The Joker

Amy Coney Barrett Let the Knives and Shields come out

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:
2 hours ago, Sean said:

 

I miss Ginsberg  -

Splitting 5 to 4, Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo’s Virus Shutdown Order


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court late Wednesday night barred restrictionson religious services in New York that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo had imposed to combat the coronavirus.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberal members in dissent. The order was the first in which the court’s newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, played a decisive role.

But freedom is important. Freedom to worship the sky fairy of your choice so long as he is a Christian deity. And you get with it, at no extra cost (unless the Rev. needs another limo or repairs to his jet) the freedom to contract the virus or pass it on to some other schlump.  You have the freedom to get sick and die or be the cause of others doing so. Yea freedom!

I wonder if this would've been the ruling if the suit was brought by a mosque.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jerseyguy said:

But freedom is important. Freedom to worship the sky fairy of your choice so long as he is a Christian deity. And you get with it, at no extra cost (unless the Rev. needs another limo or repairs to his jet) the freedom to contract the virus or pass it on to some other schlump.  You have the freedom to get sick and die or be the cause of others doing so. Yea freedom!

The only bright lining to this is that it is going to eventually reduce the number of sky fairy whack jobs. There's going to be collateral damage, unfortunately.

I definitely encourage Ms Barrett to get out there maskless, and mingle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Gov. Cuomo said SCOTUS issued a political decision that is "irrelevant from any practical impact" because the religious institutions that sued are no longer under restrictions.”

I grabbed this off of the internet.  If Cuomo is right and the complainants are no longer under restrictions then the issue they raise is moot. Doesn’t the court require that there be a case and controversy before issuing a ruling? Or is mootness no longer applicable in Asterisk Amy’s court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And are the "conservatives" on the court now all butt hurt  'cause they haven't been able to pull a fast one yet with the election?

Answer: Yes.

Republicans have gotten their court, and the nation as a whole is compromised. This court does not represent the nation.

Democratic principals, like decisions by the majority, made for the good of the nation, are now in jeopardy.

Even the Catholics on the court were split on this decision. The fanatics though, all on one side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

“Gov. Cuomo said SCOTUS issued a political decision that is "irrelevant from any practical impact" because the religious institutions that sued are no longer under restrictions.”

I grabbed this off of the internet.  If Cuomo is right and the complainants are no longer under restrictions then the issue they raise is moot. Doesn’t the court require that there be a case and controversy before issuing a ruling? Or is mootness no longer applicable in Asterisk Amy’s court?

I am sitting it out with a mask and staying safe because I can BUT 

In NY right or wrong the restrictions change daily based on test trend % and it’s not clear how the # to close was made 
 

School closings in NYC at 3% have more to due with it was the best they could due with the teachers union 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jhc said:

And are the "conservatives" on the court now all butt hurt  'cause they haven't been able to pull a fast one yet with the election?

Answer: Yes.

Republicans have gotten their court, and the nation as a whole is compromised. This court does not represent the nation.

Democratic principals, like decisions by the majority, made for the good of the nation, are now in jeopardy.

Even the Catholics on the court were split on this decision. The fanatics though, all on one side.

No doubt this symbolic ruling will push dealing with the SC a bit higher on Joe Biden's todo list.  Well done SC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public health?

They suing for the right to make their own members/congregants sick and possibly dead.

Maybe they want them to meet Jesus sooner?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the first amendment the better question should be why wasn’t this unanimous?   What did the dissenting 4 find constitutional about treating religion different than secular establishments? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Public health?

They suing for the right to make their own members/congregants sick and possibly dead.

Maybe they want them to meet Jesus sooner?

- DSK

It's like a really drawn out Jim Jones scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Considering the first amendment the better question should be why wasn’t this unanimous?   What did the dissenting 4 find constitutional about treating religion different than secular establishments? 

You don't understand the difference between religion and commerce?

You've also got it backwards (no surprise). The decision was that the state governments CAN treat business differently from churches

 

9 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

It's like a really drawn out Jim Jones scenario.

Yes, 'drawn out' for sure. We have a lot of people on our community's Facebook page complaining that they should allowed to do whatever they want because this pandemic has gone on SO-O long! Clearly patience and consistent rational conduct is an evolutionary step. I view the SCOTUS decision as giving Darwin a little boost

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You don't understand the difference between religion and commerce?

You've also got it backwards (no surprise). The decision was that the state governments CAN treat business differently from churches

 

Yes, 'drawn out' for sure. We have a lot of people on our community's Facebook page complaining that they should allowed to do whatever they want because this pandemic has gone on SO-O long! Clearly patience and consistent rational conduct is an evolutionary step. I view the SCOTUS decision as giving Darwin a little boost

- DSK

No I don’t think I have it backwards at all. Have you ever even read the constitution?  
 

