Islander Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 45 minutes ago, california boy said: So everyone gets to decide about what public safety means. Stoplights? Just a suggestion. Seatbelts? optional. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of laws that the government has adopted for the safety of ALL citizens. Sometimes it is just not ALL about you. I personally am pretty ticked off that the whole mask thing has become political and people feel the need to make some statement about their own personal right to decide what to do about public health issues. These steps are all about reducing the spread of a deadly virus. And these people who feel like medical science should not be taken into consideration when it comes to public safety are the exact people who are keeping the economy locked down. The more they insist on their own personal rights, the more the virus spreads and the more the economy is affected. I am all for letting people do whatever they want to do concerning this virus if they are willing to stay as one group out in the middle of the desert and not reenter the population where the rest of us are trying our best to cope with the reality of how this virus spreads. But the same people who insist on going to church along with hundreds of others are the same ones that Monday morning are wandering through grocery stores spreading whatever they picked up the day before. This applies to ALL groups who think it is ok to gather in large numbers, ignore social distancing, and refuse to wear masks. Yep. That is my position as well. If you don't feel safe, stay home. Just don't force me to stay home if I decide otherwise, especially to worship as I see fit. As far as the public safety issues, those are elements of developed countries, part of everyday life and necessary for the lawful and safe operation of society. No argument there. The scenario we are experiencing is NOT the norm and constitute, from every standpoint, an outlier as far of every day living. So, seat belts and stoplight are rather not useful examples.
strappinglad Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 56 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: POTUS declaring a ban on all members of a specific religion entering our country CFR 3
Rajah Manchou Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 42 minutes ago, Islander said: they have not declared the violent protests and their potential for contributing to the outbreak, an illegal assembly and brought the law to bear against them. But it is OK to restrict religious assemblies? Protests are outdoors. In Nevada, is there a cap on how many Christians can gather outdoors? 2
strappinglad Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 Duncan, I strongly recommend you look up Canada's Quarantine Act and see if you understand just how all powerful it makes the Crown . Hitler would be proud !! 1
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 41 minutes ago, Islander said: Yep. That is my position as well. If you don't feel safe, stay home. Just don't force me to stay home if I decide otherwise, especially to worship as I see fit. And this is your position even when the apostles are telling people to obey the law in regards to public gatherings? 3
Rajah Manchou Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, strappinglad said: CFR Have to be careful here because the no politics rule, but as a candidate Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States“
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Duncan, I strongly recommend you look up Canada's Quarantine Act and see if you understand just how all powerful it makes the Crown . Hitler would be proud !! Comparing quarantine regulations that allow the government to contain the infectious for the public good to death camps? This is how infantilized we are becoming about our rights to wreak havoc on others? I do not recall signing up for this death cult and wish to resign and leave this train. Please! 4
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Have to be careful here because the no politics rule, but as a candidate Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States“ No, but you see the actual thing was about certain nations so we cannot prove connection between that statement and the actual order. Nothing to link them at all. That is of course assuming we have all had frontal lobotomies or some of us at least are pretending we did. 1
Duncan Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Duncan, I strongly recommend you look up Canada's Quarantine Act and see if you understand just how all powerful it makes the Crown . Hitler would be proud !! we only quarantine Americans and Eastern Canadians now, Hitler would agree that we should quarantine Calgary riff raff😜 Edited July 26, 2020 by Duncan 1
Rajah Manchou Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No, but you see the actual thing was about certain nations so we cannot prove connection between that statement and the actual order. Nothing to link them at all. That is of course assuming we have all had frontal lobotomies or some of us at least are pretending we did. ... Edited July 26, 2020 by Rajah Manchou Too political, don’t want the ban hammer
strappinglad Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 I CFR'd that POTUS did it. 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: to death camps I addressed it to DUNCAN not you Nehor. That said , Hitler made a great many laws that I would hope you agree gave an enormous amount of power to the State to do as it saw fit especially under an " emergency " . This is what I was referring to , nothing about death camps said or inferred. Duncan implied that Canadian law was somehow less overbearing, and I wanted to show him a " hold my beer " situation. Maybe you might look at the ACT yourself and see what is possible .
