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

[playtime]

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.

Trump is now Forever Exonerated, found to be as innocent as a newborn babe.

LOL

Like Clinton was innocent of lying under oath, huh.

Clinton was accused of an actual crime. This winter's episode was a Fake Impeachment as there was no crime at all.

 

[playtime]

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.

 

[Blues Man]

Maybe you can show me where in any religion that it is required to gather in a building in order to worship.

It is not my place to say what any religion other than my own requires of its followers.

It is not your place to do so, either. Nor is it government's place to do so.

My own religion normally requires it, but is making allowances for the current panic.

So show me where your religion requires you to congregate in a building with as many other people as can fit in that building

 

[Blues Man]

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

Please show me evidence that peanut allergic reactions are caused by airborne particles

 

[Blues Man]

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.

no you're being asked to MODIFY how you exercise your constitutional rights for a short period of time.

No one is saying you can't pray with someone else only that you don't gather in large numbers or where you can't keep a recommended distance from each other.

 

[Faun]

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

Dumbfuck...

I hope they give all of you the virus.

 

[Pogo]

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.

As long as you're going to lean on this crutch that "gather" is a requirement for "worship", you've already lost that argument. It isn't. In this case it's an attention whore screaming HEY LOOKA ME and that's all it is. I'll never grok why summa y'all continue to bend over for that egocentric shinola. By the way you might want to look up the "sin of Pride" here since you don't seem to recognize it. Here's a hint --- when a person of influence thinks ME ME ME is more important than you, you're soaking in it.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

As long as you're going to lean on this crutch that "gather" is a requirement for "worship", you've already lost that argument. It isn't. In this case it's an attention whore screaming HEY LOOKA ME and that's all it is. I'll never grok why summa y'all continue to bend over for that egocentric shinola. By the way you might want to look up the "sin of Pride" here since you don't seem to recognize it. Here's a hint --- when a person of influence thinks ME ME ME is more important than you, you're soaking in it.

Actually, it depends on the religion in question as whether gathering is needed or not. In the case of Christianity, part of the faith is to lead others to repent and follow Christ, and gathering together helps to enable that.

 

[22lcidw]

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.

As long as you're going to lean on this crutch that "gather" is a requirement for "worship", you've already lost that argument. It isn't. In this case it's an attention whore screaming HEY LOOKA ME and that's all it is. I'll never grok why summa y'all continue to bend over for that egocentric shinola. By the way you might want to look up the "sin of Pride" here since you don't seem to recognize it. Here's a hint --- when a person of influence thinks ME ME ME is more important than you, you're soaking in it.

Pennsylvania is closing its state controlled liquor stores. Tyrannny is fun. Vermont is ordering the big box stores to stop selling everything. but food and household cleaning/useful needed supplies. No clothes either. Tyranny is fun. And Progs love tyranny. This what is coming for us if you get elected. But hey....gays can get married. The fact is, people will vote in others to get rid of you to protect themselves at some point. And they may be meaner then you will know. You can just sense the illegal booze that will be made in Pennsylvania. They must want violence bad there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should those rights supersede others rights to life?

Mainly because the premise that allowing people to exercise their explicitly-asserted First Amendment rights violates anyone else's right to life is a flat-out lie, and those of you telling it know damn well that you are lying.

Nope, it's not a lie. Congregating in large numbers increasing the spread of COVID-19. Not just among church-goers, but among those with whom they come in contact. That selfishly puts others lives in peril and unfortunately for some, brutally strips away their right to life.

Your pathetically weak excuse fails to justify placing the right to assemble above the right to life.

That is the legal/constitutional justification. There's no social need to ban snake handling, or even peyote use, if it's central to the exercise of religion, because no one besides the faithful are impacted. But the virus WILL WITHOUT ANY QUESTION spread outside of just the people assembling in some religious setting, because the faithful will not remain quarantined inside the locale of the religious setting.

So, if someone want to assert the regulation goes too far in banning the assembly altogether, they have to address how the exponential rise in sick people is not affected.