ACLU can explain it for you
 

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

No I don’t think I have it backwards at all. Have you ever even read the constitution?  
...   ...

 

So, how come you said

39 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Considering the first amendment the better question should be why wasn’t this unanimous?   What did the dissenting 4 find constitutional about treating religion different than secular establishments? 

 

The decision was that state gov't CAN "treat religion different than secular establishments"

The dissent was that they cannot.

And yeah, I've read the Constitution. I even understand what it says, mostly.... it's written in fairly clear English (of the time).

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reich becomes religious, and constitutional, 

when they are convenient. 

For example, you never hear a peep of protect from them when 

govt-supported religious educational institutions 

ignore free speech/inquiry rights and blow off the 14th amendment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Considering the first amendment the better question should be why wasn’t this unanimous?   What did the dissenting 4 find constitutional about treating religion different than secular establishments? 

You need some:

 

Boudreaux's Butt Paste Ointment, Diaper Rash, Max Strength, Cup/Tub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Regarding the demand to open churches - 

t&p.jpg

Can't pass the plate on-line so well.

I mean you could, but it would take some technical innovation, and you might have to pay fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

It's like a really drawn out Jim Jones scenario.

Yes, 'drawn out' for sure. We have a lot of people on our community's Facebook page complaining that they should allowed to do whatever they want because this pandemic has gone on SO-O long! Clearly patience and consistent rational conduct is an evolutionary step. I view the SCOTUS decision as giving Darwin a little boost

- DSK

As bad as the Jim Jones situation was...they only killed themselves. They didn't drink the cool-aid, then go out and poison a bunch of random people who had no real connection to them besides passing them in the street or checking them out at the Stop & Shop.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

.... We have a lot of people on our community's Facebook page complaining that they should allowed to do whatever they want because this pandemic has gone on SO-O long! Clearly patience and consistent rational conduct is an evolutionary step. I view the SCOTUS decision as giving Darwin a little boost

- DSK

If WWII had been conducted in the "age of self-entitlement", the other side would have won, unless their population was a self-entitled as ours in North America.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Can't pass the plate on-line so well.

I mean you could, but it would take some technical innovation, and you might have to pay fees.

Which is the EXACT reason this is an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Joker said:

No I don’t think I have it backwards at all. Have you ever even read the constitution?  
 

ACLU can explain it for you
 

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs. 

so why cant you worship at home?

the place of worship is irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

so why cant you worship at home?

the place of worship is irrelevant

You can IF YOU CHOOSE. If YOU CHOOSE To worship in a church mosque or temple - again it’s your choice and the government cannot make rules or laws to prevent that.   Which is why it doesn’t matter if secular businesses are or are not allowed to operate religious gatherings are always allowed under the first amendment. 

I’m surprised it took this long for that to be decided by SCOTUS as it’s right up there with freedom of speech   In fact it’s the first part of the first amendment.   So obviously the founders made it strong and clear when they wrote it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You can IF YOU CHOOSE. If YOU CHOOSE To worship in a church mosque or temple - again it’s your choice and the government cannot make rules or laws to prevent that.   Which is why it doesn’t matter if secular businesses are or are not allowed to operate religious gatherings are always allowed under the first amendment. 

I’m surprised it took this long for that to be decided by SCOTUS as it’s right up there with freedom of speech   In fact it’s the first part of the first amendment.   So obviously the founders made it strong and clear when they wrote it. 

i disagree.

you can choose to worship.

expanding that to a place is dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

i disagree.

you can choose to worship.

expanding that to a place is dangerous.

The proper response to this ruling is to place all the people who attend religious services in quarantine for 14 days afterward unless conducted with masks and social distancing.  

Let the people choose if they wish to attend, knowing the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

The proper response to this ruling is to place all the people who attend religious services in quarantine for 14 days afterward unless conducted with masks and social distancing.  

Let the people choose if they wish to attend, knowing the consequences.

agree.

a dress code specifying no shirt, no shoes, no mask, no entry seems sort of obvious. could probably include no rich cunts for the sake of christ's teachings....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You can IF YOU CHOOSE. If YOU CHOOSE To worship in a church mosque or temple - again it’s your choice and the government cannot make rules or laws to prevent that.   Which is why it doesn’t matter if secular businesses are or are not allowed to operate religious gatherings are always allowed under the first amendment. 

I’m surprised it took this long for that to be decided by SCOTUS as it’s right up there with freedom of speech   In fact it’s the first part of the first amendment.   So obviously the founders made it strong and clear when they wrote it. 

