Jump to content

So it Begins


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

SCOTUS upholds yet another imposition on religious liberty. Elder Bednar proven right again. Just what is the opiate?

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/07/25/ted-cruz-john-roberts-has-abandoned-his-oath/

My understanding that in this instance, places of worship were given more stringent attendance restrictions than other places, and this is the kind of thing Elder Bednar was warning against.

In many cases where some churches wanted/demanded/litigated special exemptions from the same restrictions imposed on other places in the name of religious freedom, this accommodation was made. But in most cases, faith groups followed government recommendations anyway. I don't think Elder Bednar was calling for these kinds of exemptions and waivers.

In the first instance (the OP), churches are not considered/ officially designated essential, and in the second instance, they may or may not be. Elder Bednar was calling for churches to receive this official designation (with attendant responsibilities), and warning against anything less.

Edited by CV75
Link to post

ah, give it time, this will  blow over, be cautious of course. I think they didn't want to have people to go back early when given enough time the pandemic shall pass and they all can go back safely. I am not surprised but this didn't upset the apple cart for me

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

ah, give it time, this will  blow over, be cautious of course. I think they didn't want to have people to go back early when given enough time the pandemic shall pass and they all can go back safely. I am not surprised but this didn't upset the apple cart for me

Hmmm.  I suppose it depends on how worried one is that someone might resort to Court decisions about COVID-19 restrictions as precedent in future cases, n'est-ce pas, mon frere?

  • Like 4
Link to post
1 minute ago, provoman said:

Your analysis is not in US Constitutional standards. 

The US Constitutional standard is not a paternalistic lets protect the people from themsleves,  ergo "want to have people to go back early"

The Constitutional Standard is essentially a YES / NO ... regarding treatment of one protected group verses another group.

And while we all can have our opinions, trampling the rights of one group is the flaxen cord that lulls us into trampling the right of all.

(It is my understanding that injunction relief has specific standards to be met to grant, not available at the moment to look it up)

go to church, don't go to church, why drag the USSC into this? the pandemic will go away so why waste court time?

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

go to church, don't go to church, why drag the USSC into this? the pandemic will go away so why waste court time?

You seem to have a misunderstanding about how the United States Supreme Court works.  In all but a very few cases, review by the United States Supreme Court is discretionary.  No one can "drag the [Court] into this."

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, USU78 said:

SCOTUS upholds yet another imposition on religious liberty. Elder Bednar proven right again. Just what is the opiate?

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/07/25/ted-cruz-john-roberts-has-abandoned-his-oath/

Great point... the opiate of the masses sure is NOT religion anymore, but they are still under the influence of what cannot be spoken.

Somebody's got to stand up and speak it.

Gorsuch nailed it.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You seem to have a misunderstanding about how the United States Supreme Court works.  In all but a very few cases, review by the United States Supreme Court is discretionary.  No one can "drag the [Court] into this."

i'll be honest I don't know or care how the USSC works, it doesn't affect anything to do with my life. Why give in though to these petitioners if it's all discretionary? why squeeze the juice out of that? there must be some good that can come from it-like the decisions , don't like it, go to church don't go church, can people make up their own minds or can't they? why involve a court? seems a waste of time for something that will go away

Link to post
22 minutes ago, provoman said:

Your analysis is not in US Constitutional standards. 

The US Constitutional standard is not a paternalistic lets protect the people from themsleves,  ergo "want to have people to go back early"

The Constitutional Standard is essentially a YES / NO ... regarding treatment of one protected group verses another group.

And while we all can have our opinions, trampling the rights of one group is the flaxen cord that lulls us into trampling the right of all.

