We Have the Right to Assemble and Freedom of Religion - Unlawful Arrest of Preacher

[Pogo]

The Constitution guarantees the right to religious practice of one's choice. That does NOT require "gathering"

And what about the right of the people peaceably to assemble, whether they are praying to God or petitioning the government?

They can assemble all they want, just stay apart and don't threaten the rest of us.

Then don’t you attend the assembly
There has never been any form of legal or moral or health right to be precluded from catching a contaigent via locking everyone else in their homes.

Doesn't fucking matter if I attend --- they're spreading it by congregating, and that threatens their neighbors, who then threaten their neighbors, who then etc etc.

You don't get to walk down the street sneezing and coughing in strangers' faces do you? Well this is the same thing. A matter of degree.

 

[lennypartiv]

Freedom wins again. Florida's governor agrees the pastor's church should remain open.

---Coronavirus: Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order---

Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order

New state guidelines 'shall supersede any conflicting official action or order issued by local officials in response to Covid-19'

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Pogo]

Freedom wins again. Florida's governor agrees the pastor's church should remain open.

---Coronavirus: Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order---

Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order

New state guidelines 'shall supersede any conflicting official action or order issued by local officials in response to Covid-19'

www.independent.co.uk

You mean VIRUS wins again. What fucking morons.

I thought this guy said "we can't monkey this up". Whelp --- he just did.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Freedom wins again. Florida's governor agrees the pastor's church should remain open.

---Coronavirus: Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order---

Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order

New state guidelines 'shall supersede any conflicting official action or order issued by local officials in response to Covid-19'

www.independent.co.uk

He is just a politican playing politics.....and putting the health of the general public at risk.



Not even to mention he makes a mockery of all his other actions like encouraging everyone to practice social distance, closing schools, closing beaches, closing bars, closing casinoes and closing restaurants.

Is it safer to congregate in a church than anywhere else? Of course not.

The governor is a hypocrite at best and a conniving politician at worse.....lots of church going voters in Florida. Lots of older people in florida......now what was that they said about older people being more susceptible to the virus?

Still yet the majority of churches are voluntarily closing.....it is the mega churches where the pastor makes big bucks that are the most flagrant violaters of avoiding mass gatherings.

In a new "safer-at-home" order banning many activities, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Wednesday said "attending religious services" is among the "essential" activities that would be permitted

Can someone tell me why attending relligious services is essential?

At a time when we needed a 'Solomon like decision' Desantis surely disappointed many.....if he really believed that in the short term aka whilst the virus is rampaging....that religious services are essential....he should have said they are essential but should be or only can be held in the open air....with attendees staying at least 6 ft. apart...........now that would have been Solomonesqe

 

[Faun]

So G-d gave us this virus and He gave us Impeached Trump to fuck up the response to it?

You're the idiots who thought you could get away with impeaching Trump.

LOL

Umm... Trump was impeached. Even acquittal can't wash away that stain.

No stain to wash. They tried to put one on him but it got washed away

Nope, the stain of impeachment never goes away. We used to say Johnson and Clinton were the only presidents to be impeached even though they were both acquitted and even though Johnson's impeachment was a century and a half ago. Now Impeached Trump's name is added to that laundry list.

 

[Faun]

Freedom wins again. Florida's governor agrees the pastor's church should remain open.

---Coronavirus: Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order---

Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order

New state guidelines 'shall supersede any conflicting official action or order issued by local officials in response to Covid-19'

www.independent.co.uk

You mean VIRUS wins again. What fucking morons.

I thought this guy said "we can't monkey this up". Whelp --- he just did.

They are the dumbest shits slithering on this planet. It's bad enough their going to kill many of their own members, but they're also going to kill many innocent people as they spread this disease.

WWJD

 

[WEATHER53]

I am surprised this one has so much wind
People may wish to expose themselves to a higher risk of contaigent in order to be with their Lord. That can’t be taken away because of how other people are worried about it.

Then there is the functional reality that the more is not the merrier right now. We are in the middle of the river and going on is just as good as going back

 

[Faun]

I am surprised this one has so much wind
People may wish to expose themselves to a higher risk of contaigent in order to be with their Lord. That can’t be taken away because of how other people are worried about it.