Duncan Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 29 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Duncan, I strongly recommend you look up Canada's Quarantine Act and see if you understand just how all powerful it makes the Crown . Hitler would be proud !! are you talking about Japanese internment camps during WW2? I agree with these measures https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/Q-1.1/page-2.html
strappinglad Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 10 minutes ago, Duncan said: are you talking about Japanese internment camps during WW2? No, this Act was about disease quarantines and revised in 2005 .
Robert F. Smith Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 8 hours 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. No right is absolute. Emergencies and public health law can intervene and the Court must make judgments which are bound to anger someone. That is reality. 4
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 1 hour ago, strappinglad said: I CFR'd that POTUS did it. I addressed it to DUNCAN not you Nehor. That said , Hitler made a great many laws that I would hope you agree gave an enormous amount of power to the State to do as it saw fit especially under an " emergency " . This is what I was referring to , nothing about death camps said or inferred. Duncan implied that Canadian law was somehow less overbearing, and I wanted to show him a " hold my beer " situation. Maybe you might look at the ACT yourself and see what is possible . He did do it. Being deliberately obtuse about the intent can hide that fact if you want to assume the order arose from a vacuum. I did not realize I needed special permission to respond to the current conversation. Is that a new rule? So you were just bringing up Nazism but the crimes of that regime are irrelevant to your comparison? Pretty sure that makes it a bad comparison. The law of the Third Reich was weird. There was a dual system. The common law system survived but was harsh against crimes against the people (disagreement with the regime and their goals or spreading doubt about it) while meanwhile there was another system that operated mostly outside of written law where you had the death camps, mass relocations, and the like that mostly operated vaguely under decrees or secret orders. I did look over the Canada act when I was looking at quarantine powers in various nations when this first hit. The USA has similar powers of quarantine and so do most nations. There is nothing Nazish about it. 3
Rajah Manchou Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 4 hours ago, strappinglad said: I CFR'd that POTUS did it. Donald Trump became POTUS in January, 2017. The words "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" were on donaldjtrump.com until the press complained loud enough. The Muslim Ban wording was removed on May 7, 2017, five months after POTUS was sworn in. Besides, when Justice Roberts asked if Trump might immunize his executive orders from constitutional challenge by disavowing his earlier statements about a Muslim ban, Trump responded by saying "there’s nothing to apologize for." 3
CV75 Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 12 hours ago, Islander said: Notice that governments have not raised an eyebrow over the thousands of "peaceful protesters" assembling everywhere. Here in Denver, there are a couple of thousand people permanently camped outside the capitol and, there is no concern about social distancing? So, that part of the 1st Amendment remains intact while the free exercise of religion can be abridged alleging concerns about social distancing? It implies that the rights of some are more important than the rights of others. I don't buy it. Enactment and administration fall under two different branches. Elder Bednar is speaking to the enactment of law and executive orders, but his remarks certainly apply to administration and enforcement as well. I suppose we can turn to the courts to address religious discrimination in administration and enforcement issues.
