XBimmers X1   XBimmers X1
  XBimmers X1

Go Back   XBimmers | BMW X1 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-04-2020, 09:19 AM   #23
Dog Face Pony Soldier
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
Dog Face Pony Soldier's Avatar
United_States
7823
Rep
5,853
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
With rights come responsibilities.

You and you alone are responsible for the outcomes when you exercise your natural rights. Society as a whole should not be.
Yet almost every state has a motorcycle helmet law. The argument is the person involved in a motorcycle accident who gets a brain injury becomes a burden on society (same argument you are making).

But this logic applies to most activities. The Government runs the National Park System. Millions of people go hiking/rock climbing every year. A certain percentage get hurt or lost or killed in the National Park System yet no one makes the argument that injured hikers/rock climbers are a burden on society.

I see observing a religious celebration even during a pandemic as no difference.
We're basically in agreement here, so don't take this as a disagreement, but there is a difference. A huge difference. The difference is the Constitution explicitly says the government can't restrict the free exercise of religion. These governments are simply not permitted to impede people from attending religious services.
No1: They're not saying you can't practice your religion.

No2: The law on group sizes applies to all people.

So no, there's no Constitutional problem.
This layman believes you're just wrong. These local and state governments are attempting to prohibit the free exercise of religion. This is completely clear.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

They're trying to convince you that they have some law that prohibits the free exercise of religion when they deem it appropriate. That's how I see this topic.
__________________
Appreciate 1
MKSixer23491.00

      04-04-2020, 09:31 AM   #24
Dog Face Pony Soldier
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
Dog Face Pony Soldier's Avatar
United_States
7823
Rep
5,853
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
I see zero sign of this pastor actually being arrested. To me, this shows a clear lack of confidence by the state and local governments that they're on the right side of the Constitution.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 09:33 AM   #25
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1945
Rep
8,434
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Nothing here puts society as a whole at risk. Not really compareble.
So the Pandemic puts society at risk as a whole? Then anyone who spreads COVID-19 for any reason, like going to the store to buy food, is therefore breaking the law?
Basic necessities however even that comes with caveats.

Unlike religion you have to go to the grocery store to buy food. Practicing your religion does not require you to go anywhere.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 09:38 AM   #26
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1945
Rep
8,434
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
I see zero sign of this pastor actually being arrested. To me, this shows a clear lack of confidence by the state and local governments that they're on the right side of the Constitution.
I don't know what has happened since I made this post but conservative governor's are falling over themselves trying not to piss off their pentacostal constituents by explicitly carving out exemptions for religious groups.

I suspect they're just crossing their fingers hoping they will use common sense.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 09:41 AM   #27
CTinline-six
Welcome to Jurassic Park
CTinline-six's Avatar
United_States
3985
Rep
2,189
Posts

Drives: '09 328i, '98 Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Connecticut

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
I can understand the want to practice religion, but it's just common sense to stay home. The church I go to on Sundays has been live streaming and it's actually working out pretty well. There are plenty of options available to people.

My dad said it right the other day when he heard about this "God also gave us a brain, so people should use it".

Last I checked when the social distancing became a recommendation they didn't say "well unless you are going to church".
__________________
Josh
Appreciate 2
F32Fleet1944.50
rebekahb484.00

      04-04-2020, 09:44 AM   #28
Dog Face Pony Soldier
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
Dog Face Pony Soldier's Avatar
United_States
7823
Rep
5,853
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
I see zero sign of this pastor actually being arrested. To me, this shows a clear lack of confidence by the state and local governments that they're on the right side of the Constitution.
I don't know what has happened since I made this post but conservative governor's are falling over themselves trying not to piss off their pentacostal constituents by explicitly carving out exemptions for religious groups.

I suspect they're just crossing their fingers hoping they will use common sense.
My perspective is they can only request compliance without threats; then hope they get it. They have zero authority to restrict the free exercise of religion. I probably haven't been to a religious service outside of a funeral or wedding in 35 years, but it offends me greatly when politicians and bureaucrats try to pretend they hold more power than what we've given them.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 12:46 PM   #29
adc100
Banned
1855
Rep
2,174
Posts

Drives: 2018 Forester XT
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Elizabethtown PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
That is why I put that text in quotes. What is in the Constitution is the Free Exercise Clause.
You are jumping back and forth.

