- 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
1
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:31 am to BestBanker
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/1/21 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:31 am to BestBanker
quote:
Church is different. That's why it's in the First amendment of our Constitution.
Is church in the first amendment or are you making a false equivocation?
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 11:32 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:32 am to tLSU
quote:
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.
You’re missing the point. Just as the state doesn’t have the power to prevent a church from peacefully assemble, neither does it have the power to prevent any group from assembling. This isn’t just about a church not being able to hold its services.
Maybe you are fine giving the state the power to suspend constitutional rights, but I’m not.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:33 am to BestBanker
quote:
Church is different. That's why it's in the First amendment of our Constitution.
Freedom of exercise of religion and freedom of assembly are both considered "fundamental rights", in part because they are specifically delineated in the First Amendment:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So no, in the context of limiting large gatherings, church is not different.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:33 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
God bless
Thanks brother!
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:34 am to JAlohaM
Im not religious at all. But frick yeah.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:36 am to Joshjrn
quote:
So no, in the context of limiting large gatherings, church is not different.
Never once mentioned large gatherings. And there is no law either. Only government edict.
quote:Blah blah
, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
quote:Blah blah.
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
It's lunchtime!
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:37 am to BestBanker
quote:
And yet had nothing to do with the right to assemble and worship. You pulled the quote to argue your position.
How do you think Common Law works?
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:38 am to tLSU
quote:
The government isn't prohibiting church. It's prohibiting large gatherings of every type.
The constitution says the government does not have the power to do this. Our right to assemble isn’t granted to us by the government. In fact none of our rights are granted by the government. They are inalienable. Our founders knew that if a government was given the power of granting rights, then this also gives that government the power to revoke those rights. It horrifies me we live in a time where so many Americans have lost sight of this fact.
ETA: Downvote this post all you want. That’s all you can do though because you can’t refute it.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 11:42 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:38 am to BestBanker
quote:
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.
You are right. It could happen if the Court makeup changes. You have to remember though, just because an individual is appointed by the President doesn’t mean they suddenly start flipping previous rulings. Plenty of examples of justices that maintain the status quo in regard to case judgement precedent.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:39 am to southdowns84
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/9/20 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:39 am to BestBanker
quote:
Blah blah
Unless/until you work through a strict scrutiny analysis, this is basically all you are doing. But yes, I’m sure you will continue to be applauded by those who know vastly more about religion than they do the application of law.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:40 am to Joshjrn
Anyone supporting this s nothing more than an Authoritarian proponent. Amazing how few "Libertarians" are left here after years of pretense.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:43 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Anyone supporting this s nothing more than an Authoritarian proponent. Amazing how few "Libertarians" are left here after years of pretense.
It’s sickening how many of these sheep cheer on the government claiming the power to suspend constitutional rights that are supposed to be inalienable.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:43 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Anyone supporting this s nothing more than an Authoritarian proponent. Amazing how few "Libertarians" are left here after years of pretense.
I’m not voicing my support of anything. I’m explaining the legal analysis that is applicable in the year 2020 in the United States of America.
If I had my druthers, he would be free to preach to his flock, and surrounding property owners would have the right to refuse his flock access to their property, using force if necessary.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 11:44 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:45 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The constitution says the government does not have the power to do this. Our right to assemble isn’t granted to us by the government. In fact none of our rights are granted by the government. They are inalienable. Our founders knew that if a government was given the power of granting rights, then this also gives that government the power to revoke those rights. It horrifies me we live in a time where so many Americans have lost sight of this fact.
ETA: Downvote this post all you want. That’s all you can do though because you can’t refute it.
100% correct Darth.
This "ends justifies the means" bullshite has been the backdrop for this government overreach.
Everybody who thinks these actions don't set the stage for more loss of freedoms is sorely mistaken.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:45 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The constitution says the government does not have the power to do this.
When you start wrong, you often finish wrong.
And that's what happened.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:48 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
It’s sickening how many of these sheep cheer on the government claiming the power to suspend constitutional rights that are supposed to be inalienable.
No one has ideological principles anymore. It's a "national Inquirer" world filled with gossip and negativity where issues are decided by who you dislike the most.
We have far too many laws and regulations to control the population.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 11:49 am to tLSU
quote:
When you start wrong, you often finish wrong.
And that's what happened.
I pity you. It’s obvious during your education you were not taught actual American history, and Civics. You’re a victim of the cancer of progressivism that has for decades infected our education system. Instead of reviving an education, you recurved political indoctrination. For that I honestly pity you.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 11:50 am
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News