Justice Department sues New Jersey synagogue protesters using law meant to protect abortion clinics

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Let me remind you of your previous posted message. Seems you are picking and choosing which lives and businesses to disrupt depending on YOUR agreement or lack of agreement with those businesses. So, yeah, it is comparable and I know you already knew that. Your post proves it.

None of the entities you listed are "the government" so what right do people have to disrupt the lives/businesses of others because they simply don't agree with them or their practices?

Why are you always trying to pick fights with me? You're ignorant, I accept that, so why do you insist on belaboring this point?

 

[pknopp]

You're mistaken. The "Constitutional" right to protest that you're referring to is in regard to our government.

No it isn't.

The first amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither congregants attending services at their respective houses of worship nor women seeking reproductive services are "the government" to which the 1st amendment applies.

People have had the right to protest any old thing they want from the beginning.

Where do people get these ideas?

Dozens rally in Prince George’s County against data center project at abandoned mall site - WTOP News

Illegal?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No it isn't.

No it isn't what? Protected under the Constitution?

Why do you think that even though a significant portion of the country hated it, that the Black Lives Matter protests and marches were allowed all across the nation? Because they ("the people" of Black Lives Matter and their allies) were assembling and protesting in accordance with their Constitutional rights in order to let their government know that they wanted their grievances redressed (for the police which is a government agency, to stop unlawfully killing Black people).

Why do you think that more than 700 people who participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th 2025 ended up with criminal convictions? Because they were not peaceably assembled (or at least they didn't stay that way), they engaged in threats & violence and violated a plethora of laws. Yet many seemed to think that their actions on that day were comparable to the peaceable Black Lives Matter marches & protests and appeared to be angry and surprised to discover that no they aren't the same set of circumstances.

 

[pknopp]

No it isn't what? Protected under the Constitution?

Why do you think that even though a significant portion of the country hated it, that the Black Lives Matter protests and marches were allowed all across the nation? Because they ("the people" of Black Lives Matter and their allies) were assembling and protesting in accordance with their Constitutional rights in order to let their government know that they wanted their grievances redressed (for the police which is a government agency, to stop unlawfully killing Black people).

Why do you think that more than 700 people who participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th 2025 ended up with criminal convictions? Because they were not peaceably assembled (or at least they didn't stay that way), they engaged in threats & violence and violated a plethora of laws. Yet many seemed to think that their actions on that day were comparable to the peaceable Black Lives Matter marches & protests and appeared to be angry and surprised to discover that no they aren't the same set of circumstances.

You avoided my question and now I do yours.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No it isn't what? Protected under the Constitution?

Why do you think that even though a significant portion of the country hated it, that the Black Lives Matter protests and marches were allowed all across the nation? Because they ("the people" of Black Lives Matter and their allies) were assembling and protesting in accordance with their Constitutional rights in order to let their government know that they wanted their grievances redressed (for the police which is a government agency, to stop unlawfully killing Black people).

Why do you think that more than 700 people who participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th 2025 ended up with criminal convictions? Because they were not peaceably assembled (or at least they didn't stay that way), they engaged in threats & violence and violated a plethora of laws. Yet many seemed to think that their actions on that day were comparable to the peaceable Black Lives Matter marches & protests and appeared to be angry and surprised to discover that no they aren't the same set of circumstances.

peaceful black lives matter marches? there were close to 200 riots in those marches with billions in damage over 30 lives lost and over 2000 cops hurt. and you compare that to one riot?

 

[pknopp]

peaceful black lives matter marches? there were close to 200 riots in those marches with billions in damage over 30 lives lost and over 2000 cops hurt. and you compare that to one riot?

One was a protest over civil rights violations over decades while the other was over the lies of a poor loser.

 

[fncceo]

The mantra of the new antisemite is … “We don’t hate The Jews, we just hate Zionists”.

And then they goose step off and intimidate Jews in their house of worship.

I think the COVID vaccine destroyed people’s sense of self awareness.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One was a protest over civil rights violations over decades while the other was over the lies of a poor loser.

the reality is that very few black people are killed by cops unarmed and some of those that were did have weapons just not a firearm. almost all killings by cops are justified and the few that aren't are investigated and the cops put on trial.

the Floyd riots were NOT justified and no amount of you or anyone else making excuses makes them justified. The reality is that when a black person is killed by a cop no matter the reason there is almost always a riot or a few. And most killings are justified.