IF YOU CHOOSE to harm others, then those others might be expected to have a right to say what happens next.

You can handle snakes, play music, jump around artfully, jump straight up and down so your prayers are closer to God, wear different clothes or no clothes at all, or ice skate, and call it religious.

What you should not be able to do is deliberately make choices that harm others, whether you call it a church or a business.

I'd like worship God by drinking beer, and I bet I could get a lot of people to come to a place I rent and call it Beer Church and give them beer to worship with (after they give me a $6 donation). God also wants us to eat salty snacks, watch sports, or listen to loud music while we worship Him thru drinking beer.

Is this legal or not, in the revelation of this SCOTUS ruling?

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

IF YOU CHOOSE to harm others, then those others might be expected to have a right to say what happens next.

You can handle snakes, play music, jump around artfully, jump straight up and down so your prayers are closer to God, wear different clothes or no clothes at all, or ice skate, and call it religious.

What you should not be able to do is deliberately make choices that harm others, whether you call it a church or a business.

I'd like worship God by drinking beer, and I bet I could get a lot of people to come to a place I rent and call it Beer Church and give them beer to worship with (after they give me a $6 donation). God also wants us to eat salty snacks, watch sports, or listen to loud music while we worship Him thru drinking beer.

Is this legal or not, in the revelation of this SCOTUS ruling?

- DSK

If my religion is to get shitfaced by 1430 I should absolutely be able to get on the freeway at 1700.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

You can IF YOU CHOOSE. If YOU CHOOSE To worship in a church mosque or temple - again it’s your choice and the government cannot make rules or laws to prevent that.   Which is why it doesn’t matter if secular businesses are or are not allowed to operate religious gatherings are always allowed under the first amendment. 

I’m surprised it took this long for that to be decided by SCOTUS as it’s right up there with freedom of speech   In fact it’s the first part of the first amendment.   So obviously the founders made it strong and clear when they wrote it. 

IF YOU CHOOSE to harm others, then those others might be expected to have a right to say what happens next.

You can handle snakes, play music, jump around artfully, jump straight up and down so your prayers are closer to God, wear different clothes or no clothes at all, or ice skate, and call it religious.

What you should not be able to do is deliberately make choices that harm others, whether you call it a church or a business.

I'd like worship God by drinking beer, and I bet I could get a lot of people to come to a place I rent and call it Beer Church and give them beer to worship with (after they give me a $6 donation). God also wants us to eat salty snacks, watch sports, or listen to loud music while we worship Him thru drinking beer.

Is this legal or not, in the revelation of this SCOTUS ruling?

- DSK

What's to stop this SCOTUS ruling from exempting churches from things like building and fire codes or capacity limits?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

What's to stop this SCOTUS ruling from exempting churches from things like building and fire codes or capacity limits?

Buena pregunta!! . . 

And we haven't even gotten into child abuse yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As bad as the Jim Jones situation was...they only killed themselves. 

That is not true.   They killed innocent children.   They killed reporters and government officials on the tarmac while they were leaving with members who wanted out.    Larry Layton (his sister was also in the cult) was one of the gunman and served out his sentence.  He was released in the early 2000s and moved in next door to me in Piedmont.   Always nice when a mass murdered graces the neighborhood with his presence.  

If only some Trump enablers were so brave in their convictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, solosailor said:

That is not true.   They killed innocent children.   They killed reporters and government officials on the tarmac while they were leaving with members who wanted out.    Larry Layton (his sister was also in the cult) was one of the gunman and served out his sentence.  He was released in the early 2000s and moved in next door to me in Piedmont.   Always nice when a mass murdered graces the neighborhood with his presence.  

If only some Trump enablers were so brave in their convictions.

"Women and children first, to see if it's safe!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 6:04 AM, Bus Driver said:

I wonder if this would've been the ruling if the suit was brought by a mosque.

I too was a bit surprised at first when the SC ruled this way.  Until I bothered to actually get the whole story.  The ruling, if you dig into it, had nothing to do with religious carve outs.  It was about being treated equally.  NYC was allowing many non-essential businesses to stay open with no caps on crowd size, whereas churches were told that they had to limit to 25.  Liquor stores and malls were allowed to stay open with no limits on crowd size.  

Quote

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/27/939449928/supreme-court-backs-religious-challenge-to-new-york-covid-19-restrictions

INSKEEP: Would you just remind us what are the basics of this case in New York?