Then there is the functional reality that the more is not the merrier right now. We are in the middle of the river and going on is just as good as going back

No, you dumbfuck, we are not in the middle. We're still near the start. We're only 2 months and 1 week into this.

You people are simply out of your fucking minds.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nope, the stain of impeachment never goes away. We used to say Johnson and Clinton were the only presidents to be impeached even though they were both acquitted and even though Johnson's impeachment was a century and a half ago. Now Impeached Trump's name is added to that laundry list.

Most historians, looking back on Johnson's impeachment, generally are in agreement that that was a purely political proceeding, conducted for corrupt, partisan purposes, on the part of Congress to seize for itself power that rightfully belonged to the President. I have no doubt that in the future, historians will look back on the impeachment of President Trump in almost exactly the same way.

Possibly Clinton as well, although some amount of genuine misconduct on his part clearly occurred. Though, as with the other two impeachments, the Senate ultimately did not convict him, one of the charges that came up in those proceedings did result in Clinton being permanently having his license to practice law revoked.

 

[SweetSue92]

Right now, guidelines call for social distancing in the population however, the congress can assemble. I guess they are more 'special.'

Congress is classified as "essential government services". They're also assembling as little as humanly possible.

Congress people are significantly more susceptible to COVID 19 than other Americans. At least 5 members- 1%- have already contracted it. A significantly greater portion than the general public.

True, which is why they're assembling as little as they can manage. Nevertheless, they have a clear and specific duty in this situation, and if they're not prepared to take some risk to fulfill their duty to the American people, then they need to get the fuck out of office.

These people of deep faith feel they are taking a risk too, and they feel it's worth it. I'm a Christian and I'm not doing it--my church is meeting virtually. But I'm not going to police and shame and micromanage other people's faith (I do draw the line at actively sick people going to church though).

Most people who eat peanuts/tree nuts KNOW there are people in the world who are severely allergic, but they still eat them. Most people who get in a car KNOW they could kill or get killed, no matter if they follow every rule or not. We can't take people's Bill of Rights freedoms away just because there might be some risk. It is just then than we must be even more careful than ever. History should prove that more than anything.

And if they could "feel it's worth it" without risking anyone but themselves, that would be relevant. But they don't get to "feel it's worth it" when the "it" in question is someone ELSE'S health and safety.

Most people who eat tree nuts know there are people in the world who are severely allergic, and so they make what concessions they need to, however inconvenient, to accommodate that. Likewise, most people who get in a car know there's a degree of risk involved, and so they accept the imposition of prudent traffic laws to mitigate that. We can't demand unlimited freedoms without consideration of the freedoms of others; that's what living in a society MEANS.

And I'm tired unto death of you waving the flag in my face and screaming, "My rights! My rights!" and never, EVER addressing the inarguable fact that I HAVE RIGHTS, TOO. It's not all about you, however self-absorbed you are. I have a right not to have my safety excessively endangered because YOU have decided that it's an "outrage" for your freedom to be "infringed" by an expectation of basic responsibility to others.

There's no end to it then, you realize. You realize that the world is full of people with all kinds of health conditions that, because you said this:

I have a right not to have my safety excessively endangered because YOU have decided that it's an "outrage" for your freedom to be "infringed" by an expectation of basic responsibility to others.

You now have to accommodate, right? All the food allergies, all the fragrance allergies, you should NEVER gather in groups now because immune-compromised people are all around us, all the time, and any virus could kill them. I mean what is a "basic responsibility", who gets to decide? You make it seem so easy, and frankly I think all your fluff and outrage and bluster here tells me it's really not so easy after all. It's really not a bright clear line, and you're smart enough to know it.

 

[SweetSue92]

Right now, guidelines call for social distancing in the population however, the congress can assemble. I guess they are more 'special.'

Congress is classified as "essential government services". They're also assembling as little as humanly possible.

Congress people are significantly more susceptible to COVID 19 than other Americans. At least 5 members- 1%- have already contracted it. A significantly greater portion than the general public.

