- 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 12:43 am to jlntiger
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:43 am to jlntiger
quote:
He has a right and the governing infringed on that right .
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).
"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)
4
Posted on 4/26/20 at 8:22 am to tLSU
So citing a law with a law to counter a right?
So many are so fearful.
BTW, his congregants don't have to attend if service is offered.
So many are so fearful.
BTW, his congregants don't have to attend if service is offered.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:32 am to tLSU
quote:
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).
"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)
That’s dangerous language. “Communicable disease”, “ill-health and “threatens the safety” covers everything, including the common cold. I don’t agree with the government giving itself power to strip my constitutional freedoms whenever it sees fit.
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 10:40 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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News