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

[justinacolmena]

church with a strong religious conviction that it must meet weekly and in person, as a single body, for worship

I wouldn't obsess about it, but that's what churches are and what they do, pretty much guaranteed as a free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

 

[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.

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

Sorry, I likely misunderstood your point.
But in general I do not like the strategy or tactics being used by the government in this health crisis.
Ignoring herd immunity, the only means that has ever ended ANY entrenched epidemic, seems insane to me.
Those claiming it would kill too many clearly have no basis, especially now that with more testing we discovered 90% of those infected are asymptomatic, and covid-19 had been proven to be only a tenth as lethal as once believed.

 

[easyt65]

Actually, looting and burning ARE constitutionally protected activities, when necessary.

I think that is found in the same section right between where it states I have 'the Constitutional Right to take anything I 'need' from anyone, any where, at any time IF NECESSARY' and I have a right to shoot anyone who pisses me off anywhere at any time IF NECESSARY.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Just one more reason ACB must be confirmed ASAP.

.

 

[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.

You have a right to express you opinion

but not to loot and set fires

No, if government corruption has deliberately violated the rights of a single person, such as murdering them and not admitted it, then the whole government loses all authority and must be utterly destroyed as something evil.
We can allow for a government to make some mistakes, but not to have a deliberate policy of evil.
And yet it clearly does.
For example, the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, ex-felons not being allowed to vote, etc., are all utterly and completely illegal.
Even police pointing firearms are unarmed suspects is reckless endangerment.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually, looting and burning ARE constitutionally protected activities, when necessary.

I think that is found in the same section right between where it states I have 'the Constitutional Right to take anything I 'need' from anyone, any where, at any time IF NECESSARY' and I have a right to shoot anyone who pisses me off anywhere at any time IF NECESSARY.

Wrong.
The constitution is clear it does not list all the things you can do.
For example, we have always had and respected the right of privacy, even though it is not listed in the Constitution.
The Constitution does not work that way, and many argued against a Bill of Rights for the very reason it may incorrectly cause some to claim that only listed rights exist.
But the Declaration of Independence makes is VERY clear we don't just have the right to loot and burn when government has become corrupt, but a duty to.
We have a collective duty to protect each other from government over reach.

 

[easyt65]

Actually, looting and burning ARE constitutionally protected activities, when necessary.

I think that is found in the same section right between where it states I have 'the Constitutional Right to take anything I 'need' from anyone, any where, at any time IF NECESSARY' and I have a right to shoot anyone who pisses me off anywhere at any time IF NECESSARY.

Wrong.
The constitution is clear it does not list all the things you can do.
For example, we have always had and respected the right of privacy, even though it is not listed in the Constitution.
The Constitution does not work that way, and many argued against a Bill of Rights for the very reason it may incorrectly cause some to claim that only listed rights exist.
But the Declaration of Independence makes is VERY clear we don't just have the right to loot and burn when government has become corrupt, but a duty to.
We have a collective duty to protect each other from government over reach.

So as long as the Constitution does not say I CAN'T do something I can do it?

Sweet!

 

[easyt65]

But the Declaration of Independence makes is VERY clear we don't just have the right to loot and burn when government has become corrupt, but a duty to.

If it is 'VERY CLEAR', then, by all means, again, POST THE LINK AND THE VERBIAGE.

 

[WEATHER53]

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

This same shit applies all over the place
People in recovery are dropping like flies because 95% of all meetings are not in person. All of the charters of these groups prohibit “affiliation with outside issues or interests” and there are no exemptions for the CDC or health departments yet most have crumbled and circulated CDC protocols to soothe their fatal perspective that their sofa is a great place to have a meeting from

Far, far, far more alcoholics and addicts are dying from relapse than Covid
Far far far too many municipalities have wrapped themselves into these unconstitutional dictates

 

[pknopp]

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

Godwin.

 

[2aguy]

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

However, there is an exception......the democrat party exception....

If it gets in the way of the democrat party, it is not allowed........if it helps the democrat party get power, nothing will stop it....

 

[22lcidw]

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.

The people of Religion turned their cheek so much they have been marginalized and now their persecution is part of the shadow on the land. Only putting machine guns in Churches will stop yur azzes.

 

[easyt65]

But the Declaration of Independence makes is VERY clear we don't just have the right to loot and burn when government has become corrupt, but a duty to.

You know you are advocating the same type of STUPID F*ING IDEA hippies and assholes had in the 60s, right? These people were against the Viet Nam war, and instead of venting their anger on the politicians responsible for it they berated, spat upon, attacked, and called returning soldiers 'Baby Killers' ands worse.