WILSON: Well, I mean, you've opened it really well. The basics are that there is an executive order from the governor that had been put in place. We're almost 10 months into the shuttering of parts of the economy. That order ultimately gets backwalked, but the court is very, very concerned about the fact that it is the most restrictive that has come before the court. There were two preceding cases before this newly recomposed court, one out of California and another out of Nevada, where the limits were not nearly so extreme. And every person writing on the court acknowledges that fact, that this was the most extreme.

INSKEEP: Yeah. We're talking about the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, a couple of Orthodox Jewish synagogues who said, wait a minute, these restrictions for a while said that we could only have religious services with, I think, 10 people, and later it was 25 people. And these are institutions that are accustomed to having hundreds in rather large cathedrals and synagogues that can hold hundreds or even more than that. Yet it seemed, when I read the 33 pages of opinions, to be a narrow difference. These religious institutions didn't claim a total exemption from health regulations. They said they just wanted to be treated equally. Governor Andrew Cuomo didn't even maintain the rules. They're gone, at least for the moment. But they wrote - the justices wrote - like, this is a big case. What made it feel like a big case?

WILSON: Well, I think it made it feel like a big case because it seems like the government went nuclear on churches and churches alone. That's the claim that runs across these pages. You know, so there's a lot of discussion about acupuncture and campgrounds and microelectronic plant chip-makers, and they're allowed to basically stay open, either because they're essential, which had no cap, unlike churches, and red zones, as you said, were capped at 10 people, or even when they were nonessential, so these orange zones where churches were limited to 25 and only 25 in some instances. And nonessential and essential businesses both had no cap whatsoever.

INSKEEP: Well, this is an interesting part of the argument, though, isn't it? It's like, where do you put religious institutions? What do you compare them to? I believe it was Justice Gorsuch seemed particularly offended that secular institutions like liquor stores didn't seem to have a limit, and yet churches had a limit. Of course, the way the state of New York saw this was that there were certain essential businesses where customers might come and go. Any number of customers might come and go, but they were banning gatherings. You couldn't have a concert anymore, but you could have a religious service with a small number of people.

WILSON: Well, fair point. I mean, I think there's a big question of the comparator, but, you know, you can shop in Nordstroms for hours bumping into people here and there. So you know, I think there is a question of the comparator. 

 

So sure, go on and on about how the SC is just interested in protecting religious freedom.  But is not what the justices in the majority said.  The churches themselves weren't even asking for total exemptions.  Just that they be treated like every other business.  So sure, make this about belief in sky fairies.  But it had nothing to do with the ruling.  

The_More_You_Know_0-0_screenshot.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I too was a bit surprised at first when the SC ruled this way.  Until I bothered to actually get the whole story.  The ruling, if you dig into it, had nothing to do with religious carve outs.  It was about being treated equally.  NYC was allowing many non-essential businesses to stay open with no caps on crowd size, whereas churches were told that they had to limit to 25.  Liquor stores and malls were allowed to stay open with no limits on crowd size.  

So sure, go on and on about how the SC is just interested in protecting religious freedom.  But is not what the justices in the majority said.  The churches themselves weren't even asking for total exemptions.  Just that they be treated like every other business.  So sure, make this about belief in sky fairies.  But it had nothing to do with the ruling.  

The_More_You_Know_0-0_screenshot.png

I’d love to treat churches as “any other business.” Hiring standards, taxes, etc. For some reason, I will guess the churches don’t really mean it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

I’d love to treat churches as “any other business.” Hiring standards, taxes, etc. For some reason, I will guess the churches don’t really mean it.

I'm with you on that.  No more tax exemptions would be a good start.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I too was a bit surprised at first when the SC ruled this way.  Until I bothered to actually get the whole story.  The ruling, if you dig into it, had nothing to do with religious carve outs.  It was about being treated equally.  NYC was allowing many non-essential businesses to stay open with no caps on crowd size, whereas churches were told that they had to limit to 25.  Liquor stores and malls were allowed to stay open with no limits on crowd size.  

So sure, go on and on about how the SC is just interested in protecting religious freedom.  But is not what the justices in the majority said.  The churches themselves weren't even asking for total exemptions.  Just that they be treated like every other business.  So sure, make this about belief in sky fairies.  But it had nothing to do with the ruling.  

The_More_You_Know_0-0_screenshot.png

Thank you for that.  I will believe it was about being treated equally when churches pay taxes like those businesses they used for comparison of unequal treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Thank you for that.  I will believe it was about being treated equally when churches pay taxes like those businesses they used for comparison of unequal treatment.

So does the tax exempt status of organizations like the ACLU justify disparate treatment of their rights too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

So does the tax exempt status of organizations like the ACLU justify disparate treatment of their rights too?

