- 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: In Montreal, you can’t have a Christian singer have a worship service in a Church
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Laws of general applicability apply to churches as well.
So if the church had a “legitimate worship service,” would they have to apply for a permit? If so, why?
1
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:59 pm to the808bass
quote:
But you’re sure the city is operating in good faith.
Oh now comes the pivot.
I didn't even make THAT argument.
quote:
Partially because you see Feaucht as a reactionary and that’s not something you and your wife can get excited at the next meeting of the Laffy who’s who.
Soooo off
quote:
And partially because you don’t like Christianity.
I don't mind most versions of Christianity at all, actually, but truthfulness isn't your strong point today. Projecting is.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Your case (from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) did not overrule the case from the Supreme Court of Canada.
So now you are a Supreme Court decisions are the only one's that matter kinda guy?
Hutterian was about drivers license, and driving is not a fundamental religious experience.
Worship is a fundamental religious experience, according to this case law, which as you know is only interpreting fundamental laws.
Putting limits on what churches do in their houses of worship would be a much higher bar (I believe in America this has some similarity to strict scrutiny).
So again, Hutterian was about government limits on non religious things, this (again not a "Supreme court case") is saying that how Churches hold their services is about government limits on religious things.
quote:
Your normal, generally-applicable law.
Which does not apply in this case, but would if the church wanted to hold it on public land.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
Keep ducking and dodging.
Collecting Ls like it’s a job.
Collecting Ls like it’s a job.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When I was caught, lying and claiming I wasn't breaking the law wouldn't absolve me of the consequences and I took responsibility for my actions.
I just tell the cops to write me the ticket.
You are such a fricking putz. Your first post in this thread demanded that someone do something you'd rather die than do on here.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
The apostles were told not to preach the gospel in Acts 4:18, where they were commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. This directive was given by the Sanhedrin to prevent the followers of Jesus from growing too popular. However, the apostles, Peter and John, refused to back down and continued to preach despite the warnings. This event highlights the conflict between the authority of the apostles and the Jewish authorities in their early days of spreading the gospel.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:00 pm to the808bass
quote:
So if the church had a “legitimate worship service,” would they have to apply for a permit? If so, why?
No. For reasons posted earlier (the court case).
As the case lays out, general regulations on churches or practitioners aren't illegal, just as it is in the US.
But if you have a concert in a church? That's different.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:01 pm to Narax
quote:
Hutterian was about drivers license, and driving is not a fundamental religious experience.
Neither are concerts.
quote:
So now you are a Supreme Court decisions are the only one's that matter kinda guy?
In terms of controlling legal authority...pretty much.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:02 pm to the808bass
quote:
Keep ducking and dodging.
Collecting Ls like it’s a job.
Ok you're at the I only have ad homs to contribute stage. Noted.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:03 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Your first post in this thread demanded that someone do something you'd rather die than do on here.
Pointing out that MAGA types are being histrionic on social media and lying? No I love doing that.
Note: first post
quote:
These stories never end up how they're portrayed on social media.
LINK
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:04 pm to GatorOnAnIsland
quote:
The apostles were told not to preach the gospel in Acts 4:18, where they were commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. This directive was given by the Sanhedrin to prevent the followers of Jesus from growing too popular. However, the apostles, Peter and John, refused to back down and continued to preach despite the warnings. This event highlights the conflict between the authority of the apostles and the Jewish authorities in their early days of spreading the gospel.
I already said if they want to chalk it up a civil disobedience that's fine, and truthful. They are free to be martyrs. Own that shite.
Lying about this being a "worship service" or what you did in OP? Not the same thing.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
Pardon, your second post. But you knew that. Waving that aloof white flag is as close as you get to owning your Ls.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:06 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Pardon, your second post.
This one?
quote:
That's clearly not what was going on
If you host an event at a church, you need a permit. You can't spin it as "worship" to break the law.
Social media lied to you. You posted it without doing research. Just own it.
I have, in fact, applied for permits for events before. It wasn't a big deal. Hell, I've applied for permits for garage sales
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You have to have permits for events universally.
This isn't entirely accurate either. I work in the entertainment industry. Standing use permits cover most venues and similar facilities with local govt entities. There isnt a need to apply for permits for each Indvidual event.
You're a fricking blowhard who thinks you know everything about everything.
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That is how people are trying to spin this, but that statement isn't applicable.
Churches have to follow general laws in both Canada and the US. They're not exempt from all laws simply for being churches.
You sure are really dumb and pretentious. You're nowhere close to being right about anything yet in this thread.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:08 pm to kilo
quote:
Standing use permits
Is, in fact, a permit.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not giving my personal policy preferences.
Why is this simple concept so difficult for y'all?
Yeah, we know.
Maybe it is your endless and accurate portrayal of the Well, Acktually- Meme and the smelling your own farts smugness in doing so.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Neither are concerts.
Ah yes, but does Montreal define in their law a concert?
Especially in relationship to a house of worship on private property?
Because all worship services are "concerts" colloquially speaking
quote:
In terms of controlling legal authority...pretty much.
I think you missed the word final, most laws on the books never make it to the supreme court, hence where they stopped is the existing case law.
Or am I wrong?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Is, in fact, a permit.
Can you fricking read?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:10 pm to Narax
quote:
private property?
Libertarians don't believe in private property
Page 9 of 43
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News