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

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Safiel

And as a practical matter, taking the fallacious “absolutist” approach to the First Amendment would be disastrous.

Under that approach, any criminal activity by a clergy member or under the auspices of a religion would be beyond the reach of any prosecution, as the Police Power would yield to Free Exercise in all cases.

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.

Well you can pontificate and complain all you like but the SC has determined thats its not infringing on anyones religious freedom.

[Optrader]

@WildRose

There’s absolutely nothing that supports such a claim.

You can practice social distancing anywhere other than say your car or a phone booth.

And many places have banned parking lot services too. People in their cars are being harassed. It is clearly an attack on Christianity.

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

Well you can pontificate and complain all you like but the SC has determined thats its not infringing on anyones religious freedom.

No, it hasn’t. What it has done is what I said above - abdicated to avoid an outcome they can’t control.

[mobulis]

@Optrader

@WildRose

There’s absolutely nothing that supports such a claim.

You can practice social distancing anywhere other than say your car or a phone booth.

And many places have banned parking lot services too. People in their cars are being harassed. It is clearly an attack on Christianity.

So other religions don’t have to obey?

[Optrader]

@toreyj01

@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?

Those are personal risks. When they endanger others, you need to step in.

For instance, seat belt laws would be considered invasive since you are the only one at risk. But drunk driving laws are okay because you could hurt someone driving drunk. Sky diving isn’t risky for others unless you land on them nor is eating unhealthy.

Nope, endangering others is perfectly acceptable to you libs. It’s just that you guys want to be the ones to decide the degree of risk that is acceptable.

[Optrader]

@toreyj01

@anon91495210

If the risk is too high to go to church, then the risk is too high to go to Walmart. What you’re describing is prior restraint. You’re stopping them from doing something because you’re afraid they MIGHT cause harm.

I answered this already. You can follow your faith by privately observing and praying, by Zoom with a preacher, by watching televised sermons. You cannot get groceries by watching the Food Channel.

But you can have them delivered…

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Nemesis

Well you can pontificate and complain all you like but the SC has determined thats its not infringing on anyones religious freedom.

No, it hasn’t. What it has done is what I said above - abdicated to avoid an outcome they can’t control.

Okay we can split hairs all you want but at this time the SC is not granting a request from the church in California to block enforcement of restrictions on attendance at religious services.

People can still worship and practice their religion.

So until the court hears this again its a done deal regardless of who here disagrees with it.

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

People can still worship and practice their religion.

Not freely. Not peaceably assemble.

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Nemesis

People can still worship and practice their religion.

Not freely. Not peaceably assemble.

Okay well you go tell the SC that. Fact remains they decided not to hear the case. Boom job done.

[anon91495210]

If they really cared about social distancing, they would be arresting these rioters and protestors by the hundreds.

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

People can still worship and practice their religion.

Not freely. Not peaceably assemble.

Okay well you go tell the SC that. Fact remains they decided not to hear the case. Boom job done.

They know, it’s why they refused to take it up.

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

People can still worship and practice their religion.

Not freely. Not peaceably assemble.

Okay well you go tell the SC that. Fact remains they decided not to hear the case. Boom job done.

They know, it’s why they refused to take it up.

Cool. Then nothing more to discuss they refused to take if up this ending the legal challenges (for the time being).

[Optrader]

@mobulis

@Optrader

@WildRose

There’s absolutely nothing that supports such a claim.

You can practice social distancing anywhere other than say your car or a phone booth.

And many places have banned parking lot services too. People in their cars are being harassed. It is clearly an attack on Christianity.

So other religions don’t have to obey?

They have the same constitutional right as Christians in America. Let them defend it for themselves. Besides, you guys aren’t concerned about Islam anyway. The left only hates Christians and Jews. Any excuse to stop them…

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

People can still worship and practice their religion.

Not freely. Not peaceably assemble.

Okay well you go tell the SC that. Fact remains they decided not to hear the case. Boom job done.

They know, it’s why they refused to take it up.

Cool. Then nothing more to discuss they refused to take if up this ending the legal challenges (for the time being).

The suits need to continue.

[Steel-W0LF]

People who trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

People can still worship and practice their religion.

Not freely. Not peaceably assemble.

Okay well you go tell the SC that. Fact remains they decided not to hear the case. Boom job done.

They know, it’s why they refused to take it up.

Cool. Then nothing more to discuss they refused to take if up this ending the legal challenges (for the time being).

The suits need to continue.

Then I hope you and others will help fund it.

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

People can still worship and practice their religion.

Not freely. Not peaceably assemble.

Okay well you go tell the SC that. Fact remains they decided not to hear the case. Boom job done.

They know, it’s why they refused to take it up.

Cool. Then nothing more to discuss they refused to take if up this ending the legal challenges (for the time being).

The suits need to continue.

Then I hope you and others will help fund it.

Absolutely.

[zantax]

@WildRose

Are people free to gather and worship as they please in the US right now?

Only if they’re looting.

[gooddad409]

@anon91495210

It’s not your choice how I follow my faith. That’s the entire point. I cannot get the same out of church by going to Zoom.

We opened back up 3 weeks ago. No limit on attendance either.

Tn has a more reasonable governor.

[Ben_Natuf]

@mobulis

YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO.

such silliness. This is exactly what rights are, the governments inability to tell you what to do. If they could, they wouldn’t be “rights”, they’d be “indulgences”