And in a totally selfish vein, those who continue to disregard the social distancing orders prolong this goddamned shutdown and the ever tightening stay-at-home orders that are completely fucking up our lives.

if all 50 states go into shelter in place mode, scientists are predicting that our best outcome will be 100,000 - 240,000,000 dead. that is the benchmark we hope to meet. but it's not looking like the troglodyte states are jumping on board; so the toll might be higher. i hope & pray (in my house where i know god can hear me) that scientific models have it wrong.

But what about the millions that die afterwards from the Super-Depression that ensues?

You're right. Let's open up for business now. You think the virus is going away and the economy comes screaming back? You're not going to have an economy until this is under control.

If this last for a long time, we still won't have an economy. Right now, a lot of businesses , a lot of people are really struggling. I'm not personally. But those in retail trade, in hospitality, transportation, restaurants, pimpery and prostitution, are all being ruined and reduced to utter destitution.

I get that but you can't have an economy during wildly out of control pandemic. It's just not going to happen so we have no choice but to take care of one issue to a point where it is manageable and then go after the second otherwise neither gets fixed.

Get ready to starve, dumbass. Me? I can eat whatever. You? You're in for a rude awakening.

I'm not going hungry anytime soon. I can wait this out for years if need be.

Suure, buckwheat. With what? No guns?

I live in Arizona, who said anything about no guns?

What you gonna eat in Arizona? Cactus? Snakes?
Coyote? Don't eat Ms. Coyote, pls.
Aside from the cannibalism factor, I've grown rather fond over the years. That last unwarranted ban notwithstanding.

Oh, so you don't really know much about Arizona then.

Can't say I do. If you want info about FL, I'm your man.
I know there's no fishing in Arizona. Not like here, anyways.

Are you claiming you can catch Mackeral in Arizona?

There's probably not fishing here like there is where you are, but there's certainly fishing. Lack of mackeral doesn't mean lack of fishing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

For what it's worth, I'm “high-risk” too. I'm 57 years old, diabetic, and my health and immune system have been weakened rather badly by a bit over half a year of idleness since I broke my leg last September. I wouldn't think of demanding that other people give up their essential Constitutional rights, to protect me from a dubious risk of getting an infection that might threaten me more than it does them.

I will admit to some self-interest. I'[m not afraid of this Coronavirus. It's very likely that I've already been unavoidably exposed to it, and in spite of my immune weakness, it seems not to have taken root in me. My wife was sick for a few days, from what is very likely this virus, but it was very mild, compared to other flu-like illnesses that she routinely catches at the call center where she works, which seems to be somehow optimized for spreading contagious diseases among its workers. Tomorrow is the last day of her two-week quarantine.

But for me, the hysteria over this virus is certainly a much greater and more credible threat to my health and well-being than the virus itself ever could be, and I do not think I am alone in this. I'm at the point in recover from my injury where I really need to be getting and and engaging in work-like activities, instead of continuing to waste away at home, getting weaker and less healthy from inactivity. At this point, the longer I am out of work, the more my health and strength will deteriorate, and the longer it will take and the more difficult it will be to fully recover once I am working again.

So because you personally are willing to risk your life, that means other people must be forced to risk theirs, because your priorities should be the only ones considered?

I hate to break it to you, but I think you're outnumbered on this.

 

[MacTheKnife]

If all these misguided and confused folk on here who think that their freedom of religion or freedom of assembly is under attack just because we have a national health crisis and try to prevent the spread of the virus by limiting as much as possible the mingling of people together..............would be better prepared to resist religious oppression if they went after those who really want to destroy them and their church....aka................https://www.breitbart.com/health/2020/04/03/lgbt-lobby-attacks-rev-franklin-graham-for-christian-outreach-in-new-york/

 

[Astrostar]

Looks like some of our government officials haven't read the Constitution.

---Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne was charged with misdemeanor counts of unlawful assembly---

Florida megachurch pastor arrested for holding services despite health order

A Florida pastor was arrested on Monday for operating a Tampa megachurch in violation of a public health order prohibiting large gatherings in place to stem the spread of the coronavirus. &nbs…

thehill.com

Great thoughts! So, go get together with your evangelical buddies and mingle, hug, smooch and grope. You'll feel better, so will they and so will we! Go baby go!!

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

There is no environment in society where you can assert you “right” to not be exposed to contaigents We try and mitigate the spread but we don’t shut down and certainly should not be claiming some weird right to do so over this fear factor Corona.

 

[WEATHER53]

Why should those rights supersede others rights to life?

Mainly because the premise that allowing people to exercise their explicitly-asserted First Amendment rights violates anyone else's right to life is a flat-out lie, and those of you telling it know damn well that you are lying.

Nope, it's not a lie. Congregating in large numbers increasing the spread of COVID-19. Not just among church-goers, but among those with whom they come in contact. That selfishly puts others lives in peril and unfortunately for some, brutally strips away their right to life.

Your pathetically weak excuse fails to justify placing the right to assemble above the right to life.

That is the legal/constitutional justification. There's no social need to ban snake handling, or even peyote use, if it's central to the exercise of religion, because no one besides the faithful are impacted. But the virus WILL WITHOUT ANY QUESTION spread outside of just the people assembling in some religious setting, because the faithful will not remain quarantined inside the locale of the religious setting.

So, if someone want to assert the regulation goes too far in banning the assembly altogether, they have to address how the exponential rise in sick people is not affected.

And in a totally selfish vein, those who continue to disregard the social distancing orders prolong this goddamned shutdown and the ever tightening stay-at-home orders that are completely fucking up our lives.

if all 50 states go into shelter in place mode, scientists are predicting that our best outcome will be 100,000 - 240,000,000 dead. that is the benchmark we hope to meet. but it's not looking like the troglodyte states are jumping on board; so the toll might be higher. i hope & pray (in my house where i know god can hear me) that scientific models have it wrong.

But what about the millions that die afterwards from the Super-Depression that ensues?

You're right. Let's open up for business now. You think the virus is going away and the economy comes screaming back? You're not going to have an economy until this is under control.

If this last for a long time, we still won't have an economy. Right now, a lot of businesses , a lot of people are really struggling. I'm not personally. But those in retail trade, in hospitality, transportation, restaurants, pimpery and prostitution, are all being ruined and reduced to utter destitution.

I get that but you can't have an economy during wildly out of control pandemic. It's just not going to happen so we have no choice but to take care of one issue to a point where it is manageable and then go after the second otherwise neither gets fixed.

Get ready to starve, dumbass. Me? I can eat whatever. You? You're in for a rude awakening.

I'm not going hungry anytime soon. I can wait this out for years if need be.

Suure, buckwheat. With what? No guns?

I live in Arizona, who said anything about no guns?

What you gonna eat in Arizona? Cactus? Snakes?
Coyote? Don't eat Ms. Coyote, pls.
Aside from the cannibalism factor, I've grown rather fond over the years. That last unwarranted ban notwithstanding.

Oh, so you don't really know much about Arizona then.

Can't say I do. If you want info about FL, I'm your man.
I know there's no fishing in Arizona. Not like here, anyways.

Are you claiming you can catch Mackeral in Arizona?

There's probably not fishing here like there is where you are, but there's certainly fishing. Lack of mackeral doesn't mean lack of fishing.

Do you get King Mackrel?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should those rights supersede others rights to life?

Mainly because the premise that allowing people to exercise their explicitly-asserted First Amendment rights violates anyone else's right to life is a flat-out lie, and those of you telling it know damn well that you are lying.

Nope, it's not a lie. Congregating in large numbers increasing the spread of COVID-19. Not just among church-goers, but among those with whom they come in contact. That selfishly puts others lives in peril and unfortunately for some, brutally strips away their right to life.

Your pathetically weak excuse fails to justify placing the right to assemble above the right to life.

