- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pastor Spell Under House Arrest with Ankle Monitor
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:58 am to olgoi khorkhoi
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:58 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
I don’t agree with the government giving itself power to strip my constitutional freedoms whenever it sees fit.
But it's not your constitutional freedom. You're simply telling yourself it is, and you're wrong.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:04 am to shawnlsu
quote:
I hope, for everyone's sake, that he takes it to the USSC. This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and can't be tolerated. It doesn't matter how selfish or stupid he is.
First, for all The individuals screaming about his 1st Amendment rights being violated, you need to actually read the 1st Amendment. It guarantees protection against government passing laws limiting religious practice. There has been no such law passed. An executive order is different than a law.
Secondly, I view this as more of a 14th Amendment issue and the SCOTUS has already ruled on these issues as referenced earlier with Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Prince v. Massachusetts.
I hope he does try to take the issue further in the courts because he is going to get shot down.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 10:07 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:07 am to OleWar
quote:
Does God lack human decency?
yes
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:16 am to DampSocksOnSaturday
quote:
I hope he does try to take the issue further in the courts because he is going to get shot down.
Maryville Baptist here in Kentucky has attempted something similar. They were holding in person services and have now sued the state claiming the restrictions (not quite a stay at home order) was infringing upon their right to practice their religion. The injunction they filed to continue the in person services without punishment was shot down pretty quick in court and the judge specifically pointed out that as long as Governor Beshear’s orders are against all mass gatherings and not just churches they don’t have a leg to stand on. He had also given churches the option of “drive thru” services. Beshear also cited multiple businesses for violating those restrictions in the same Easter weekend they took down license plate numbers of their parishioners to report to the local health departments in case they would have to quarantine over an active case.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:26 am to LSUGrad9295
quote:
I'm happy. Stupid SOB needs to be put in his place.
Yeah, we don't need silly things like rights or freedom.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:26 am to tLSU
quote:
But it's not your constitutional freedom. You're simply telling yourself it is, and you're wrong.
Oh, ok. I thought the first amendment covered the rights to exercise religion and peacefully assemble.
Of course, that and all other rights are null and void if there is a communicable disease going around (which is literally always). So the government can suspend any and all rights, at any time, to protect you from yourself.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:28 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
Oh, ok. I thought the first amendment covered the rights to exercise religion and peacefully assemble.
It does. Multiple cases (that have held up against Supreme Court challenges) have determined that some instances are no longer considered “peacefully assembling”. Violating restrictions during a state of emergency isn’t considered peaceful.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:30 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
Oh, ok. I thought the first amendment covered the rights to exercise religion and peacefully assemble.
It does. And having religious mass gatherings during a pandemic is not within the scope of either of those rights.
Signed,
The Supreme Court of the United States
Perhaps you and your friends should lobby for such an amendment.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:33 am to tLSU
I'm sure on occasions Christians lobbied the Roman Emperors, but they gained strength by doing what they wanted and suffering for it.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:34 am to tLSU
You really stretched her by quoting a passage from a justice to affirm his vote,
When this is what that case was about:
So I disregard your case as evidence contrary to the right to assemble and worship.
quote:
"The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation…. The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death...."
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
When this is what that case was about:
quote:
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.
So I disregard your case as evidence contrary to the right to assemble and worship.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:35 am to OleWar
Look like good old Pastor Spell is giving the to everyone and holding services this morning anyway
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:35 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Maryville Baptist here in Kentucky has attempted something similar. They were holding in person services and have now sued the state claiming the restrictions (not quite a stay at home order) was infringing upon their right to practice their religion. The injunction they filed to continue the in person services without punishment was shot down pretty quick in court and the judge specifically pointed out that as long as Governor Beshear’s orders are against all mass gatherings and not just churches they don’t have a leg to stand on. He had also given churches the option of “drive thru” services. Beshear also cited multiple businesses for violating those restrictions in the same Easter weekend they took down license plate numbers of their parishioners to report to the local health departments in case they would have to quarantine over an active case.
Great example. The restriction does not just cover religious practice, it covers all gatherings during the executive order.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:38 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
Oh, ok. I thought the first amendment covered the rights to exercise religion and peacefully assemble.
Of course, that and all other rights are null and void if there is a communicable disease going around (which is literally always). So the government can suspend any and all rights, at any time, to protect you from yourself.
I've already laid out the framework for this discussion from a legal perspective. People continuing to parrot bullshite like this are just pissing into the wind.
But again, for those in the back:
Freedom of exercise of religion is considered a "fundamental right". In order for the state to limit a fundamental right, it must pass "strict scrutiny". That test is three pronged: First, the state must have a "compelling interest" to limit the right. Second, the limitation must be "narrowly tailored" to meet that interest. Third, the limit must be the "least restrictive" means of meeting that interest.
If you want to swim in the deep end, come on in; the water's fine. Otherwise, keep pretending like you're the big dick while splashing around in the kiddie pool with floaties on.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 10:43 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:38 am to OleWar
quote:
I'm sure on occasions Christians lobbied the Roman Emperors, but they gained strength by doing what they wanted and suffering for it.
The Roman Emperors? Why don't you tell us about the 300 years here. Or the 80 years which have passed since the "Slippery Slope" "man them words is vague!!1!1!" case I cited. Do you feel oppressed?
The best part of all this is the vast majority of churches, including most powerful church on the planet, are getting along streaming mass.
It's embarrassing that we're having this happen here (including this trash trying to back a bus over protestors), but this kind of thing comes with having one of the least educated populations in the first world.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:40 am to BestBanker
quote:
So I disregard your case as evidence contrary to the right to assemble and worship.
Did you read up on the case? The aunt was a Jehovah Wittness and claimed the law did not apply because of her religious practice. Yes the heart of the matter was custodial actions, but the reason for challenging the law was religious belief superseding the state law.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:40 am to tLSU
This case you cite has nothing to do with the rights to assemble and worship. It's a vaccine case.
Zero to do with assembly. Here's the case summary:
You can argue case law in court to gain leverage for your position, but neither case you offered has any bearing on the right to assemble and worship.
quote:
Nope.
"A community has the right to protect itself against an epidimic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
Zero to do with assembly. Here's the case summary:
quote:
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.
You can argue case law in court to gain leverage for your position, but neither case you offered has any bearing on the right to assemble and worship.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:40 am to DampSocksOnSaturday
quote:
but the reason for challenging the law was religious belief superseding the state law.
nothing to do with assembly
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 10:42 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:42 am to JAlohaM
You know what he could do?
He could... wait for it.....
Hold service from his home and everyone could use their smart phones, iPads, and computers to tune in via the internet, He could also use apps like Zoom, Skype, Goto meeting, House party, etc to hold actual bible study and Sunday school.
That would show them.
He could... wait for it.....
Hold service from his home and everyone could use their smart phones, iPads, and computers to tune in via the internet, He could also use apps like Zoom, Skype, Goto meeting, House party, etc to hold actual bible study and Sunday school.
That would show them.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 10:42 am to BestBanker
The ruling doesn’t have to specify religious assembly to apply to this case. It deals with government orders during a pandemic superseding an individual’s religious practices.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 10:45 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News