University must meet strict scrutiny test to force COVID vaccine on athletes

[johnwk]

here is the latest.

Appeals Court sides with Christian athletes against Western Michigan University’s COVID shot mandate

October 9, 2021

“The Court of Appeals said because the Kalamazoo-based university offered to consider medical or religious exemptions on a case-by-case basis, the shot mandate was not generally applicable. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the judges wrote, the policy must be held to “strict scrutiny,” meaning denial of religious exemptions must serve “interests of the highest order” and be “narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.”

For those interested in reading the ruling, here is a LINK.

The court states:

"And, like the city in Fulton and the state in Sherbert, the University retains discretion to extend exemptions in whole or in part. For this reason, the policy is not generally applicable. As a result, the University must prove that its decision not to grant religious exemptions to plaintiffs survives strict scrutiny. See Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1881."


The bottom line is, the case confirms when a vaccine mandate impinges upon a fundamental right, and that right is asserted, the mandate must pass the strict scrutiny test and it must:


(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,


(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,


(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.



JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare

 

[White 6]

here is the latest.

Appeals Court sides with Christian athletes against Western Michigan University’s COVID shot mandate

October 9, 2021

“The Court of Appeals said because the Kalamazoo-based university offered to consider medical or religious exemptions on a case-by-case basis, the shot mandate was not generally applicable. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the judges wrote, the policy must be held to “strict scrutiny,” meaning denial of religious exemptions must serve “interests of the highest order” and be “narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.”

For those interested in reading the ruling, here is a LINK.

The court states:

"And, like the city in Fulton and the state in Sherbert, the University retains discretion to extend exemptions in whole or in part. For this reason, the policy is not generally applicable. As a result, the University must prove that its decision not to grant religious exemptions to plaintiffs survives strict scrutiny. See Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1881."


The bottom line is, the case confirms when a vaccine mandate impinges upon a fundamental right, and that right is asserted, the mandate must pass the strict scrutiny test and it must:


(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,


(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,


(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.



JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare

I thought college athletes were all on scholarship and basically owned.

 

[johnwk]

I thought college athletes were all on scholarship and basically owned.

I don't know what that has to do with the appeals court striking down the vaccine mandate.

 

[White 6]

I don't know what that has to do with the appeals court striking down the vaccine mandate.

I thought colleges could set the rules for people they were supporting with scholarships in their athletic programs or were allowed to discontinue their support and not let them participate in their program. I guess things change. Now I guess they are required to give scholarships without having any sway of the students they support. If that is what the courts say, I guess that's the way it is.

 

[johnwk]

I thought colleges could set the rules for people they were supporting with scholarships in their athletic programs or were allowed to discontinue their support and not let them participate in their program. I guess things change. Now I guess they are required to give scholarships without having any sway of the students they support. If that is what the courts say, I guess that's the way it is.

Reading the case would address your thinking and correct it.

JWK

 

[White 6]

Reading the case would address your thinking and correct it.

JWK

I will settle for the court decision as settled law until overruled by a higher court. Won't ever really affect me. Graduated a long time ago, mostly got my free ride on academics, military and business sponsorship and not going back at 67, and certainly not on a sports ride.

 

[johnwk]

I will settle for the court decision as settled law until overruled by a higher court. Won't ever really affect me. Graduated a long time ago, mostly got my free ride on academics, military and business sponsorship and not going back at 67, and certainly not on a sports ride.

The notion that the unvaccinated are threatening to infect the vaccinated with the COVID virus is not only misplaced, it is absurd.

The vaccinated, exercising their liberties and sound judgement, can avoid getting infected. However, they seem to be unwilling to accept the consequences of their own actions, and that includes avoiding situations where the COVID virus may be present, and using sound judgement to avoid the virus.

JWK

 

[White 6]

The notion that the unvaccinated are threatening to infect the vaccinated with the COVID virus is not only misplaced, it is absurd.

The vaccinated, exercising their liberties and sound judgement, can avoid getting infected. However, they seem to be unwilling to accept the consequences of their own actions, and that includes avoiding situations where the COVID virus may be present, and using sound judgement to avoid the virus.

JWK

I'll do my part for me and actually for you too, but gladly accept all the help I can get.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

here is the latest.

Appeals Court sides with Christian athletes against Western Michigan University’s COVID shot mandate

October 9, 2021

“The Court of Appeals said because the Kalamazoo-based university offered to consider medical or religious exemptions on a case-by-case basis, the shot mandate was not generally applicable. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the judges wrote, the policy must be held to “strict scrutiny,” meaning denial of religious exemptions must serve “interests of the highest order” and be “narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.”

For those interested in reading the ruling, here is a LINK.

The court states:

"And, like the city in Fulton and the state in Sherbert, the University retains discretion to extend exemptions in whole or in part. For this reason, the policy is not generally applicable. As a result, the University must prove that its decision not to grant religious exemptions to plaintiffs survives strict scrutiny. See Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1881."


The bottom line is, the case confirms when a vaccine mandate impinges upon a fundamental right, and that right is asserted, the mandate must pass the strict scrutiny test and it must:


(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,


(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,


(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.



JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare

what I want to know is if these folks had also filed for religious exemptions against all the other vaccine the university requires.

 

[White 6]

what I want to know is if these folks had also filed for religious exemptions against all the other vaccine the university requires.

Religious exemption? Jeesh! I cannot remember where the bible or the Torah spoke against vaccination.