False equivalency fail. ACLU pays property taxes. 
 

donations to aclu are not tax deductible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Good Americans on the Court understand very well what a democRAT hoax the virus is, and that crowds should be able to gather. That’s why they just extended their order extending telephonic oral arguments by another month. Go to church and pray all you want; you’re gonna need it, but don’t bring your peasant’s virus to our room. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

False equivalency fail. ACLU pays property taxes. 
 

donations to aclu are not tax deductible.

Unlike most religious the ACLU is not a charity. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Good Americans on the Court understand very well what a democRAT hoax the virus is, and that crowds should be able to gather. That’s why they just extended their order extending telephonic oral arguments by another month. Go to church and pray all you want; you’re gonna need it, but don’t bring your peasant’s virus to our room. 
 

 

Then you better go hide in your barn. Because there are no restrictions on people being quarantined after going to Walmart, Home Depot or any other business why should people wanting to attend church be held to a different standard?  That is exactly why the founders created the first amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Then you better go hide in your barn. Because there are no restrictions on people being quarantined after going to Walmart, Home Depot or any other business why should people wanting to attend church be held to a different standard?  That is exactly why the founders created the first amendment. 

So you disagree with the Supreme Court closing its doors to in person oral argument and only allowing argument by telephone, and extending that order through February? Do you advocate a different standard for them?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Unlike most religious the ACLU is not a charity. 
 

I got some news for you bro. Most churches aren't either. They just benefit from being defined as one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I too was a bit surprised at first when the SC ruled this way.  Until I bothered to actually get the whole story.  The ruling, if you dig into it, had nothing to do with religious carve outs.  It was about being treated equally.  NYC was allowing many non-essential businesses to stay open with no caps on crowd size, whereas churches were told that they had to limit to 25.  Liquor stores and malls were allowed to stay open with no limits on crowd size.  

Close, no cigar. 

There's limits on crowd size, for businesses; but they're a percentage of the normal capacity.  Like, grocery stores are allowed 50% of normal, bars and restaurants can only let in 25%... etc. 

The religious establishments were being told that they just had a max number, 10, regardless of the building's normal capacity.

If Cuomo goes back and changes that  -  subjecting churches to a percentage, like other establishments  -  the SC would approve.  The judgment pretty much says that's an option:

"...there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue."

 

 

4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

False equivalency fail. ACLU pays property taxes. 
 

donations to aclu are not tax deductible.

Donations, to the ACLU Foundation, absolutely are tax-deductible. 

It's membership dues, to the ACLU (tout court), that aren't.

https://www.aclupa.org/en/about/aclu-vs-aclu-foundation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

So you disagree with the Supreme Court closing its doors to in person oral argument and only allowing argument by telephone, and extending that order through February? Do you advocate a different standard for them?

Not at all they can conduct business as THEY DECIDE.  The ruling made it clear The state has no right to apply different standards to religious groups than to a secular group.  Considering the first amendment,  it should have been such a basic decision I found it odd that the court didn’t vote unanimously 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Remodel said:
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

Unlike most religious the ACLU is not a charity. 
 

I got some news for you bro. Most churches aren't either. They just benefit from being defined as one.

image.png.f4fe41e910bf7585f6914bb5232de2ff.png

 

Sound track:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not at all they can conduct business as THEY DECIDE.  The ruling made it clear The state has no right to apply different standards to religious groups than to a secular group.  Considering the first amendment,  it should have been such a basic decision I found it odd that the court didn’t vote unanimously 

 

Yeah me too.

Because the Constitution treats religion and commerce exactly the same, doesn't it?

Let's bear in mind the founding principle of seperation of business and state!! You fuckin' boob

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

I found it odd that the court didn’t vote unanimously 

Same here, honestly.  But, like Jeff said about the other misconceptions... now that I dug into it, it makes sense.

These houses of worship are, currently, not subject to the limits (they're not in red or orange zones). They argue that they might be, at some later date. 

That argument made sense to me, when I thought this was a "final judgment by the Supreme Court" scenario  -  but it's not.  The 2nd circuit Court of Appeals hasn't even heard the case, yet; it's scheduled for Dec 18th. 

This is a request for an emergency injunction, to prevent enforcement in the meantime (which the Court of Appeals denied as moot).

See Breyer's dissent; starts pg 23 of the pdf:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2020 at 6:52 PM, Steam Flyer said:

IF YOU CHOOSE to harm others, then those others might be expected to have a right to say what happens next.

You can handle snakes, play music, jump around artfully, jump straight up and down so your prayers are closer to God, wear different clothes or no clothes at all, or ice skate, and call it religious.

