I would stand up for the F/O if his concern were valid after a conservative discussion and it affected the safety of the flight, ie. multiple deferrals that compounded a situation based on variables and made a flight threat level excessive or borderline unsafe albeit legal. However, given that the OIL/MEL list is FAA/CO approved documented procedure, there had better be a very valid reason, defensible with data and logical reasoning (aside from an emotional "beef" with the company ie. not bending over arguments, contractual lamentation etc...).

The question being asked here seems to be a general one that would somehow seek to hold gravitas toward a methodology / 'ism' of a pilot group culture (sCAL) that would respond the same way regardless of situation, namely, the CA holding the FO in contempt or left to his own devices if concern should rise. I have never been privy to that situation in all my years when I was an FO. I was always made to feel as part of the crew (well lets be real - 97% of the time) and my concerns if any always carried weight and were considered.

Having said the above though, the Captain is the PIC. His/her name is on the release and thus, the one who is ultimately responsible for the aircraft. The FO is a crew member and a valid member of the think tank but in the end it is the Captain's decision.