- 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 12:17 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:17 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
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.
Well said.
0
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:19 pm to southdowns84
quote:
I’m on your side of this argument from a conceptual standpoint but this a pretty ridiculous response given the litany of evidence in this thread explaining the legality of recent government actions.
I think it would be interesting to see the legal argument that religion is being restricted from being practiced in today’s technology forward age where churches are streaming services and collecting tithes via PayPal or Venmo. We’ve been legally using video streamed testimony for victims of abuse (specially child abuse) in court rooms without violating Constitutional due process.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:25 pm to tLSU
quote:
The government isn't prohibiting church. It's prohibiting large gatherings of every type.
Except grocery stores, home improvement stores, liquor stores, crawfish boilers, parks and on and on. It seems to me Pastor Spell has a good case in lieu of the exceptions.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:27 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Multiple people in this thread have pointed out Supreme Court supported cases that support state rights during a state of emergency.
Our Forefathers also established the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches to hold each other in check. IMO this is an example of that. Those who disagree that claims it's an infringement have a legal right to challenge it. People have and have been overruled. That's what is being pointed out here.
You can spout all you want about sheep and claiming not listening in history class but some of you come off as you stopped reading anything in history after the Constitution with that logic. You don't have to agree with it, but there's a valid argument on both sides and has long been the debate among those in Constitutional law.
The level of mental gymnastics progressives will go to in order to justify shitting on their own constitutional rights is amazing.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:28 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
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.
Then you should make it clear that's what you're arguing. I dwell so far in the bottom right of the four-quadrant political compass that you damned near need a map to find me. If we are talking about what we think the law should be as it concerns personal liberty, I can practically guarantee that I'll lap the lot of you
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:29 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
I think it would be interesting to see the legal argument that religion is being restricted from being practiced in today’s technology forward age where churches are streaming services and collecting tithes via PayPal or Venmo. We’ve been legally using video streamed testimony for victims of abuse (specially child abuse) in court rooms without violating Constitutional due process.
Agreed.
I expect there to be a tremendous amount of fascinating court cases resulting from this. If I’m doing legal work for insurance companies I’m certainly not worried about job security right now.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:32 pm to Doctor Strangelove
quote:
Except grocery stores, home improvement stores, liquor stores, crawfish boilers, parks and on and on. It seems to me Pastor Spell has a good case in lieu of the exceptions.
I’d have less of a problem with that if he wants to stop pretending to be a church and toss away his non-profit status.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:32 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Now, let's say that my sincerely held religious belief requires human sacrifice. Is it your legal opinion that I would be able to engage in human sacrifice without legal consequence? If the state would endeavor to stop me from practicing ritual human sacrifice, would that not be abridging my right to the free exercise of my religious beliefs, as enshrined in the First Amendment?
Alternatively, could the government eliminate church services to protect the community from the standard flu season?
How about global warming? Could the government decide that transportation needs to cease on weekends for the greater good?
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:35 pm to moneyg
quote:
Alternatively, could the government eliminate church services to protect the community from the standard flu season?
1. Compelling state interest?
2. Narrowly tailored?
3. Least restrictive?
quote:
How about global warming? Could the government decide that transportation needs to cease on weekends for the greater good?
1. Compelling state interest?
2. Narrowly tailored?
3. Least restrictive?
ETA: Now that I'm thinking about it, depending on exactly how the frame the question, your second hypo could potentially invoke intermediate scrutiny as opposed to strict scrutiny. If so, you would simply need to show an "important" state interest and that the limitation is "substantially related" to meeting that interest.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:38 pm to BluegrassBelle
Thank you for explaining how the government works, Karen. When the government says “emergency” I’m do whatever they say because they’ve already repeatedly said that I have to or face the business end of a gun. The government can say “emergency” if there is a communicable disease or for “safety”, which isn’t a clearly delineated threshold at all, meaning that we are always potentially in a state emergency. This is obviously fine because they only exist to protect me. Not only must I comply, but I should also agree and be thankful.
