re: Pastor Spell Under House Arrest with Ankle Monitor

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 dude is finna sue gov from state down, and win.

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.

quote:

---

This dude is finna sue gov from state down, and win.

---

Highly unlikely.

(no message)

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.