As I said there is no such thing as separation of church and state.
Please tell me the words that say the LA government have over stepped their authority in light on the 1st Amendment.

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.
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 12:56 PM   #30
Dog Face Pony Soldier
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
Dog Face Pony Soldier's Avatar
United_States
7823
Rep
5,853
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by adc100 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
That is why I put that text in quotes. What is in the Constitution is the Free Exercise Clause.
You are jumping back and forth.

As I said there is no such thing as separation of church and state.
Please tell me the words that say the LA government have over stepped their authority in light on the 1st Amendment.

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.
I have already. The LA government has zero authority to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Period. I went further and pointed to the LA government standing down from arresting this pastor as evidence they know they lack any authority to restrict this free exercise of religion. They're simply making empty threats. It's a paper tiger situation that I find offensive.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 01:27 PM   #31
bayarea328xit
Second Lieutenant
United_States
109
Rep
202
Posts

Drives: 19 i3s; 07 328xit (sold)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
I have already. The LA government has zero authority to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Period. I went further and pointed to the LA government standing down from arresting this pastor as evidence they know they lack any authority to restrict this free exercise of religion. They're simply making empty threats. It's a paper tiger situation that I find offensive.
It would be better to move to citing specific cases (and tests) to argue the positions that are being presented. From a very quick search:

The First Amendment
The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice.

Free Exercise Clause
The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. In, Sherbert v. Verner (1963) the Court held that states must have a "compelling interest" to refuse to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the Free Exercise Clause in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santerķa religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional. In 2017, the Court applied this doctrine in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, holding that there must be a compelling state interest for express discrimination based on religious status in government funding schemes.

Also in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the general applicability of the "compelling interest" standard present prior to Employment Division v. Smith. However, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down as exceeding Congress's powers those provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment. Thus, state and local government actions that are facially neutral toward religion are judged by the Employment Division v. Smith standard rather than RFRA. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 01:45 PM   #32
adc100
Banned
1855
Rep
2,174
Posts

Drives: 2018 Forester XT
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Elizabethtown PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
I have already. The LA government has zero authority to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Period. I went further and pointed to the LA government standing down from arresting this pastor as evidence they know they lack any authority to restrict this free exercise of religion. They're simply making empty threats. It's a paper tiger situation that I find offensive.
Sigh..you just don't get it. You are saying that if a church was meeting in an auditorium that did not meet state fire codes the state could not close the service down??

bayarea328xit: Don't expect an answer here. I appreciate your post. Are you a lawyer?

I would like to say I am officially done here but its like not looking at a train wreck. The inability to admit one is wrong is endemic on all forums.
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 03:19 PM   #33
Dog Face Pony Soldier
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
Dog Face Pony Soldier's Avatar
United_States
7823
Rep
5,853
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by adc100 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
I have already. The LA government has zero authority to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Period. I went further and pointed to the LA government standing down from arresting this pastor as evidence they know they lack any authority to restrict this free exercise of religion. They're simply making empty threats. It's a paper tiger situation that I find offensive.
Sigh..you just don't get it. You are saying that if a church was meeting in an auditorium that did not meet state fire codes the state could not close the service down??

bayarea328xit: Don't expect an answer here. I appreciate your post. Are you a lawyer?

I would like to say I am officially done here but its like not looking at a train wreck. The inability to admit one is wrong is endemic on all forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayarea328xit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
I have already. The LA government has zero authority to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Period. I went further and pointed to the LA government standing down from arresting this pastor as evidence they know they lack any authority to restrict this free exercise of religion. They're simply making empty threats. It's a paper tiger situation that I find offensive.
It would be better to move to citing specific cases (and tests) to argue the positions that are being presented. From a very quick search:

The First Amendment
The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice.