We should all be willing to live in cages if it saves just one life. Won’t someone please think of the children?!
Did I nail it, or is there more you need to teach me?
For the the record, in your rush to educate, you apparently missed the fact that I’m not arguing the legality of the suspension of constitutional rights during emergency declarations. My first comment was about restriction of constitutional rights, to which someone replied they weren’t constitutional rights. I cited the first amendment to show that they were, not to argue that the government hasn’t already given itself power to restrict those rights at the drop of a hat.
We should all be willing to live in cages if it saves just one life. Won’t someone please think of the children?!
Did I nail it, or is there more you need to teach me?
For the the record, in your rush to educate, you apparently missed the fact that I’m not arguing the legality of the suspension of constitutional rights during emergency declarations. My first comment was about restriction of constitutional rights, to which someone replied they weren’t constitutional rights. I cited the first amendment to show that they were, not to argue that the government hasn’t already given itself power to restrict those rights at the drop of a hat.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:42 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
The level of mental gymnastics progressives will go to in order to justify shitting on their own constitutional rights is amazing.
The world is complicated. Sometimes the meanings of words are ambiguous and legal precedents conflict.
We have a system for hashing those situations out in this country and people have tried to explain how it works to you but you’ve failed to comprehend it thus far. You’ll probably continue to do so if you insist on ignoring sense and reason.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:42 pm to southdowns84
quote:
if he wants to stop pretending to be a church and toss away his non-profit status.
Thats what most of the hostility towards this guy is about. If this were a nail salon owner no one would care. Folks have an angst towards God in there heart already and now they pounce on this guy and amazingly defend an overreach of govt.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:47 pm to Doctor Strangelove
quote:
Except grocery stores, home improvement stores, liquor stores, crawfish boilers, parks and on and on. It seems to me Pastor Spell has a good case in lieu of the exceptions.
Yet again he wasn’t arrested for having church. He was arrested for trying to back his vehicle or threatening to die such with his church van...
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:49 pm to southdowns84
A federal judge already struck down a police chiefs ruling that a Greenville MS church could not hold services in their parking lot. Don’t be so sure you have accurately interpreted the Bill of Rights.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:49 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on the need in this particular cases
Have you pushed for the closing day of Walmart or Costco?
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:50 pm to rattlebucket
quote:
Thats what most of the hostility towards this guy is about. If this were a nail salon owner no one would care. Folks have an angst towards God in there heart already and now they pounce on this guy and amazingly defend an overreach of govt.
You might be right here.
For the record though, I’m a Christian. My problem with Spell is that he’s a narcissist sociopath that’s misusing religion to feed his need for attention and convince people to give him their stimulus check.
I’ll give him credit for being good at what he does but I won’t be foolish enough to white knight him in the name of religion.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:51 pm to JAlohaM
What time is Judge Crifasi holding a contempt of court hearing?
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:51 pm to tLSU
quote:
Once again, you can quote the Constitution but you don't actually understand what the right of association/assembly is. The lack of prohibition on holding mass remotely during the stay at home destroys your position on assembly.
It's kind of funny to see the attorneys on here get tied logically.
The first amendment absolutely guarantees the right of peaceful assembly. It absolutely guarantees the right of free speech. It absolutely guarantees the right to exercise religion.
The premise that you would have to be a legal expert to understand the first amendment is ridiculously flawed.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:52 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
But in this case it’s both legal and right.
Authoritarians would agree.
Funny, people feared Trump would be an authoritarian, and quite a few of those same people are complaining that we haven't been authoritarian enough.
We will have much more of th S under the banner of climate change over the next decade.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 12:54 pm to tLSU
quote:
You never had the right to invoke free exercise or assembly to be treated differently from the public
The government doesn't have the power to prevent the peaceful assembly of the public. Using that as the basis for eliminating the free exercise of religion is absurd.
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News