These soldiers were mostly NON-volunteers, draftees who were forced to go to war, found themselves fighting a war like we had never seen =, an enemy unlike what we had ever seen - an enemy so committed to win they would strap bombs to children.... These guys fought because they were forced to and fought to come back home to a country who demonized THEM instead of the politicians who sent them there to fight.

Now you are attempting to justify foreign-funded domestic terrorists bussed around from city to city who instigate violence and start the burning and destroying, attempting to say it is anyone's 'right' and 'duty' to loot someone's privately-owned business, to burn down some innocent citizen's store because you are pissed at the 'injustice in the system' / because the GOVERNMENT is bad?!

WTF?!

All you did by burning down someone's store / business is 'shoot someone in the head' - destroying their lives who probably agreed with your cause....until this. 'BLM' is going to exact 'justice' for 'abused/discriminated against' blacks....by BURNING DOWN LOCAL MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES?

Brilliant f*ing thinking....

 

[airplanemechanic]

When tattoo parlors can operate at 100% capacity and churches are allowed a single member in their congregation (San Fran) something is fucked up.

 

[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.

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.

Thats great. My only argument is that they can not argue discrimination when the government is treating everyone the same.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

Isn't it crazy, we now live in a country where rioting is okay and going to church is against the law. What a messed up world.

 

[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.

Thats great. My only argument is that they can not argue discrimination when the government is treating everyone the same.

Yes they can. They can ban all religions and it would be unconstitutional. They could ban all guns and it would unconstitutional. Them denying them the right to assemble is a violation of the constitution. Denying one their right to practice their religious freedom is a violation of the constitution. It has nothing to do with RFK Stadium, RFK Stadium was a suggested compromise to the city, not for them. They still have the right to assemble for religious reasons, the city does not have the right to prevent them.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually, looting and burning ARE constitutionally protected activities, when necessary.

I think that is found in the same section right between where it states I have 'the Constitutional Right to take anything I 'need' from anyone, any where, at any time IF NECESSARY' and I have a right to shoot anyone who pisses me off anywhere at any time IF NECESSARY.

Wrong.
The fact all others have equal constitutional rights that you can't infringe upon, predates the Constitution.
The constitution essentially is just delineating between federal and all other jurisdictions.
It does not try to divide up between state, local, and individual jurisdictions at all.

 

[Rigby5]

But the Declaration of Independence makes is VERY clear we don't just have the right to loot and burn when government has become corrupt, but a duty to.

You know you are advocating the same type of STUPID F*ING IDEA hippies and assholes had in the 60s, right? These people were against the Viet Nam war, and instead of venting their anger on the politicians responsible for it they berated, spat upon, attacked, and called returning soldiers 'Baby Killers' ands worse.

These soldiers were mostly NON-volunteers, draftees who were forced to go to war, found themselves fighting a war like we had never seen =, an enemy unlike what we had ever seen - an enemy so committed to win they would strap bombs to children.... These guys fought because they were forced to and fought to come back home to a country who demonized THEM instead of the politicians who sent them there to fight.

Now you are attempting to justify foreign-funded domestic terrorists bussed around from city to city who instigate violence and start the burning and destroying, attempting to say it is anyone's 'right' and 'duty' to loot someone's privately-owned business, to burn down some innocent citizen's store because you are pissed at the 'injustice in the system' / because the GOVERNMENT is bad?!

WTF?!

All you did by burning down someone's store / business is 'shoot someone in the head' - destroying their lives who probably agreed with your cause....until this. 'BLM' is going to exact 'justice' for 'abused/discriminated against' blacks....by BURNING DOWN LOCAL MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES?

Brilliant f*ing thinking....

Wrong.
I am not promoting the hippie ideas of the 60's, I am a hippie of the 60's. and I can tell you that NO ONE spat at returning vets.
That is because about 60% of the war protestors WERE returning vets.
It was the vets who knew how corrupt and evil the Vietnam war was.

And please, stop saying foolish things like that the Vietnamese would strap bombs to children.
That is totally false.

And there is NO foreign funding of BLM. Only wish there was.
Why loot and burn?
Because you can't get at those in power any other way, and you have to go after profits in order to change anything.
Attacking police can't work, not only because they are too well armed, but the bosses on top won't care what happens to police.
The only way to force reform is by hitting profits.
And no. that does not harm individuals because everyone has insurance.
It only harms the insurance companies, and they are the ones that should be harmed because they are the cause.

 

[Mac-7]

No, if government corruption has deliberately violated the rights of a single person, such as murdering them and not admitted it, then the whole government loses all authority and must be utterly destroyed as something evil.

If thats what you think, and if you are willing to murder civil authority, are you also willing to die for your beliefs?