CV75 Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: I don’t really buy that reasoning except maybe about the singing and perhaps the speaking and yelling at some of the more enthusiastic churches. Restaurant visits last about as long as a church meeting and there is more talking there than in many churches. Ca sinos have no reason to exist generally and many people sit at the slots or black jack tables much longer than they would in a church meeting. Stores do need to operate to some degree. I agree that the government has the right to restrict houses of worship during a pandemic but I am not convinced the restrictions are evenhanded or logical. I also strongly suspect the almighty dollar in which most really trust explains most of those distinctions. I do not believe this is a threat to religious freedom unless we are endlessly wracked by pandemics. It is not a new restriction. If anti religious forces uses it outside a public health crisis as a precedent it did not increase the danger; there were already dozens of precedents for public health they could abuse in other circumstances. If it is used explicitly to shut down churches due to dangerous free speech or whatever it will be in defiance of judicial precedence with cheap excuses. Had to break up words due to 403. This site’s filter really hates gam bling. Yes, money may have been at the heart of the decision, which is why I used "arguably" and "evidently reasonable" to describe the rationale as the precautionary management of a congregate audience in various settings/venues. This is why I think Elder Bednar warns against unlimited government power and the abuse of that power, and that as we see the actual and potential effects of these decisions on the free expression of religion (regardless of the intent), we become more vigilant in involving ourselves in government decisions. At the same time, a limited government is set up by the people in the first place to manage the unlimited exercise of freedom in a direction that negatively affects the whole. Both types of involvement require civil virtue and good faith.
Islander Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Protests are outdoors. In Nevada, is there a cap on how many Christians can gather outdoors? Not sure. For the most part, in the US, Christian congregate indoors at churches.
Islander Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: And this is your position even when the apostles are telling people to obey the law in regards to public gatherings? I am obeying the law. I just happen to believe the law is arbitrary and violates my right to worshio6as I see fit.
Islander Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 3 hours ago, CV75 said: Enactment and administration fall under two different branches. Elder Bednar is speaking to the enactment of law and executive orders, but his remarks certainly apply to administration and enforcement as well. I suppose we can turn to the courts to address religious discrimination in administration and enforcement issues. We should. But, it speaks volumes that the letter of the law is dead, when we have to run to the SCOUTS every time there is an issue, because (typically) the Left decides what's good for the rest of us while ignoring the Constitution. 1
california boy Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I dunno. Time was when I would have thought it highly unlikely for a baker to be forced to create a product expressly to celebrate an event in direct contravention of his religious beliefs. I dunno. Time was when I thought this country was over this whole discrimination at the lunch counter/bakery thing. I see it is still alive and well among many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just the name of the Church seems in conflict with not serving others no matter who they are. Yet some manage to still justify such behavior.
california boy Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 13 hours ago, Islander said: All I said was that in my estimation, local governments have mandated and enacted ordinances in relation to the outbreak that were in this case validated by the courts. Meanwhile, they have not declared the violent protests and their potential for contributing to the outbreak, an illegal assembly and brought the law to bear against them. But it is OK to restrict religious assemblies? You didn't really answer the question did you. AND what court ruled that protesters didn't have to wear masks? Quote Has there been a case brought before the SCOTUS concerning these issues? Or are you advocating that the court start issuing rulings on law when no legal matter is presented before them.
california boy Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 13 hours ago, Islander said: Yep. That is my position as well. If you don't feel safe, stay home. Just don't force me to stay home if I decide otherwise, especially to worship as I see fit. As far as the public safety issues, those are elements of developed countries, part of everyday life and necessary for the lawful and safe operation of society. No argument there. The scenario we are experiencing is NOT the norm and constitute, from every standpoint, an outlier as far of every day living. So, seat belts and stoplight are rather not useful examples. So your position is to let those spreading the virus free on the streets to infect others, while those that are trying to curb the spread of the virus should stay home? And you think that by doing this, the economy will be able to start up again, people will be able to go back to work and society will be better off? How about this. Those that don't have any concern for public safety be the ones staying home. 3
strappinglad Posted July 26, 2020 Posted July 26, 2020 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: Is that a new rule? Yes, I just made it up by the powers vested in me , a tin pot dictator , who decided not to let a good crisis go to waste. 😜 We have seen mayors, and governors etc. , when given power like this , deciding that Walmart can stay open, but Mom's Food Emporium must close , that Home Depot is immune but Joe's Hardware must shut its doors potentially forever. Fifty people protesting in front of a police station is fine but a lone man jogging in an empty park must be fined 880 dollars because...reasons. I recall somewhere in scripture something about " we have learned by sad experience ... "
Recommended Posts