GaryNo. That's not what you said. You said this:
"It's not about if he is vaccinated or not, whether he will infect anyone or not. He is a queue jumper and made no sacrifices like the poor bastards had to endure in Victoria. His sense of entitlement is what pisses people off."
Your argument was about how he was seeking an exemption when everyone else has followed the rules. Those sorts of comments were very common at the time and in my view contributed signicantly to the Feds stepping in to try and address this perceived injustice.
Because they handled it so poorly many people (yourself included) chose to ignore that initial perceived injustice that many other tennis players have been quietly seething about and instead focused on the perceived injustice now faced by Novak at the hands of the Feds. However, the original injustice didn't disappear despite how poorly the government handled the situation.
Also, I wouldn't place too much weight on the court decision or pretend that issues related to Section 116 were not considerations that needed to be made. As others have flagged, the lawyers were looking for the quickest way to try and kill this off. Nothing more, nothing less. Relying on precedence as Gronk pointed out seemed to be their strategy.
My argument is about two different points in time. They hated him before he arrived based on him being a queue jumper and now they hate him even more because they used irrelevant stuff to make the government act. Which they did. However the government cannot use any of that stuff now to win their case. The court has to make a subjective assessment on how him staying or going may potentially incite some kind of riot.
And court matters are always run especially in defence with the path of least resistance. A technicality. It’s a court of law not public opinion.