- 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 11:13 am to tLSU
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:13 am to tLSU
quote:
Once again, you can quote the Constitution but you don't actually understand what the right of association/assembly is.
Thanks for your opinion, but I beg to differ. The first amendment is easily understood
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:14 am to BestBanker
quote:
Thus the argument for the right to assemble and freely exercise the right to worship. There's a big line that hasn't been crossed. Obviously previously adjudicated cases may offer insight as to how issues may be observed and treated, but I no of no case that allows interference with assembly to worship.
I see what you are saying that there are not specific judgements that relate to the issue at hand. Do you understand that the Supreme Court looks to other cases with similar issues (not exactly the same) to guide their decisions?
My point is that if he takes this up the courts, I think he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The only reason the SCOTUS may hear this case is to further narrow the interpretation of a Constitutional Amendment.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 11:21 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:14 am to JAlohaM
I’d just like to know what gives elected officials the power to revoke the rights of the people the Constitution say cannot be infringed.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:15 am to BestBanker
As you've been told ad nauseum, a restriction which applies to everyone, not simply religion. This is a "generally applicable law" and by its very nature doesn't violate these church members' liberty.
What you're asking for is to treat the church differently than the population. Give us rights to hold large gatherings that contradict the law applied to the public.
Doesn't work. Employment Division v. Smith. And that's Scalia.
What you're asking for is to treat the church differently than the population. Give us rights to hold large gatherings that contradict the law applied to the public.
Doesn't work. Employment Division v. Smith. And that's Scalia.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 11:15 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:17 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I’d just like to know what gives elected officials the power to revoke the rights of the people the Constitution say cannot be infringed.
The rights you're referencing never encompassed the behavior you're attempting to justify thereunder.
Just like screaming fire in a crowded theater was never protected by the First Amendment despite the government's inability to infringe upon free speech.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:17 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
It’s also worth noting that if a state Governor has been restricting any mass gatherings during a pandemic, regardless of religious affiliation, then it’s not exclusively restricting religious practice. And that will come into play in any decision. Even Barr said as much in his comments.
Let’s be honest, Spell doesn’t give a shite about religion. This is about attention and money. He’s using religion as a means to his ends.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:17 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
Read the thread.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:18 am to BestBanker
quote:
Thanks for your opinion, but I beg to differ. The first amendment is easily understood
You've shown us that this apparently is not the case at all.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:20 am to tLSU
So what you’re saying is anytime the government says there is an “emergency” our constitutional rights are void. If that’s the case, then our constitutional rights are as good as dead seeing how the government is the sole arbiter of what constitutes an emergency.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:22 am to DampSocksOnSaturday
quote:
My point is that if he takes this up the courts, I think he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
And that's possible. But the blanket statements of fact by some who claim to know all doesn't necessarily grant approval by the courts. Say the SC gains another Trump appointee and they are in my argument camp, and vote 6-3. It doesn't make right or wrong; it's a vote of majority. It makes case.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 11:30 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:22 am to JAlohaM
This dude is finna sue gov from state down, and win.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:23 am to tLSU
quote:
You've shown us that this apparently is not the case at all.
No. It's easy to comprehend. You're just arguing.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:23 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
So what you’re saying is anytime the government says there is an “emergency” our constitutional rights are void. If that’s the case, then our constitutional rights are as good as dead seeing how the government is the sole arbiter of what constitutes an emergency.
No, what I'm saying is that what you never had can't disappear or be "void."
You never had the right to invoke free exercise or assembly to be treated differently from the public and thus be able to hold large gatherings during the pandemic in violation of law. It didn't exist. So it's not being taken away or voided.
If you want to scream "fire" in your house or yard, you can. If you do it in a theater, you're going to jail.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 11:25 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:24 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I’d just like to know what gives elected officials the power to revoke the rights of the people the Constitution say cannot be infringed.
But why male models?
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:25 am to White Bear
quote:
This dude is finna sue gov from state down, and win.
Highly unlikely.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:25 am to tLSU
Latin's a dead language.
Church is different. That's why it's in the First amendment of our Constitution.
quote:
What you're asking for is to treat the church differently than the population.
Church is different. That's why it's in the First amendment of our Constitution.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:27 am to BestBanker
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:27 am to White Bear
I hope he waste a lot of his dumb flocks money trying to sue. He’s going to lose big time.
Also will be wasting money to get bailed out of jail.
Also will be wasting money to get bailed out of jail.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:28 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
So what you’re saying is anytime the government says there is an “emergency” our constitutional rights are void. If that’s the case, then our constitutional rights are as good as dead seeing how the government is the sole arbiter of what constitutes an emergency.
You’re not wrong.
The problem is that it’s easy to imagine fact patterns justifying both sides of this argument.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:29 am to BestBanker
quote:
Church is different. That's why it's in the First amendment of our Constitution.
Scalia disagreed. That's why your church can't declare that it can smoke peyote as a religious practice despite general law saying this activity is illegal.
The government isn't prohibiting church. It's prohibiting large gatherings of every type.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News