. Far enough, looks like his dedication to his religion was his top priority.

He had a choice.

I think 90%+ of these "religious reasons" are total BS. I believe all the leaders in the main religions have highly suggested to get the vaccine, so as example, when a Catholic says I'm not getting it for religious reasons how can they say that when the Pope says to get it... geez

He did have a choice as you said, I'm personally not risking my families livelihood over something stupid as that though.

"Religious reasons" are based on ones relationship with God...not church doctrine.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: Moon68

It depends, in certain situations yes.

An example if you please.

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MDDoxs

Sounds like he made the decision to not get vaccinated based on religious reasons. Far enough, looks like his dedication to his religion was his top priority.

He had a choice.

I think 90%+ of these "religious reasons" are total BS. I believe all the leaders in the main religions have highly suggested to get the vaccine, so as example, when a Catholic says I'm not getting it for religious reasons how can they say that when the Pope says to get it... geez

He did have a choice as you said, I'm personally not risking my families livelihood over something stupid as that though.

"Religious reasons" are based on ones relationship with God...not church doctrine.

Dang it Moon, get off my thread. You keep saying everything I'm about to say only much more succinctly!

he knew what the consequences would be for refusing the shot. he made his decision. Many more will as well. The legality of all this will come into question and if it goes like some think, those that were fired for refusing an experimental shot, will have the rest of their financial future well in hand.

But regardless, he stuck to his principals, he retained his integrity. Good for him.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Here is why Catholics for instance can have a religious exemption. By the way, the current pope is not well liked among devout Catholics.

September 2, 2021
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a baptized Catholic seeking an exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including me, panoz77, to decline certain vaccines.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her informed conscience comes to this sure judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of any vaccine, and generally encourages the use of safe and effective vaccines as a way of safeguarding personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious basis on which a Catholic may determine that he or she ought to refuse certain vaccines:
• Vaccination is not morally obligatory in principle and so must be voluntary.1
• There is a general moral duty to refuse the use of medical products, including certain vaccines, that are produced using human cells lines derived from direct abortions. It is permissible to use such vaccines only under certain case-specific conditions, based on a judgment of conscience.2
• A person’s informed judgments about the proportionality of medical interventions are to be respected unless they contradict authoritative Catholic moral teachings.3
• A person is morally required to obey his or her sure conscience.4
A Catholic may judge it wrong to receive certain vaccines for a variety of reasons consistent with these teachings, and there is no authoritative Church teaching universally obliging Catholics to receive any vaccine. An individual Catholic may invoke Church teaching to refuse a vaccine developed or produced using abortion-derived cell lines. More generally, a Catholic might refuse a vaccine based on the Church’s teachings concerning therapeutic proportionality. Therapeutic proportionality is an assessment of whether the benefits of a medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens in light of the integral good of the person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily goods.5 It can also extend to the good of others and the common good, which likewise entail spiritual and moral dimensions and are not reducible to public health. The judgment of therapeutic proportionality must be made by the person who is the potential recipient of the intervention in the concrete circumstances,6 not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge differently in their own situations.
At the core of the Church’s teaching are the first and last points listed above: vaccination is not a universal obligation and a person must obey the judgment of his or her own informed and certain conscience. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that following one’s conscience is following Christ Himself:
In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law: “Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”7
Therefore, if a Catholic comes to an informed and sure judgment in conscience that he or she should not receive a vaccine, then the Catholic Church requires that the person follow this certain judgment of conscience and refuse the vaccine. The Catechism is clear: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’”8
Sincerely in Christ,
panoz77

1 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines,” December 17, 2020, n. 5: “At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”
2 See Pontifical Academy for Life, “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses,” June 9, 2005; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas personae, 2008, nn. 34-35; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines,” nn. 1-3. When there is a sufficiently serious reason to use the product and there is no reasonable alternative available, the Catholic Church teaches that it may be permissible to use the immorally sourced product under protest. In any case, whether the product is used or not, the Catholic Church teaches that all must make their disagreement known and request the development of equal or better products using biological material that does not come from abortions.
3 See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 6th ed. (Washington, DC: USCCB Publishing, 2018), n. 28. Hereafter “ERDs.”
4 “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993), www.vatican.va, n. 1790. Hereafter “CCC.”
5 See ERDs, nn. 32-33; nn. 56-57; Part Three, Introduction, para. 2; Part Five, Introduction, para. 3.
6 See ERDs, nn. 56-57. Both of these directives state that the proportionality of medical interventions is established “in the patient’s judgment.”
7 CCC, n. 1777, citing John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248.
8 CCC, n. 1782, citing Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis humanae, December 7, 1965, n. 3
NOTES

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

Green weenies got to stick together

a reply to: MDDoxs
I think most understand that there was no real choice. A fake choice. I see what you are doing here and I do not agree, it's about dignity and basic human rights.

It's not a choice to have a job to survive.

Do you find comfort in the knowledge that those, who do not accept external rulings over their body may have to accept this "choice" because they have children to feed? You have to, since you are a strong supporter of forcing others by leveraging basic human needs like food and shelter, to get them in line and obey.

originally posted by: Moon68

"Religious reasons" are based on ones relationship with God...not church doctrine.

I guess my point is very few people can really use this without actually just lying about it.