I am way past caring that a gangbanger pulled a firearm on cops and got shot. Or refused to follow the orders of cops and was man handled.

 

[Missourian]

You're mistaken. The "Constitutional" right to protest that you're referring to is in regard to our government.

The first amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither congregants attending services at their respective houses of worship nor women seeking reproductive services are "the government" to which the 1st amendment applies.

The police are agents of the government and therefore cannot force them to disperse from a public place and neither can you, because you have no right to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your own stupid shit used against you?

Who could have seen that coming???

Come on. Zincwarrior and I have certainly gone toe to toe on issues from time to time, but nothing in his (her?) OP was derogatory toward anybody nor has was it made a partisan issue of any sort.

Interesting topic actually.

 

[whitehall]

"What's good for the goose....etc."

 

[Foxfyre]

The police are agents of the government and therefore cannot force them to disperse from a public place and neither can you, because you have no right to do so.

The unalienable rights protected by the Constitution as 'blessings of liberty' are unlisted as they are too many to effectively categorize. The Declaration did give some examples in its opening clauses: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

For that reason almost every place in America has laws against disturbing the peace. And certainly harassing, blocking access, verbally assaulting people coming to their place of worship is a violation of the constitutionally protected peace of those people coming to worship.

Personally I think the law was too narrowly drawn.

There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests anybody should be allowed to block access to any public walkway, street, bridge, highway/roadway or any legally operated business, organization, or public entity. To do so should be understood as unlawful everywhere and punishable by arrest, fine, incarceration, serious community service, or any combination of of those.

 

[Concerned American]

Neither congregants attending services at their respective houses of worship nor women seeking reproductive services are "the government" to which the 1st amendment applies.

And the protests cannot and should not occur on private property. Public property in front of or across the public street from is not private property.

 

[Concerned American]

Why are you always trying to pick fights with me?

Why are you always making ridiculous generalized statements that have no defense? When I see a falsehood that is presented to disingenuously support your biased belief I call it out. If you don't want to be challenged, don't post. That is the nature of this board. BTW, resorting to pejoratives doesn't advance your point either, just sayin'

 

[Missourian]

Come on. Zincwarrior and I have certainly gone toe to toe on issues from time to time, but nothing in his (her?) OP was derogatory toward anybody nor has was it made a partisan issue of any sort.

Interesting topic actually.

Seems pretty partisan to me that the title claims "using a law intended to protect abortion clinics" but the last line of the OP makes it clear it was intended to also protect places of worship.

 

[Missourian]

There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests anybody should be allowed to block access to any public walkway, street, bridge, highway/roadway or any legally operated business, organization, or public entity.

And we have laws that forbid those activities everywhere.

No need for special laws.

 

[pknopp]

the reality is that very few black people are killed by cops unarmed and some of those that were did have weapons just not a firearm. almost all killings by cops are justified and the few that aren't are investigated and the cops put on trial.

the Floyd riots were NOT justified and no amount of you or anyone else making excuses makes them justified. The reality is that when a black person is killed by a cop no matter the reason there is almost always a riot or a few. And most killings are justified.

I am way past caring that a gangbanger pulled a firearm on cops and got shot. Or refused to follow the orders of cops and was man handled.

Elijah McClain was walking home minding his own business.

 

[Missourian]

Why do you think that even though a significant portion of the country hated it, that the Black Lives Matter protests and marches were allowed all across the nation? Because they ("the people" of Black Lives Matter and their allies) were assembling and protesting in accordance with their Constitutional rights in order to let their government know that they wanted their grievances redressed

Yet organizations like Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition protested hundreds of businesses...

‎Gemini - direct access to Google AI

Created with Gemini

g.co

 

[MayorQuimby]

Yet organizations like Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition protested hundreds of businesses...

‎Gemini - direct access to Google AI

Created with Gemini

g.co

I can't comment on the constitutionality of Jackson's protests, but if you ask me, they really can be argued as to to a form of harassment. Imagine if I just go up to a business and start chanting outside their store with a sign, causing a scene and even stopping patrons from going inside. That would be harassment.

 

[pknopp]

I can't comment on the constitutionality of Jackson's protests, but if you ask me, they really can be argued as to to a form of harassment. Imagine if I just go up to a business and start chanting outside their store with a sign, causing a scene and even stopping patrons from going inside. That would be harassment.

Stopping people is not protected.