Free Exercise Clause
The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. In, Sherbert v. Verner (1963) the Court held that states must have a "compelling interest" to refuse to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the Free Exercise Clause in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional. In 2017, the Court applied this doctrine in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, holding that there must be a compelling state interest for express discrimination based on religious status in government funding schemes.

Also in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the general applicability of the "compelling interest" standard present prior to Employment Division v. Smith. However, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down as exceeding Congress's powers those provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment. Thus, state and local government actions that are facially neutral toward religion are judged by the Employment Division v. Smith standard rather than RFRA. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.
The reality both of you are dancing around is that in the situation we're discussing, the religious people are simply practicing their religion in the same way that is already established as accepted for centuries. There is nothing new here except people are trying to act like guidance from politicians and bureaucrats is all of a sudden law. There is no law that says people can't go practice their religion the way they always have been because it wouldn't be constitutional. That is why when challenged, the governments are backing down. Apparently their AGs are telling them they don't have legal ground to stand on. People shouldn't be fooled.... short of enacting Marshal Law, this call to prevent people from practicing their religion they way they see fit, is purely guidance.

I will add... What people should also think about is this offensive notion isn't happening in a vacuum. It's happening in an environment where there are countless "essential business" that are allowed to operate. A great example is here in NJ where liquor stores are allowed to stay open and operate. Can anyone really say that the government should be even thinking about impeding people from freely exercising their religion in an environment where they still deem liquor stores essential? I sure as hell don't.

Simply put; the government has no say in the matter. This country was arguably created because people wanted to be free to practice religion they way they wanted. That's why this is such an important right to defend! The government needs to BTFU, and they have been when challenged.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 04:42 PM   #34
adc100
Banned
1855
Rep
2,174
Posts

Drives: 2018 Forester XT
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Elizabethtown PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
A great example is here in NJ where liquor stores are allowed to stay open and operate. Can anyone really say that the government should be even thinking about impeding people from freely exercising their religion in an environment where they still deem liquor stores essential? I sure as hell don't.

Simply put; the government has no say in the matter. This country was arguably created because people wanted to be free to practice religion they way they wanted. That's why this is such an important right to defend! The government needs to BTFU, and they have been when challenged.
You never answered my question :" If a church was meeting in an auditorium that did not meet state fire codes the state could not close the service down??

You can't sell liquor in a building that does not meet standards.
You can not have a music festival in an auditorium that does not meet federal codes.
You can not have a music concert in the same states that will not allow a crowd gathering.

A, Can you answer the question in Red
B. Can you admit you are wrong?

C. Did you earn the money to buy a BMW or was it given to you?
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 05:52 PM   #35
bayarea328xit
Second Lieutenant
United_States
109
Rep
202
Posts

Drives: 19 i3s; 07 328xit (sold)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
The reality both of you are dancing around is that in the situation we're discussing, the religious people are simply practicing their religion in the same way that is already established as accepted for centuries. There is nothing new here except people are trying to act like guidance from politicians and bureaucrats is all of a sudden law. There is no law that says people can't go practice their religion the way they always have been because it wouldn't be constitutional. That is why when challenged, the governments are backing down. Apparently their AGs are telling them they don't have legal ground to stand on. People shouldn't be fooled.... short of enacting Marshal Law, this call to prevent people from practicing their religion they way they see fit, is purely guidance.

I will add... What people should also think about is this offensive notion isn't happening in a vacuum. It's happening in an environment where there are countless "essential business" that are allowed to operate. A great example is here in NJ where liquor stores are allowed to stay open and operate. Can anyone really say that the government should be even thinking about impeding people from freely exercising their religion in an environment where they still deem liquor stores essential? I sure as hell don't.

Simply put; the government has no say in the matter. This country was arguably created because people wanted to be free to practice religion they way they wanted. That's why this is such an important right to defend! The government needs to BTFU, and they have been when challenged.
This does not look like backing down: Spell was issued a misdemeanor summons for six counts of violating the governor's executive order - see link. See arrest in Florida - this article also references the US Sup Ct decision Employment Division v. Smith.