(It is my understanding that injunction relief has specific standards to be met to grant, not available at the moment to look it up)

This comes with the usual, albeit exceedingly tiresome, caveats.  I am not a lawyer.  Anyone with questions about appropriateness of injunctive relief in a specific case should contact an attorney who is licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the matter arose.  Now, with that out of the way ... :rolleyes:  It depends on whether a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction is being sought.  For a temporary injunction, the requirements are:

  • Strong likelihood that the party requesting injunctive relief will prevail on the merits;
  • Party requesting injunctive relief has suffered, or is likely to suffer, irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted;
  • Considering the balance between Plaintiff and Defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted*; and
  • The public interest would be served if the injunction were to be granted.

The requirements for a permanent injunction are the latter three in the above list.

*I'd have to point you to at least one book to explain adequately the difference between law and equity, but a "rough-and-ready" definition of equity is, but basically, the central question underlying equity is, whatever the law says, would a particular outcome be fair?

You're welcome.  Glad I could help. ;):D

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'll be honest I don't know or care how the USSC works, it doesn't affect anything to do with my life. ...

Okay.  Then your contention that anyone "dragged the Court" into anything is moot.

P.S.: But, in answer to your question, now that I think about it, given the nature of injunctive relief and the circumstances under which, often, it is sought, review may not be discretionary.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  Then your contention that anyone "dragged the Court" into anything is moot.

I said "drag the court" not "dragged the court" there is no difference!!!!!!!!🥴

Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.  I suppose it depends on how worried one is that someone might resort to Court decisions about COVID-19 restrictions as precedent in future cases, n'est-ce pas, mon frere?

Hmmm.

...Canada is different after all. ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.  I suppose it depends on how worried one is that someone might resort to Court decisions about COVID-19 restrictions as precedent in future cases, n'est-ce pas, mon frere?

well, the Canadian Supreme Court are dealing with this

https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/index-eng.aspx

nothing about a a church!

 

Edited by Duncan
Link to post

This is what the argument will be:

If government can stop the meetings of churches because they transmit a biological virus that is 0.5% lethal, why shouldn’t it stop the meetings of churches that transmit ideas to LGBTQ youth that lead to suicide, which is 100% lethal?

  • Like 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

This is what the argument will be:

If government can stop the meetings of churches because they transmit a biological virus that is 0.5% lethal, why shouldn’t it stop the meetings of churches that transmit ideas to LGBTQ youth that lead to suicide, which is 100% lethal?

I think it may come to that — and sooner than many of us anticipate. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, provoman said:

Look into the history of the Canadian Supreme Court and its dealings with religious subjects.

I have and sounds good to me. I can practice my minority religion in Canada without any infringements, you can't pray to open municipal meetings but so what. 

We had a case here that lasted almost 10 years involving a member of the Church and the Provincial Supreme Court came to a draw on it but it never went to the Canadian Supreme Court

Link to post
1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

This is what the argument will be:

If government can stop the meetings of churches because they transmit a biological virus that is 0.5% lethal, why shouldn’t it stop the meetings of churches that transmit ideas to LGBTQ youth that lead to suicide, which is 100% lethal?

We were nearly there in California in the days of Proposition 8.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Duncan said:

go to church, don't go to church, why drag the USSC into this? the pandemic will go away so why waste court time?

You are making the assumption that you can go to church when you choose to do so. The problem is that that a government entity is now telling you when and if you can attend church. What makes it worse is that the same government entity is allowing others to assemble. Their decision appears willy-nilly and capricious about a fundamental, constitutional right. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You are making the assumption that you can go to church when you choose to do so. The problem is that that a government entity is now telling you when and if you can attend church. What makes it worse is that the same government entity is allowing others to assemble. Their decision appears willy-nilly and capricious about a fundamental, constitutional right. 

not here, the gov. just limits the amount of people that can assemble. We could have gone back in May if the Stake had allowed it

Link to post
6 hours ago, Duncan said:

ah, give it time, this will  blow over, be cautious of course. I think they didn't want to have people to go back early when given enough time the pandemic shall pass and they all can go back safely. I am not surprised but this didn't upset the apple cart for me

This is the first time that the government has dictated when, how and how many can congregate. This is called precedent. It will be used to restrict religious expression in the future. Mark my words. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...