That example would only be relevant if they had left Walmart open next door. Pretty sure they would have closed it also.
The First Congress later trimmed that text down to what eventually became the First Amendment. But clearly, the intent is that to constitute a violation of the First Amendment, there must be a patently religious discriminatory purpose. An action taken that does not explicitly target religion is not a violation.
I’d love to see something that actually supports that “interpretation”, not from later courts but from the drafters and arguments made for passage and ratification.
He’s already been a problem…
Do you have any evidence that church goers present more of a risk to spreading disease than Walmart goers?
1 Like
Explain how that makes even a SHRED of sense.
Of course they don’t. They see one as necessary and one as a silly superstition.
1 Like
and yet there they are, still spreading the liberal disease
the earlier draft was rejected. it is meaningless.
the lock down rules are specifically targeted at churches.
1 Like
A lot of differing opinions on this ruling which illustrates why we have the SC.
As I have always said a person will never agree 100% with their decisions. As we see with this ruling the SC judges themselves disagree with each other.
I’ve seen these arguments before and they’re just mind boggling wrong. What you’re talking about doing in this case is not infringing on the rights of anyone. You have a church that chose to be open and a church member that chose to go. No one’s rights are being infringed upon, until government comes along and tells both of them they cannot freely associate.
There are no limits to our Constitutionally protected rights. This is a lie people in power like to preach because if we apply the Constitution properly, it keeps them from gaining more power. Let’s not forget, this was a careful construction to make sure we limited the power of the Federal and State governments and kept the keys to freedom solidly in the hands of the people.
I always hear “Yelling fire” as a limit on the 1st Amendment. It is not illegal to yell fire, it’s illegal to start a riot? Why? Because it impacts the right to life of other citizens. If you go into a theater and yell fire and everyone laughs, will you be charged with a crime? Of course not. It’s not illegal to yell fire.
As to the specific examples you listed:
- Rape is an infringement of the boy’s right to not be harmed by others. It’s not a limit on the 1st Amendment to say you can’t rape, it’s a protection of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- What the hell is an “ultra-orthodox Jewish sect”?
That said, murder is against the law because it infringes on the right to life of a citizen. - See 2.
No, you cannot do anything and everything because actual harm against citizens is prohibited. No one suggested the 1st grants an immunity to police power, we’re simply saying that in a transaction of two consenting adults, so long as there is no victim, the police have (or should have) NO POWER.
2 Likes
Very true. One thing I will say is there is a bit of logic and reason to my objections. That logic and reason is that two consenting adults should be free of government harassment so long as a victim cannot be proven. If it’s safe to go to a grocery store or Walmart, it’s safe to go to Church and for some, that worship time is just as vital to their emotional health as food is to their physical health.
1 Like
You’re missing a key point - going to church, free exercise thereof and peaceably assemble was not prohibited based on a criminal act.
What you’re having to do to rationalize this is introduce rape and murder. That’s where it runs off the rails.
There was no due process, no underlying crime, no selectivity. Everything wasn’t shut down.
Mention was made of Walmart. Churches were singled out in mass based on prior restraint.
3 Likes
The SCOTUS is the arbiter of these matters.
That is an excellent way of explaining it, thank you.
Not to mention marrying children and polygamy.
But the churches weren’t singled out. Any gathering of people in a confined space where social distancing wasn’t an option were closed. Movie theaters, stadiums, concert halls were also closed.
And the reason rape and murder were introduced into the argument is because there was an argument that the first amendment protected churches from regulation and there are some aspects of religion that are already regulated, just like there are regulations on press and protests.
Mormons used to marry little girls, and polygamy was common. Not anymore. Christian Scientists would rather let their kids die than get them treated with antibiotics for an infection. Sometimes belief violates an individual’s rights or the public health and if that is the case, regulation, for as brief a time as possible, is appropriate.
I liked Safiel’s fire metaphor. No one is shutting down the church because their belief is being disparaged, it is only because it is not safe at this moment to do so.
1 Like
Yep, you need to buy food you don’t need to go to church.
Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot
No, the religion isn’t regulated; murder and rape are.
Polygamy is not common? Are the cases of sick children addressed by prohibited by closing the churches?
Walmart, Lowe’s, Home Depot.
Liquor stores. Pot shops.
That isn’t true, churches have been singled out specifically with ridiculous totally unsupportable restrictions such as no more than ten people being allowed even if the chapel seats thousands.
1 Like