A few questions:

1. Are you arguing that the social distancing orders (SDOs) are invalid? Specifically, the state, county, etc. cannot compel people to not gather in groups of say 10.

As a side note, we are seeing courts enforcing quarantine orders - see here.

2. If your answer to #1 is yes (SDOs are not valid), then we have to look at the legal basis for such orders - it does not matter that the group is getting together to party or to attend a sermon. We would also have to see if the orders are ambiguous, arbitrary, etc.

3. If your answer to #1 is no (SDOs are valid), are you saying that the SDOs cannot be enforced against a group that has gathered for religious practice? Under this scenario, are you willing to concede that the SDO is valid and enforceable against groups that are formed for purposes other than those related to religious practice?

Last edited by bayarea328xit; 04-04-2020 at 06:05 PM..
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 06:03 PM   #36
Dog Face Pony Soldier
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
Dog Face Pony Soldier's Avatar
United_States
7823
Rep
5,853
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by adc100 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
A great example is here in NJ where liquor stores are allowed to stay open and operate. Can anyone really say that the government should be even thinking about impeding people from freely exercising their religion in an environment where they still deem liquor stores essential? I sure as hell don't.

Simply put; the government has no say in the matter. This country was arguably created because people wanted to be free to practice religion they way they wanted. That's why this is such an important right to defend! The government needs to BTFU, and they have been when challenged.
You never answered my question :" [COLOR="Red"]If a church was meeting in an auditorium that did not meet state fire codes the state could not close the service down??[/COLOR]

You can't sell liquor in a building that does not meet standards.
You can not have a music festival in an auditorium that does not meet federal codes.
You can not have a music concert in the same states that will not allow a crowd gathering.

A, Can you answer the question in Red
B. Can you admit you are wrong?

C. Did you earn the money to buy a BMW or was it given to you?
A: what's funny- in my experience during my time in construction I've noticed a lack of enforcement for houses of worship. This probably wasn't legal but whatever. Just a comment. About your question... it's not a good analogy because the law they'd be enforcing is in respect to an existing fire code. For good reason there is no such law that says that the Governor can violate the 1A when he/she decides its appropriate.

B. Yup. I just did moments ago in my thread about the KIA Forte in the General Automotive section.

C. Yup. And I'll add is sounds like you're a Grade A jerkoff. GFY.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 06:16 PM   #37
Dog Face Pony Soldier
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
Dog Face Pony Soldier's Avatar
United_States
7823
Rep
5,853
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayarea328xit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
The reality both of you are dancing around is that in the situation we're discussing, the religious people are simply practicing their religion in the same way that is already established as accepted for centuries. There is nothing new here except people are trying to act like guidance from politicians and bureaucrats is all of a sudden law. There is no law that says people can't go practice their religion the way they always have been because it wouldn't be constitutional. That is why when challenged, the governments are backing down. Apparently their AGs are telling them they don't have legal ground to stand on. People shouldn't be fooled.... short of enacting Marshal Law, this call to prevent people from practicing their religion they way they see fit, is purely guidance.

I will add... What people should also think about is this offensive notion isn't happening in a vacuum. It's happening in an environment where there are countless "essential business" that are allowed to operate. A great example is here in NJ where liquor stores are allowed to stay open and operate. Can anyone really say that the government should be even thinking about impeding people from freely exercising their religion in an environment where they still deem liquor stores essential? I sure as hell don't.

Simply put; the government has no say in the matter. This country was arguably created because people wanted to be free to practice religion they way they wanted. That's why this is such an important right to defend! The government needs to BTFU, and they have been when challenged.
This does not look like backing down: Spell was issued a misdemeanor summons for six counts of violating the governor's executive order - see link. See arrest in Florida - this article also references the US Sup Ct decision Employment Division v. Smith.

A few questions:

1. Are you arguing that the social distancing orders (SDOs) are invalid? Specifically, the state, county, etc. cannot compel people to not gather in groups of say 10.

As a side note, we are seeing courts enforcing quarantine orders - see here.

2. If your answer to #1 is yes (SDOs are not valid), then we have to look at the legal basis for such orders - it does not matter that the group is getting together to party or to attend a sermon. We would also have to see if the orders are ambiguous, etc.