What you should not be able to do is deliberately make choices that harm others, whether you call it a church or a business.

I'd like worship God by drinking beer, and I bet I could get a lot of people to come to a place I rent and call it Beer Church and give them beer to worship with (after they give me a $6 donation). God also wants us to eat salty snacks, watch sports, or listen to loud music while we worship Him thru drinking beer.

Is this legal or not, in the revelation of this SCOTUS ruling?

- DSK

So then by Joker's reasoning we should be able to drive home drunk since we are worshiping?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

Same here, honestly.  But, like Jeff said about the other misconceptions... now that I dug into it, it makes sense.

These houses of worship are, currently, not subject to the limits (they're not in red or orange zones). They argue that they might be, at some later date. 

That argument made sense to me, when I thought this was a "final judgment by the Supreme Court" scenario  -  but it's not.  The 2nd circuit Court of Appeals hasn't even heard the case, yet; it's scheduled for Dec 18th. 

This is a request for an emergency injunction, to prevent enforcement in the meantime (which the Court of Appeals denied as moot).

See Breyer's dissent; starts pg 23 of the pdf:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

Yep Looks like the same reason. Robert’s went with the minority.  On a funny note some judge in Sand Diego allowed a couple of strip joints to reopen claiming closing them violated the first amendment, but churches are still closed. 

 So some minister did a strip tease by removing his tie.  

https://www.lifenews.com/2020/11/19/strip-clubs-and-abortion-clinics-can-be-fully-open-in-california-during-coronavirus-not-churches/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pusslicker said:

So then by Joker's reasoning we should be able to drive home drunk since we are worshiping?

As long as you are driving a church at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raz'r said:
21 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

So does the tax exempt status of organizations like the ACLU justify disparate treatment of their rights too?

False equivalency fail. ACLU pays property taxes. 
 

donations to aclu are not tax deductible.

Frenchie already covered why the second part is wrong. As for the first part, charities do get property tax exemption in your state and mine.

So now that you know you're wrong on both counts, how about answering the question? Does tax exempt status mean disparate treatment of rights is OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ishmael said:

As long as you are driving a church at the time.

Who's to say where the church is though? That's the problem with these religious fucks. They can just make anything they want up and get tax exemption and now exemption from spreading a deadly disease. I won't even go into the buttfucking of children that the Catholics love so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have to agree with the SC on this one. Their job is not to rule on how stupid a crowded church is. Their job is not to legislate from the bench. Their job is decide on if something is constitutional. That’s it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Monkey said:

I actually have to agree with the SC on this one. Their job is not to rule on how stupid a crowded church is. Their job is not to legislate from the bench. Their job is decide on if something is constitutional. That’s it. 

I spent a little time rereading the Constitution and what it says with respect to gov't and religion.

If gathering in a certain building at a certain time, and avoiding certain types of clothing, are intrinsic to your religion ("My God wants to see your lips when you pray, so we can't wear face masks") then yeah, the SC decision was good.

But church is not the same as religion. The state of NY did not try to restrict RELIGION, they tried to restrict gathering in close-packed groups without masks.

And the fact that the churches saw this as more restrictive than the rules placed on business is a non-issue. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says churches must be treated equally to business.

So I'm going with the dissent on this one. There was a link to the briefs, I liked Roberts' opinion

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I spent a little time rereading the Constitution and what it says with respect to gov't and religion.

If gathering in a certain building at a certain time, and avoiding certain types of clothing, are intrinsic to your religion ("My God wants to see your lips when you pray, so we can't wear face masks") then yeah, the SC decision was good.

But church is not the same as religion. The state of NY did not try to restrict RELIGION, they tried to restrict gathering in close-packed groups without masks.

And the fact that the churches saw this as more restrictive than the rules placed on business is a non-issue. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says churches must be treated equally to business.

So I'm going with the dissent on this one. There was a link to the briefs, I liked Roberts' opinion

- DSK

Personally, I’d prefer the NY restrictions stayed in place. I’m not any sort of rabid religious guy. I only go to church on Christmas and Easter to make my mom happy. Even then, that hasn’t happened in awhile. Both of my parents worked in the medical profession, and they’re not stupid. 
 

I’m simply saying the SC is there to decide constitutional law. Period. I don’t like the conservative imbalance at all, but this was the correct, albeit unpleasant decision. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I spent a little time rereading the Constitution and what it says with respect to gov't and religion.

If gathering in a certain building at a certain time, and avoiding certain types of clothing, are intrinsic to your religion ("My God wants to see your lips when you pray, so we can't wear face masks") then yeah, the SC decision was good.

But church is not the same as religion. The state of NY did not try to restrict RELIGION, they tried to restrict gathering in close-packed groups without masks.