That is the legal/constitutional justification. There's no social need to ban snake handling, or even peyote use, if it's central to the exercise of religion, because no one besides the faithful are impacted. But the virus WILL WITHOUT ANY QUESTION spread outside of just the people assembling in some religious setting, because the faithful will not remain quarantined inside the locale of the religious setting.

So, if someone want to assert the regulation goes too far in banning the assembly altogether, they have to address how the exponential rise in sick people is not affected.

And in a totally selfish vein, those who continue to disregard the social distancing orders prolong this goddamned shutdown and the ever tightening stay-at-home orders that are completely fucking up our lives.

if all 50 states go into shelter in place mode, scientists are predicting that our best outcome will be 100,000 - 240,000,000 dead. that is the benchmark we hope to meet. but it's not looking like the troglodyte states are jumping on board; so the toll might be higher. i hope & pray (in my house where i know god can hear me) that scientific models have it wrong.

But what about the millions that die afterwards from the Super-Depression that ensues?

You're right. Let's open up for business now. You think the virus is going away and the economy comes screaming back? You're not going to have an economy until this is under control.

If this last for a long time, we still won't have an economy. Right now, a lot of businesses , a lot of people are really struggling. I'm not personally. But those in retail trade, in hospitality, transportation, restaurants, pimpery and prostitution, are all being ruined and reduced to utter destitution.

I get that but you can't have an economy during wildly out of control pandemic. It's just not going to happen so we have no choice but to take care of one issue to a point where it is manageable and then go after the second otherwise neither gets fixed.

Get ready to starve, dumbass. Me? I can eat whatever. You? You're in for a rude awakening.

I'm not going hungry anytime soon. I can wait this out for years if need be.

Suure, buckwheat. With what? No guns?

I live in Arizona, who said anything about no guns?

What you gonna eat in Arizona? Cactus? Snakes?
Coyote? Don't eat Ms. Coyote, pls.
Aside from the cannibalism factor, I've grown rather fond over the years. That last unwarranted ban notwithstanding.

Oh, so you don't really know much about Arizona then.

Can't say I do. If you want info about FL, I'm your man.
I know there's no fishing in Arizona. Not like here, anyways.

Are you claiming you can catch Mackeral in Arizona?

There's probably not fishing here like there is where you are, but there's certainly fishing. Lack of mackeral doesn't mean lack of fishing.

Do you get King Mackrel?

I have no clue what kinds of fish can be caught in Arizona, because I've never been a fan of fishing. But I know a lot of people who are, so I know it is possible to do. There certainly are natural waterways in which fish live, and there are manmade lakes that are kept stocked.

 

[playtime]

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.

As long as you're going to lean on this crutch that "gather" is a requirement for "worship", you've already lost that argument. It isn't. In this case it's an attention whore screaming HEY LOOKA ME and that's all it is. I'll never grok why summa y'all continue to bend over for that egocentric shinola. By the way you might want to look up the "sin of Pride" here since you don't seem to recognize it. Here's a hint --- when a person of influence thinks ME ME ME is more important than you, you're soaking in it.

Pennsylvania is closing its state controlled liquor stores. Tyrannny is fun. Vermont is ordering the big box stores to stop selling everything. but food and household cleaning/useful needed supplies. No clothes either. Tyranny is fun. And Progs love tyranny. This what is coming for us if you get elected. But hey....gays can get married. The fact is, people will vote in others to get rid of you to protect themselves at some point. And they may be meaner then you will know. You can just sense the illegal booze that will be made in Pennsylvania. They must want violence bad there.

^ what a drama queen - they aren't barred from selling those items - they are moving it all online.

 

[WEATHER53]

Did I read in the USA that 500 died yesterday but 1,000 the day before. Numbers seems to get solidified at vastly different times each day

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So show me where your religion requires you to congregate in a building with as many other people as can fit in that building…

1. That's not what I said.
   
   
2. I don't have to account to you for what my religion does or does not require. Nor does anyone else. It's none of your damn business.

 

[WEATHER53]

Bob what they are saying is that if you go to church then you are infringing on their right to remain Corona free and there is no such right .