3. If your answer to #1 is no (SDOs are valid), are you saying that the SDOs cannot be enforced against a group that has gathered for religious practice? Under this scenario, are you willing to concede that the SDO is valid and enforceable against groups that are formed for purposes other than those related to religious practice?
First there's a very interesting part in the story about the pastor receiving the summons...

...the case has been handed over to the district attorney's office and that the goal is not to stop Spell from having church or speaking to his parishioners, but to have him abide by the guidance "that the governor and the president have set forth."

Again I'll point out that the state doesn't dare attempt to stop the free exercise of religion. Further they mention specificity this is simply guidance they want less-knowledgeable people to interpret as law. It's a request not a statute that can/will stand up to legal challenge. Just as anyone can sue anyone for anything; a win in court is not guaranteed. I'd bet the state/county drops the charges before they ever go to court.

About quarantining... if the government has reason to believe someone has WuFlu, then of course they can take action to limit their exposure. That isn't the case with the pastor or his parishioners.

I'm not sure SDO are law at all. Show me the statute.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 06:26 PM   #38
adc100
Banned
1855
Rep
2,174
Posts

Drives: 2018 Forester XT
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Elizabethtown PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
A: what's funny- in my experience during my time in construction I've noticed a lack of enforcement for houses of worship. This probably wasn't legal but whatever. Just a comment. About your question... it's not a good analogy because the law they'd be enforcing is in respect to an existing fire code. For good reason there is no such law that says that the Governor can violate the 1A when he/she decides its appropriate.

B. Yup. I just did moments ago in my thread about the KIA Forte in the General Automotive section.

C. Yup. And I'll add is sounds like you're a Grade A jerkoff. GFY.
OK so you answered neither. As I figured except to tell me to "GFY"
Yaaaaa I get to use my "ignore button again" So you can tell me to "GFY" all day long.
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 07:51 PM   #39
bayarea328xit
Second Lieutenant
United_States
109
Rep
202
Posts

Drives: 19 i3s; 07 328xit (sold)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
First there's a very interesting part in the story about the pastor receiving the summons...

...the case has been handed over to the district attorney's office and that the goal is not to stop Spell from having church or speaking to his parishioners, but to have him abide by the guidance "that the governor and the president have set forth."

Again I'll point out that the state doesn't dare attempt to stop the free exercise of religion. Further they mention specificity this is simply guidance they want less-knowledgeable people to interpret as law. It's a request not a statute that can/will stand up to legal challenge. Just as anyone can sue anyone for anything; a win in court is not guaranteed. I'd bet the state/county drops the charges before they ever go to court.

About quarantining... if the government has reason to believe someone has WuFlu, then of course they can take action to limit their exposure. That isn't the case with the pastor or his parishioners.

I'm not sure SDO are law at all. Show me the statute.
Here is a copy of the order from the governor of Louisiana.

Note that, thankfully, they contemplated the need for individuals to visit a place of worship - see Section 3.E.

The governor does have the power to "[c]ontrol ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises therein." See RS 29:766 D. (7).

In the order, I don't see a citation to a statue that discusses the impact of violating such orders.

It is a bit strange that, in Section 2 of the order, office buildings and factories or manufacturing facilities are excluded from the no 10 or more person rule -- even if they are not essential (e.g., a factory making toys). It is strange to omit places of worship in Section 2 (given that they were specifically called out in Section 3.E.) and still include non-essential places (e.g., some offices and factories) in Section 2.

Not sure if a place of worship is a "business" under Section 5. Strangely, the language of Section 5 suggests that there is a carve out for "learning centers and child care facilities."

The order for Santa Clara County (CA) is drafted more clearly - all Essential Businesses 13.f. have to practice Social Distancing Protocol 13.h. Also, the statutory basis for punishment resulting from the violation of the order is listed right at the top.
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 08:27 PM   #40
Dog Face Pony Soldier
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
Dog Face Pony Soldier's Avatar
United_States
7823
Rep
5,853
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayarea328xit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
First there's a very interesting part in the story about the pastor receiving the summons...