True, which is why they're assembling as little as they can manage. Nevertheless, they have a clear and specific duty in this situation, and if they're not prepared to take some risk to fulfill their duty to the American people, then they need to get the fuck out of office.

These people of deep faith feel they are taking a risk too, and they feel it's worth it. I'm a Christian and I'm not doing it--my church is meeting virtually. But I'm not going to police and shame and micromanage other people's faith (I do draw the line at actively sick people going to church though).

Most people who eat peanuts/tree nuts KNOW there are people in the world who are severely allergic, but they still eat them. Most people who get in a car KNOW they could kill or get killed, no matter if they follow every rule or not. We can't take people's Bill of Rights freedoms away just because there might be some risk. It is just then than we must be even more careful than ever. History should prove that more than anything.

If I eat peanuts it won't affect you at all

And I never think I am going to die when I drive somewhere.

But once again there is nothing being done that is prohibiting anyone from practicing their religion. People can pray at home or they can pray in a chat room or video conference etc etc etc.

It won't affect me but it can affect people like my son, whose allergies are airborne, absolutely

 

[SweetSue92]

The "right to gather to worship" ain't in there.

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.​

WHAT'S THE VERB IN THAT PHRASE, DINGO??

"Gather to worship"

That's why it was in ITALICS, Dumbass.



THIS JUST IN -- worship does not require "gather" so spare us the persecution-complex Checkers Speeches.

You're losing that argument. The Supreme Court does not take a side when citizens have expressed how they worship. For centuries people have GATHERED to worship. This is well known. It's a loser; give it up.

 

[SweetSue92]

But this current lockdown can't be open ended, we need to see a return to normalcy up ahead pretty soon. 30% unemployment is really bad news. They had it for many years in Detroit, take a look at that mess.

If this continues for very long, most of us won't need to go to places like Detroit to see it. Our own communities will look the same way.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS FIGHT FOR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and the people rubbing elbows in the church -

that would prolong the virus effecting you, and your community could be totally wiped out.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You can always tell the Leftists--they're the ones wishing death on people, generally

 

[JoeB131]

Most historians, looking back on Johnson's impeachment, generally are in agreement that that was a purely political proceeding, conducted for corrupt, partisan purposes, on the part of Congress to seize for itself power that rightfully belonged to the President. I have no doubt that in the future, historians will look back on the impeachment of President Trump in almost exactly the same way.

Andrew Johnson is rated consistently as the worst president in history, by historians...

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump might displace him, though.

Possibly Clinton as well, although some amount of genuine misconduct on his part clearly occurred. Though, as with the other two impeachments, the Senate ultimately did not convict him, one of the charges that came up in those proceedings did result in Clinton being permanently having his license to practice law revoked.

Did they also stamp his meal card no desert.

So let's look at the Republican logic.

Lying about getting a blow job is an impeachable offense.

Conspiring with a foreign government to slander your political opponent isn't, nor is completely fucking up a response to a disease that leaves thousands dead and the economy in ruins.

 

[SweetSue92]

Some people will die, but the overwhelming majority will recovered and thrive.

And most of them are old people with medical issues who only have a few years left at best anyway.

Hey, pal. My older sister is 59, with serious asthma and a couple of other things that put her in the high-risk-of-death category for this thing. Without the coronavirus and with regular medication and doctor's visits, she's a vibrant, essential part of her family's lives and will be for at least 20 years yet.

I will thank you not to be so casual and callous about people some of us love, just because they aren't YOUR loved ones.

And I will say again: my son has a severe, life-threatening peanut allergy. HIS life depends on YOU not sneaking nuts into food. And YOU and YOU and YOU. Now. Should we make laws for everyone in the world to stop putting nuts in food, in all places, or whatever, because his life needs to be sustained?

This is not an emotional argument. It's my son. It's your sister. It's really a rights v. responsibilities argument. In the end it is really no one's responsibility to keep my son alive. And it is no one's responsibility to keep your sister alive. Especially when this infringes on essential liberties.

You are incorrect. The rest of us DO have a responsibility not to simply and carelessly ignore the dangers to your son and others like him, and I doubt you'd disagree if he died because some restaurant used peanuts on the premises and didn't feel like bothering with putting up a sign (just as an example).

And it sure as shit IS your responsibility to avoid spreading a pandemic through fairly easy-to-follow social distancing rules. And shouting "my rights, my rights!" still isn't impressing me, because your rights STILL aren't unlimited. You do NOT have the right to endanger others. Your right to gather in a mob ends at the point where it infringes on MY right to not be infected by selfish assholes. EVERY right you have is limited by the rights of the people around you, and I'm very sorry to hear that I am apparently the first person who has ever informed you that you're not the only person on Earth who matters.

That is not a Constitutionally settled question, is it? And we live in a Constitutional Republic, as I'm sure you know. Not in a Mob Rule Democracy, thank God.

 

[JoeB131]

Sue's biggest fear... When people stop grovelling in front of Zombie Jesus every Sunday, they'll realize that it's no big deal.

 

[SweetSue92]

Some people will die, but the overwhelming majority will recovered and thrive.

And most of them are old people with medical issues who only have a few years left at best anyway.

Hey, pal. My older sister is 59, with serious asthma and a couple of other things that put her in the high-risk-of-death category for this thing. Without the coronavirus and with regular medication and doctor's visits, she's a vibrant, essential part of her family's lives and will be for at least 20 years yet.

I will thank you not to be so casual and callous about people some of us love, just because they aren't YOUR loved ones.

And I will say again: my son has a severe, life-threatening peanut allergy. HIS life depends on YOU not sneaking nuts into food. And YOU and YOU and YOU. Now. Should we make laws for everyone in the world to stop putting nuts in food, in all places, or whatever, because his life needs to be sustained?

This is not an emotional argument. It's my son. It's your sister. It's really a rights v. responsibilities argument. In the end it is really no one's responsibility to keep my son alive. And it is no one's responsibility to keep your sister alive. Especially when this infringes on essential liberties.

You are incorrect. The rest of us DO have a responsibility not to simply and carelessly ignore the dangers to your son and others like him, and I doubt you'd disagree if he died because some restaurant used peanuts on the premises and didn't feel like bothering with putting up a sign (just as an example).

And it sure as shit IS your responsibility to avoid spreading a pandemic through fairly easy-to-follow social distancing rules. And shouting "my rights, my rights!" still isn't impressing me, because your rights STILL aren't unlimited. You do NOT have the right to endanger others. Your right to gather in a mob ends at the point where it infringes on MY right to not be infected by selfish assholes. EVERY right you have is limited by the rights of the people around you, and I'm very sorry to hear that I am apparently the first person who has ever informed you that you're not the only person on Earth who matters.

There is no right to be guaranteed you dont become infected. Many or most of us become infected with something ever year or so and we don’t insist on shutting others down while crowing that will keep me healthy. The right to no illness that you think you have you actually do not and it gets violated anyway most every year

Right. She's insisting that we give up our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and citing that in other similar cases "people can be careful", but she's not citing any responsibilities SHE can take as a citizen to be careful herself. IE washing her hands, following social distancing, etc. In other words Individual Rights MUST be suppressed for whatever reason, "emergency", but forget any responsibility to sustain life on the other end I guess.

 

[JoeB131]

That is not a Constitutionally settled question, is it? And we live in a Constitutional Republic, as I'm sure you know. Not in a Mob Rule Democracy, thank God.

As a wise man said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

 

[SweetSue92]

Freedom wins again. Florida's governor agrees the pastor's church should remain open.

---Coronavirus: Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order---

Florida governor adds exemption for churches in stay-at-home order

New state guidelines 'shall supersede any conflicting official action or order issued by local officials in response to Covid-19'

www.independent.co.uk

This is excellent! My church is not meeting in person as I have said, but I stand by any church's right to do so

 

[JoeB131]

This is excellent! My church is not meeting in person as I have said, but I stand by any church's right to do so

While Bible Thumpers killing themselves off is usually something I would praise as "Natural Selection", this is just dumb.

This is the same kind of stupidity that got us a Child Molestation Scandal in the Catholic Church, the unwillingness of government to confront Churches when they go out of bounds.