And the fact that the churches saw this as more restrictive than the rules placed on business is a non-issue. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says churches must be treated equally to business.

So I'm going with the dissent on this one. There was a link to the briefs, I liked Roberts' opinion

- DSK

Uh, no?  The plaintiffs did not argue that there shouldn't be limits on the number of people allowed in their churches.  They also did not contest the rules about mask-wearing. 

Maybe try reading the opinions, instead of pulling random shit out of your ass?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Monkey said:

Personally, I’d prefer the NY restrictions stayed in place.

Why? The opinion of the court points out that the plaintiffs

Quote

tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a single outbreak.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, frenchie said:

 

Uh, no?  The plaintiffs did not argue that there shouldn't be limits on the number of people allowed in their churches.  They also did not contest the rules about mask-wearing. 

Maybe try reading the opinions, instead of pulling random shit out of your ass?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

I did read it, maybe one of us is thinking about something different entirely? They objected to being under a simple numeric limit on occupancy, a tighter standard than nearby businesses were subject to.

Perhaps I didn't explain very well: They wanted to make the case about restriction on RELIGION whereas the restriction was on gathering in groups. And apparently every single justice on the Supreme Court played along. They're under no obligation to agree with me.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I did read it, maybe one of us is thinking about something different entirely? They objected to being under a simple numeric limit on occupancy, a tighter standard than nearby businesses were subject to.

Perhaps I didn't explain very well: They wanted to make the case about restriction on RELIGION whereas the restriction was on gathering in groups. And apparently every single justice on the Supreme Court played along. They're under no obligation to agree with me.

- DSK

You read the opinion and still wrote the bolded part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

...And apparently every single justice on the Supreme Court played along. They're under no obligation to agree with me.

 

You read the opinion and still wrote the bolded part?

Yes.

Was there any opinion that stated the plaintiff's case had no merit because the state was not limiting their exercise of RELIGION? If so, I apologize for missing it.

Because the state limited gathering, and nowhere in the case was it mentioned that God specifically directed them to gather in a specific place in a specific manner

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yes.

Was there any opinion that stated the plaintiff's case had no merit because the state was not limiting their exercise of RELIGION? If so, I apologize for missing it.

Because the state limited gathering, and nowhere in the case was it mentioned that God specifically directed them to gather in a specific place in a specific manner

- DSK

You didn’t read it or you simply missed the multiple times  physical locations are cited.  There are also multiple references to the first amendment and they even mention communion and in person requirements of the Jewish service.   
In other words the opinion directly talks about the things you claim it doesn’t.  
Why do you continue to make shit up that is so easy to prove a lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Was there any opinion that stated the plaintiff's case had no merit because the state was not limiting their exercise of RELIGION? ....

 

You didn’t read it or you simply missed the multiple times  physical locations are cited.  There are also multiple references to the first amendment and they even mention communion and in person requirements of the Jewish service.   
In other words the opinion directly talks about the things you claim it doesn’t.  
Why do you continue to make shit up that is so easy to prove a lie?

I can't tell if you're fractally wrong, or not even wrong.

But there is clearly a huge disconnect. A vast gulf.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I can't tell if you're fractally wrong, or not even wrong.

But there is clearly a huge disconnect. A vast gulf.

- DSK

Now you edit your own post to hide where you lied    -  Classic 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Now you edit your own post to hide where you lied    -  Classic 
 

You have a problem and the internet doesn't seem to be helping.

Did any Justice dismiss the case because the state was restricting GATHERING not RELIGION?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

You have a problem and the internet doesn't seem to be helping.

Did any Justice dismiss the case because the state was restricting GATHERING not RELIGION?

- DSK

I see as per your typical modus Operandi you are trying to deflect from your original claims. 
 

Do you even have the slightest understanding of how SCOTUS handles cases brought before them?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, SF.  Get a grip.

Nobody argued the State can't, or shouldn't, restrict "gathering". 

The issue was that the restrictions were different, for religious organizations, than for other gatherings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

Good grief, SF.  Get a grip.

Nobody argued the State can't, or shouldn't, restrict "gathering". 

The issue was that the restrictions were different, for religious organizations, than for other gatherings. 

And as I said earlier, there is nothing whatever in the Constitution that requires a state gov't to treat religious organizations the same as business.  The whole case was spurious two or three times over... first of all because the state agreed to provide relief to the churches asking for it, before the restrictions even took effect... secondly because the religious beliefs and practices were not being infringed in any way...  thirdly because the state IS specifically enabled under the Constitution to regulate business/commerce differently... it's not supposed to regulate religion at all IMHO.