...the case has been handed over to the district attorney's office and that the goal is not to stop Spell from having church or speaking to his parishioners, but to have him abide by the guidance "that the governor and the president have set forth."

Again I'll point out that the state doesn't dare attempt to stop the free exercise of religion. Further they mention specificity this is simply guidance they want less-knowledgeable people to interpret as law. It's a request not a statute that can/will stand up to legal challenge. Just as anyone can sue anyone for anything; a win in court is not guaranteed. I'd bet the state/county drops the charges before they ever go to court.

About quarantining... if the government has reason to believe someone has WuFlu, then of course they can take action to limit their exposure. That isn't the case with the pastor or his parishioners.

I'm not sure SDO are law at all. Show me the statute.
Here is a copy of the order from the governor of Louisiana.

Note that, thankfully, they contemplated the need for individuals to visit a place of worship - see Section 3.E.

The governor does have the power to "[c]ontrol ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises therein." See RS 29:766 D. (7).

In the order, I don't see a citation to a statue that discusses the impact of violating such orders.

It is a bit strange that, in Section 2 of the order, office buildings and factories or manufacturing facilities are excluded from the no 10 or more person rule -- even if they are not essential (e.g., a factory making toys). It is strange to omit places of worship in Section 2 (given that they were specifically called out in Section 3.E.) and still include non-essential places (e.g., some offices and factories) in Section 2.

Not sure if a place of worship is a "business" under Section 5. Strangely, the language of Section 5 suggests that there is a carve out for "learning centers and child care facilities."

The order for Santa Clara County (CA) is drafted more clearly - all Essential Businesses 13.f. have to practice Social Distancing Protocol 13.h. Also, the statutory basis for punishment resulting from the violation of the order is listed right at the top.
First, thank you for digging this information up. While it's relevant to the discussion, you're broadening the topic beyond at least my focus. My concerns and perhaps disgust, is centered around the infringement on our freedom to practice religion without government intervention. Worse, are state politicians getting over their skis by implying that they have the power to restrict the free exercise of religion. They do not.

Again, I'll take a moment to mention I essentially don't personally attend religious services, so this isn't impacting me personally. My concern is how easily people are willing to forfeit the freedoms we've fought for. How many men and women perished fighting for these freedoms? They should be respected and protected as much from the sofa as they were on the battlefield.

I'll also mention that social distancing; is not the same as restricting people from entering a house of worship. Some (not necessarily here) are incorrectly or dishonestly equating the two.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-04-2020, 09:18 PM   #41
bayarea328xit
Second Lieutenant
United_States
109
Rep
202
Posts

Drives: 19 i3s; 07 328xit (sold)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier View Post
First, thank you for digging this information up. While it's relevant to the discussion, you're broadening the topic beyond at least my focus. My concerns and perhaps disgust, is centered around the infringement on our freedom to practice religion without government intervention. Worse, are state politicians getting over their skis by implying that they have the power to restrict the free exercise of religion. They do not.

Again, I'll take a moment to mention I essentially don't personally attend religious services, so this isn't impacting me personally. My concern is how easily people are willing to forfeit the freedoms we've fought for. How many men and women perished fighting for these freedoms? They should be respected and protected as much from the sofa as they were on the battlefield.

I'll also mention that social distancing; is not the same as restricting people from entering a house of worship. Some (not necessarily here) are incorrectly or dishonestly equating the two.
In my discussion with you, I am trying to focus on our freedom to practice religion - however, our freedom to practice how we want is not unlimited.

If we take NYC in its current state, I am of the opinion that the government (state, county, city) is within its power to limit groups of people from different households from gathering together. This is true regardless of their purpose for meeting up. Just because you want to pray together does not get you out of the restriction. The restriction is contemplated to manage/mitigate the current health crisis. The restriction happens to restrict some religious practices.

If governments are implementing arbitrary or ambiguous restrictions, I am fully on board with pushing back, including, for example, to exert our right to practice religion.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 AM.




xbimmers
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST