Supreme Court definitively puts an end to church appeals of COVID-19 orders

[mobulis]

@WuWei

@mobulis

@anon91495210

Of course they don’t. They see one as necessary and one as a silly superstition.

Yep, you need to buy food you don’t need to go to church.

Liquor stores. Pot shops.

Close em.

[WuWei]

@mobulis

@WuWei

@mobulis

@anon91495210

Of course they don’t. They see one as necessary and one as a silly superstition.

Yep, you need to buy food you don’t need to go to church.

Liquor stores. Pot shops.

Close em.

Too late.

[mobulis]

@anon91495210

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Nope, rights are not unlimited.

[anon91495210]

The SCOTUS has never been wrong?

[toreyj01]

@WuWei

@toreyj01

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.

Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot

@toreyj01

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.

No, the religion isn’t regulated; murder and rape are.

@toreyj01

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.

Polygamy is not common? Are the cases of sick children addressed by prohibited by closing the churches?

@toreyj01

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.

Walmart, Lowe’s, Home Depot.

Well, you cannot close everything, how would we get food? But you can limit the number of people allowed into these places and they did so. At Lowe’s, for instance, only 50 people were allowed in at any one time in Michigan when things were bad and for most purchases you had to order online and have curbside pickup.

And that is the thing, can you still observe your faith without be physically present inside a church? For millions of people the answer is yes. The infirm cannot attend, but they use TV services. You can’t watch the Cooking Channel and have a nice meal. And you can’t watch HGTV and have them fix your hot water heater.

There are whole cable stations dedicated to religion and observing people’s faith. And folks who rely on this are just as observant as those who attend services physically.

[IBC]

@toreyj01

. Any gathering of people in a confined space where social distancing wasn’t an option were closed.

The above is the problem. A uniform ban on the gathering of all churches on the basis of the above is silliness. Rather, churches that can use their facilities, or structure the size and number of their services to accomodate social distancing and the wearing of masks shouldn’t have been required to close their doors.*

*The asterisked sentence does not indicate I think the government can require churches to shut their doors. Rather, I’m pointing to the silliness of a uniform requirement. Especially when some churches could have done a better job than the local Burger King, or grocery store.

[WuWei]

@toreyj01

And that is the thing, can you still observe your faith without be physically present inside a church?

That is not for the government to determine.

@toreyj01

For millions of people the answer is yes. The infirm cannot attend, but they use TV services.

Irrelevant.

@toreyj01

There are whole cable stations dedicated to religion and observing people’s faith. And folks who rely on this are just as observant as those who attend services physically.

Irrelevant.

Free exercise thereof.
Peaceably assemble.

[toreyj01]

@IBC

@toreyj01

. Any gathering of people in a confined space where social distancing wasn’t an option were closed.

The above is the problem. A uniform ban on the gathering of all churches on the basis of the above is silliness. Rather, churches that can use their facilities, or structure the size and number of their services to accomodate social distancing and the wearing of masks shouldn’t have been required to close their doors.

This isn’t permanent, we have a once in a century pandemic going on. I don’t see Catholics getting in a tizzy about this, nor synagogues or mosques. Everybody needs to do their part, but a building doesn’t make your faith real, it’s what is in your heart.

[WuWei]

@IBC

A uniform ban on the gathering of all churches on the basis of the above is silliness.

It is unConstitutional.

[toreyj01]

@WuWei

@toreyj01

And that is the thing, can you still observe your faith without be physically present inside a church?

That is not for the government to determine.

@toreyj01

For millions of people the answer is yes. The infirm cannot attend, but they use TV services.

Irrelevant.

@toreyj01

There are whole cable stations dedicated to religion and observing people’s faith. And folks who rely on this are just as observant as those who attend services physically.

Irrelevant.

Free exercise thereof.
Peaceably assemble.

I will agree to disagree here.

[WuWei]

@toreyj01

@WuWei

@toreyj01

And that is the thing, can you still observe your faith without be physically present inside a church?

That is not for the government to determine.

@toreyj01

For millions of people the answer is yes. The infirm cannot attend, but they use TV services.

Irrelevant.

@toreyj01

There are whole cable stations dedicated to religion and observing people’s faith. And folks who rely on this are just as observant as those who attend services physically.

Irrelevant.

Free exercise thereof.
Peaceably assemble.

I will agree to disagree here.

I will disagree to rationalize.

[IBC]

@toreyj01

This isn’t permanent, we have a once in a century pandemic going on. I don’t see Catholics getting in a tizzy about this, nor synagogues or mosques. Everybody needs to do their part, but a building doesn’t make your faith real, it’s what is in your heart.

Two things:

1. That doesn’t address my argument. If a church can observe social distancing and its members wear masks, why should they be prohibited from gathering?

2. Modern confusion over the nature of Christian worship notwithstanding, historically Christianity has viewed public worship as a central component. Sure, that doesn’t require meeting in a building. But it does require meeting together, physically. The idea of assembly is inherent to the church. The actual word translated as “church” means “assembly”.

[IBC]

@WuWei

It is unConstitutional.

I wouldn’t care even if it was Constitutional.

[WuWei]

@toreyj01

This isn’t permanent, we have a once in a century pandemic going on. I don’t see Catholics getting in a tizzy about this, nor synagogues or mosques. Everybody needs to do their part, but a building doesn’t make your faith real, it’s what is in your heart.

Every rationalization ever.

[toreyj01]

@IBC

@toreyj01

This isn’t permanent, we have a once in a century pandemic going on. I don’t see Catholics getting in a tizzy about this, nor synagogues or mosques. Everybody needs to do their part, but a building doesn’t make your faith real, it’s what is in your heart.

Two things:

1. That doesn’t address my argument. If a church can observe social distancing and its members wear masks, why should they be prohibited from gathering?

2. Modern confusion over the nature of Christian worship notwithstanding, historically Christianity has viewed public worship as a central component. Sure, that doesn’t require meeting in a building. But it does require meeting together, physically. The idea of assembly is inherent to the church. The actual word translated as “church” means “assembly”.

1. Because it isn’t safe at the moment and you can still worship God apart from the physical structure of the church.

2. Yet for millions of Christians, they practice their faith remotely and still consider themselves Christian. For a brief time, other Christians who assemble to profess their faith will have to adjust until the time comes when it is safer. And during that time, they will still be good Christians.

[toreyj01]

@IBC

@WuWei

It is unConstitutional.

I wouldn’t care even if it was Constitutional.

According to the SCOTUS, it is Constitutional.

[anon91495210]

All this has to do with harm to unwilling participants. I think that’s the biggest problem I have here. Government is telling grown adults they cannot get together and worship because of the risk. Well, where does that nonsense stop? Driving? Sky diving? Flying? Eating unhealthy?

[anon91495210]

SCOTUS got it wrong.

[WildRose]

Our rights are not subject to what you believe is necessary or essential.

Is there any evidence you are more likely to contract this disease in church than at the grocery store?

[mobulis]

@WuWei

@toreyj01

And that is the thing, can you still observe your faith without be physically present inside a church?

That is not for the government to determine.

@toreyj01

For millions of people the answer is yes. The infirm cannot attend, but they use TV services.

Irrelevant.

@toreyj01

There are whole cable stations dedicated to religion and observing people’s faith. And folks who rely on this are just as observant as those who attend services physically.

Irrelevant.

Free exercise thereof.
Peaceably assemble.

Does not override people’s right to not have an infectious disease spread.