DOJ Hammers DC Mayor: 'There Is No Pandemic Exception to the Constitution'

[easyt65]

Capitol Hill Baptist Church is an 853-member church with a strong religious conviction that it must meet weekly and in person, as a single body, for worship. Mayor Bowsers onerous COVID-19 orders first capped worship services at 10 people and now 100. Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) has not been able to meet together in the District since March. As a temporary measure, they’ve been meeting in a field in Virginia.

The congregation had asked the mayor for permission to meet at the 45,000-plus-seat Robert F. Kennedy stadium, which would give them ample room to social distance, but the city denied the application for a waiver, and also the church’s appeals. As a result, the church filed a law suit and a request for a temporary restraining order asking that they be allowed to hold outdoor worship services in the District of Columbia, citing the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.CHBC says the mayor has double standards—one for churches and another for large gatherings of protesters. The lawsuit pointed out that the mayor herself has attended some of these gatherings.


The Department of Justice on Friday announced it had filed a statement of interest in the case filed by Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., against the District of Columbia and Mayor Muriel Bowser:

“While a local government has significant discretion to decide what measures to adopt to meet a public health threat, the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution requires that, whatever level of restrictions it adopts, government must treat religious gatherings the same as comparable nonreligious gatherings, absent the government meeting strict scrutiny, that is, proving that it has a compelling governmental interest pursued through the least restrictive means,” the DOJ argued in the statement of interest. “Similarly, the Free Speech Clause forbids the government from discriminating against certain speech while privileging other speech with a viewpoint favored by the government, unless it meets strict scrutiny.”

The District of Columbia is also bound by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Justice Department said, and “requires that any government action imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise meet strict scrutiny.” The city’s current approach to COVID-19 restrictions “has the effect of treating some forms of protected First Amendment activity differently than other forms of comparable activity and in so doing singles out religious exercise for differential treatment.” CHBC has demonstrated that its lawsuit is likely to succeed on merits, the statement of interest noted."

DOJ Blasts D.C. Mayor for 'Silencing' Churches: 'There Is No Pandemic Exception to the Constitution'

The DOJ stood up for Capitol Hill Baptist Church, saying Washington, D.C., is unlikely to succeed in pushing its COVID pandemic double standard.

pjmedia.com

 

[pknopp]

There are many questionable things going on and many are arguably unconstitutional but not allowing them to use the stadium likely is a bad case to pick as no one is using the stadium with people in the stands.

 

[Oddball]

There are many questionable things going on and many are arguably unconstitutional but not allowing them to use the stadium likely is a bad case to pick as no one is using the stadium with people in the stands.

If you're afraid of the Commievirus cooties, cower in place™ in your basement with your face diaper, and don't go to a stadium.

Is minding your own damn business and leaving alone the rest of us who don't want to live in an irrational state of constant panic really that much to ask?

 

[pknopp]

There are many questionable things going on and many are arguably unconstitutional but not allowing them to use the stadium likely is a bad case to pick as no one is using the stadium with people in the stands.

If you're afraid of the Commievirus cooties, cower in place™ in your basement with your face diaper, and don't go to a stadium.

ad hominem. Have anything else? I was discussing the facts. You discussed me by making something up.

Is minding your own damn business and leaving alone the rest of us who don't want to live in an irrational state of constant panic really that much to ask?

Bite me. I never said anything about that. I even said that there are clearly constitutional questions in place here. You still felt an irrational need to attack me as opposed to addressing what I said.

 

[Mac-7]

There are many questionable things going on and many are arguably unconstitutional but not allowing them to use the stadium likely is a bad case to pick as no one is using the stadium with people in the stands.

The fly in the ointment for liberals who support suppressing religious expression is the fact that the radical left is allowed to pillage and burn American cites night after night

 

[pknopp]

There are many questionable things going on and many are arguably unconstitutional but not allowing them to use the stadium likely is a bad case to pick as no one is using the stadium with people in the stands.

The fly in the ointment for liberals who support suppressing religious expression is the fact that the radical left is allowed to pillage and burn American cites night after night

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

 

[Mac-7]

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little depending on your point of view

 

[Mac-7]

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view

But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

 

[pknopp]

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little depending on your point of view

And I never argued they had any right to suppress anyone's faith.

 

[pknopp]

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view

But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?

 

[Rigby5]

There are many questionable things going on and many are arguably unconstitutional but not allowing them to use the stadium likely is a bad case to pick as no one is using the stadium with people in the stands.

Except that so far no one has found a single case where there has been a covid-19 transmission outside.

 

[pknopp]

There are many questionable things going on and many are arguably unconstitutional but not allowing them to use the stadium likely is a bad case to pick as no one is using the stadium with people in the stands.

Except that so far no one has found a single case where there has been a covid-19 transmission outside.

And? You can argue that officials should rescind their restrictions but that isn't what I addressed.

 

[Rigby5]

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view

But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Actually, looting and burning ARE constitutionally protected activities, when necessary.
The Declaration of Independence says it more directly, but clearly if a government violates rights, we have a duty to destroy that government and start over.
The only question is whether or not that has happened, and then which strategy is best?
But there are no limits as to what can be done to be rid of government corruption and abuses.

 

[pknopp]

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view

But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Actually, looting and burning ARE constitutionally protected activities, when necessary.
The Declaration of Independence says it more directly, but clearly if a government violates rights, we have a duty to destroy that government and start over.
The only question is whether or not that has happened, and then which strategy is best?
But there are no limits as to what can be done to be rid of government corruption and abuses.

They aren't Constitutionally protected but the founders understood that the people would turn on an authoritarian government and supported that. Its why they created the 2nd amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little depending on your point of view

We all have the right to fight against any infringement of rights, by individuals or government.
Abuses by government are notorious.
Abuses by Christian faith less so.

 

[Mac-7]

And I never argued they had any right to suppress anyone's faith.

Good for you

But the baby hitlers running some democrat cities think they do

 

[Papageorgio]

There are many questionable things going on and many are arguably unconstitutional but not allowing them to use the stadium likely is a bad case to pick as no one is using the stadium with people in the stands.

They could meet in the city with their masks and call it a peaceful protest, then proceed to overturn cars, loot, set fires and destroy personal property, that seems to be acceptable in the world today.

The church is trying to find a middle ground, they want to social distance and letting them do so at RFK stadium is a nice compromise instead of all 863 of them packing into a church. The right to practice ones religion is pretty fundamental and the fact they are hoping to find a compromise instead of packing a church and create a real or imagined health threat shows their respect for the mayor.

 

[easyt65]

Actually, looting and burning ARE constitutionally protected activities, when necessary.
The Declaration of Independence says it more directly, but clearly if a government

Puh-lease provide the link and page/section/paragraph/sentence reference to the Constitution that says Americans have a Constitutional Right to loot and burn innocent American citizens'; business and homes....I can't wait to see this.

 

[easyt65]

They could meet in the city with their masks and call it a peaceful protest, then proceed to overturn cars, loot, set fires and destroy personal property, that seems to be acceptable in the world today.

And get their body armor, shields, and weapons out of the back of U-Haul being driven around...or something?

 

[Mac-7]

That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.

Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little depending on your point of view

We all have the right to fight against any infringement of rights, by individuals or government.
Abuses by government are notorious.
Abuses by Christian faith less so.

You have a right to express you opinion

but not to loot and set fires