- 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 10:38 am to olgoi khorkhoi
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 11:59 am to Joshjrn
quote:
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.
I’m not arguing the legality of the government restricting rights. Yes, the government has given itself legal power to reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of the citizenry. I’m saying I don’t agree with it.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)