The difference is in one, the choice is yours.
That one was unmitigated government abuse.
1 Like
Absolutely true.
1 Like
No. You are correct.
Free exercise of religion- OK.
That can still have restrictions.
If the church is burning, the authorities can legally keep the public out of it.
If the building is condemned, ditto.
There is not a court in this country that would rule that unconstitutional.
We are going in a circle. I have said the same thing five or six times.
No. Not from the government. âFreeâ and âRestrictionsâ are diametrically opposed concepts.
Yes the government can close access to a church building. I gave you two examples- fire and condemnation.
Not Constitutionally.
There is no court in this country that would rule that unconstitutional.
If your argument is the government routinely violates the Constitution, you win.
If the reason that it caught fire was because of a problem that all mosqueâs might have, yep.
What is constitutional is what the courts say is constitutional.
There is a world of difference between not letting people enter a building, and stopping their worship. In this case, the state govts did not just stop them from enting the building. They stopped them from assembling. That is not supposed to happen.
Such a good subject. 
who needs to be in the building? passing out tickets in a parking lot of a church must be kosherâŚ
Depending on where you live, the lockdown let you assemble with no more than 5 people if you kept 6â apart
There are and always has been restrictions on assembly. For a march, a rally or a parade, a permit is required.
If I started a church and I claimed that God had told me to hold services in Macyâs Department store after I had cleared out the place, Iâd wind up in jail.
There is nothing unconstitutional about any of these things I have mentioned and they are all governmental restrictions on assembly.
Happy Spouse, Happy House*
1 Like
Unless the man is the spouse.
1 Like
I dunno man, Iâm pretty happy right now. 
Sssssshhhhh!
1 Like
