- 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: Central Pastor church charged, accused of disobeying governor’s order
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:05 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:05 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness say otherwise
Pro tip: those words don't appear in the actual Constitution. Another pro tip: Justice Scalia (and all of his current 'disciple' -- pardon the pun -- justices currently on the Supreme Court) would 100% uphold Louisiana's actions in this case. You don't just cite the Declaration of Independence and go 'muh rights' when you enter a courtroom. There is extensive case law on these subjects -- and you probably have a lot of free time right now to read some of it.
This post was edited on 3/31/20 at 1:06 pm
2
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:05 pm to tigerfan88
quote:
So pedophiles have an unencroachable right to molest kids because to forbid it would encroach in their pursuit of happiness?
Violating someone else's rights is not legal.
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:05 pm to tigerfan88
quote:
You have a right to go 130 mph on the interstate? I mean you know the risk and you decide to do it right?
but there are other people on the road who didn't agree to it
quote:
You have a right to buy and smoke meth? I mean you know the risk and you decide to do it right?
no, because I become a danger to an unwilling population
quote:
Also it isn’t just about the risk to the attendees. It’s about the risks to society at large when the become spreaders
The majority of American citizens have been exposed at this point
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:06 pm to lsuhunt555
and cue the con law experts.
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:06 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
That's not in the Constitution.
It's in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence isn't law.
take your fancy book learning about this exact subject somewhere else, boy. This is about feelings now. 
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:06 pm to lsuhunt555
Hilar couldn’t resist that shiny hook
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:08 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Healthcare workers and society writ large dealing with coronavirus spreaders who got infected while attending a large non-essential gathering aren’t doing so willingly either.
Your fallacy is acting as if we aren’t in the middle of a pandemic, and people’s decisions to ignore safety precautions don’t have a very measurable impact on other people’s health and safety
Your fallacy is acting as if we aren’t in the middle of a pandemic, and people’s decisions to ignore safety precautions don’t have a very measurable impact on other people’s health and safety
This post was edited on 3/31/20 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:08 pm to Unknown_Poster
quote:
Pro tip: those words don't appear in the actual Constitution. Another pro tip: Justice Scalia (and all of his current 'disciple' -- pardon the pun -- justices currently on the Supreme Court) would 100% uphold Louisiana's actions in this case. You don't just cite the Declaration of Independence and go 'muh rights' when you enter a courtroom. There is extensive case law on these subjects -- and you probably have a lot of free time right now to read some of it.
quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
maybe you should read some of it
This post was edited on 3/31/20 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:08 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Declaring a state of emergency is in no way akin to communism. You are using terms you don't understand to describe ideas you cannot comprehend.
The government dictating what businesses can operate, what businesses must make, etc. is the absolute perfect example of communism in action.
Denying people constitutionally protected rights is communism in action.
I get it that you believe everything your government tells you (like eating a low fat diet is healthy). As you age, you will realize the government is rarely right about anything and every crisis is used as a way to eliminate freedoms and liberties. At some point you have to draw a line or you'll have nothing left.
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:08 pm to billjamin
quote:
and cue the con law experts.
Consider it community teaching outreach.
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:10 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Not a big fan of organized religion, but this seems like a huge 1st Amendment issue.
It's not. He's not charged because he was practicing Christianity, which would be a violation of the 1st amendment. He's being charged because there is an order to limit gatherings to a Max of 10 people and he repeatedly violated that.
He will lose his court case.
No one is saying he can't preach or practice his religion. They are saying you can't have a crowd of 1500 people. How hard is that to understand?
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:10 pm to Unknown_Poster
quote:
Consider it community teaching outreach.
cool, go back to my last post and learn something
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:11 pm to SEClint
quote:
do you not believe what is going on in the world, or think it's just america fricking with its civilians cause it can?
I have spent a lot of time looking at the data and researching the facts. The facts are this virus isn't even in the same ballpark of dangerous as the flu.
The vast majority of people who get COVID won't even show a single symptom. The severity rate of this thing is completely skewed because asymptomatic people are not counted in the numbers because they aren't getting tested.
If you need examples, go look at the reports being released by Italy. They have indicated at least 3 asymptomatic people for every 1 symptomatic person.
People who are susceptible (severe respiratory issues and age) should isolate themselves for protection.
The rest of the country needs to go about its business because economic collapse will lead to a much larger health issue than COVID will.
This post was edited on 3/31/20 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:13 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Read this and stop posting:
quote:
Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs
879
*879 excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 594-595 (1940): "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities (footnote omitted)." We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, "are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Id., at 166-167.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)." United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, supra, at 595 (collecting cases). In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), we held that a mother could be prosecuted under the child labor laws
880
*880 for using her children to dispense literature in the streets, her religious motivation notwithstanding. We found no constitutional infirmity in "excluding [these children] from doing there what no other children may do." Id., at 171. In Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599 (1961) (plurality opinion), we upheld Sunday-closing laws against the claim that they burdened the religious practices of persons whose religions compelled them to refrain from work on other days. In Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437, 461 (1971), we sustained the military Selective Service System against the claim that it violated free exercise by conscripting persons who opposed a particular war on religious grounds.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/31/20 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:13 pm to StTiger
It would actually be more likely to be unconstitutional to allow churchgoers to assemble but prohibit non-religious gatherings from going forward.
Separation of church and state doesn’t mean the church gets to do whatever it wants. It means the state doesn’t treat the church differently, either positively or negatively, than non-religious institutions
Separation of church and state doesn’t mean the church gets to do whatever it wants. It means the state doesn’t treat the church differently, either positively or negatively, than non-religious institutions
This post was edited on 3/31/20 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:14 pm to Unknown_Poster
quote:
Pro tip: those words don't appear in the actual Constitution. Another pro tip: Justice Scalia (and all of his current 'disciple' -- pardon the pun -- justices currently on the Supreme Court) would 100% uphold Louisiana's actions in this case. You don't just cite the Declaration of Independence and go 'muh rights' when you enter a courtroom. There is extensive case law on these subjects -- and you probably have a lot of free time right now to read some of it.
That's all fine and good. Some of us believe our rights are not granted by the Constitution but merely recognized by it.
The state of course has the power to arrest and imprison people for exercising their rights, which exist regardless of the states opinion of the rights. Some of you seem to think it's good that the state exercises those powers to arrest people for gathering with their fellows.
Sad bunch you are.
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:14 pm to Unknown_Poster
The argument taking place here is old and pointless. Some will forever bang their heads against indefinite application of Constitutional rights.
Your rights aren’t unconditional, people!
Your rights aren’t unconditional, people!
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:16 pm to uway
quote:
That's all fine and good. Some of us believe our rights are not granted by the Constitution but merely recognized by it.
The state of course has the power to arrest and imprison people for exercising their rights, which exist regardless of the states opinion of the rights. Some of you seem to think it's good that the state exercises those powers to arrest people for gathering with their fellows.
Sad bunch you are.
I think it's a good idea for the state to prevent a bunch of yokels from spreading a pandemic-grade virus.
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:17 pm to Unknown_Poster
are you arguing the 14th amendment with a civil case about the first? nice
Posted on 3/31/20 at 1:18 pm to notsince98
quote:
The facts are this virus isn't even in the same ballpark of dangerous as the flu.
Well, the fact that it can be a quick killer and we have/had absolutely nothing to fight it as far as immunity goes is a legit unique danger.
Best case imo is, this wakes up the world and is better prepared for when something else comes along.
Page 5 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News