If there are specifics in that brief you can point me to, I'd appreciate it. I read thru it, went back and re-read Roberts' dissent because that's the one that most closely fit what I had been thinking... and as you see, he did not address these directly although he did question the necessity of taking up the case.

- DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And as I said earlier, there is nothing whatever in the Constitution that requires a state gov't to treat religious organizations the same as business.  The whole case was spurious two or three times over... first of all because the state agreed to provide relief to the churches asking for it, before the restrictions even took effect... secondly because the religious beliefs and practices were not being infringed in any way...  thirdly because the state IS specifically enabled under the Constitution to regulate business/commerce differently... it's not supposed to regulate religion at all IMHO.

If there are specifics in that brief you can point me to, I'd appreciate it. I read thru it, went back and re-read Roberts' dissent because that's the one that most closely fit what I had been thinking... and as you see, he did not address these directly although he did question the necessity of taking up the case.

- DSK

 

Yet the State was regulating Religious institutions,   Which is why some of us initially thought the ruling  should have been unanimous 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Yet the State was regulating Religious institutions,   Which is why some of us initially thought the ruling  should have been unanimous 

Show where the state was regulating RELIGION, please.

Since one church was Catholic and one was Jewish, it's seems like the if the state is indeed trying to regulate religion, they really can't make up their mind

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

Show where the state was regulating RELIGION, please.

Since one church was Catholic and one was Jewish, it's seems like the if the state is indeed trying to regulate religion, they really can't make up their mind

- DSK

Are you seriously trying to claim the constitution only protects the aspect of Religion and that where and how services are held doesn't have that same protection?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Are you seriously trying to claim the constitution only protects the aspect of Religion and that where and how services are held doesn't have that same protection?

 

Are you seriously trying to claim that ALL religion is equivalent to their gathering in specific numbers in a specific building?

There are probably religions that believe this, but neither of the ones in this case do.

Like I said earlier, you seem to have a problem. The internet is not helping it

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Are you seriously trying to claim that ALL religion is equivalent to their gathering in specific numbers in a specific building?

There are probably religions that believe this, but neither of the ones in this case do.

Like I said earlier, you seem to have a problem. The internet is not helping it

- DSK

Spinning as usual.   We are discussing the current ruling that addressed the physical locations and gatherings of religious services being held  to a different standard than other gatherings of a secular nature.    For example Churches were being given a fixed number of participants regardless of the size of the space being used while secular businesses were told to use percentages of capacity.   I along with the majority saw a flaw, under the constitution in how the rules were being applied,  I understand why some dissented, but once they agreed to hear the case I think it still should have been unanimous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Spinning as usual.   We are discussing the current ruling that addressed the physical locations and gatherings of religious services being held  to a different standard than other gatherings of a secular nature.    For example Churches were being given a fixed number of participants regardless of the size of the space being used while secular businesses were told to use percentages of capacity.   I along with the majority saw a flaw, under the constitution in how the rules were being applied,  I understand why some dissented, but once they agreed to hear the case I think it still should have been unanimous. 

Uh huh

Yeah go back and read my posts, dumbass.

Where does it say that churches and businesses have to be treated the same? Hint- not in the Constitution. 2nd hint- this is the fourth time I've said this, you're just now getting that point?

How about going back and getting another point you missed.... the state cannot regulate RELIGION and this case is about regulating gatherings. Can the the state regulate how/where/numbers of people gathering? How many times have you missed this point?

But one thing we agree on- this decision should have been unanimous

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yes.

Was there any opinion that stated the plaintiff's case had no merit because the state was not limiting their exercise of RELIGION? If so, I apologize for missing it.

Because the state limited gathering, and nowhere in the case was it mentioned that God specifically directed them to gather in a specific place in a specific manner

- DSK

I get your nuance.

It's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of disciminatiion.

Density limits, specifically a number vs a percentage.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Joker said:

Yet the State was regulating Religious institutions,   Which is why some of us initially thought the ruling  should have been unanimous 

 

The state was regulating the building, not the religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

 

The state was regulating the building, not the religion.

Bullshit.  There was evidence presented that they drew the zones to deliberately include churches.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I get your nuance.

It's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of disciminatiion.

Density limits, specifically a number vs a percentage.

I agree.

He never made that point I did.  Try and keep. up.  Your not even an American so please stop trying to claim you have a clue about the history of SCOTUS rulings that deal with how people can conduct their religious freedoms.  It includes where and how they celebrate their beliefs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

 

The state was regulating the building, not the religion.

No they were regulating the congregation IE the people allowed to gather to celebrate mass and Shabbat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites