Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Taro T said: Which of those 2 rights are protected by the FIRST Amendment? Oh, they both are? Holy cow, you may be an intelligent person in real life, but you sure do love to play an idiot on the internet. im being fully serious in this discussion. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both first amendment rights. Neither are absolute rights. limits on attendance to religious services (equally applied to all religions) is going to be upheld. And it has been upheld consistently, including the Supreme Court. restrictions on protests have been made and are okay. But simply preventing people from protesting in public spaces, would never be attempted or upheld. It’s clearly unconstitutional How is that an idiotic statement? Edited July 31, 2020 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiotAct Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Taro T said: Wifey made a good point. IF Biden wins, it doesn't go away in November, it goes away in early February so he can claim he "fixed it." heh. Interestingly enough, that may be the natural progression of things anyway. Biden gets elected in November (pretty much a given at this point), vaccine or newly-found effective treatment comes out first quarter of ‘21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: the right to go to a church is not anywhere near as strong as a right to protest in public. like it or not, that is the way it is. They’re protected under the same Constitutional amendment guaranteeing both. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 7 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: Quote? Not only no fans. No football! “Unless players are essentially in a bubble — insulated from the community and they are tested nearly every day — it would be very hard to see how football is able to be played this fall,” the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/18/sports/dont-let-dr-anthony-fauci-burst-your-bubble-nfl-fans/ This is what 40 years in the swamp does to you. But on that clip....he says he doesn't make policy decisions like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 6 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: im being fully serious in this discussion. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both first amendment rights. Neither are absolute rights. limits on attendance to religious services (equally applied to all religions) is going to be upheld. And it has been upheld consistently, including the Supreme Court. restrictions on protests have been made and are okay. But simply preventing people from protesting in public spaces, would never be attempted or upheld. It’s clearly unconstitutional How is that an idiotic statement? Your initial post said the government can’t limit protests. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: They’re protected under the same Constitutional amendment guaranteeing both. Oh yea, it’s that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Crayola64 said: Oh yea, it’s that simple It is. If you’re arguing that the government can restrict constitutional rights in one way, they can do it in any way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 "I'm not in a position to determine what the government can do in a forceful way." "I'm not going to opinine on limiting anything." Incredible. Get this clown out of here Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: Your initial post said the government can’t limit protests. Which is it? The government cannot just prevent people from protesting in public. They can put restrictions on time and place, but they can’t just restrict it. Just now, whatdrought said: It is. If you’re arguing that the government can restrict constitutional rights in one way, they can do it in any way. um no? Different standards apply to different first amendment rights... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Crayola64 said: The government cannot just prevent people from protesting in public. They can put restrictions on time and place, but they can’t just restrict it. And they can force social distancing, and masks, and limit number of participants because that’s what they’re doing with churches. And for those who don’t comply they can arrest and fine as needed. That’s the precident or removed rights that we’re seeing with freedom of religion and assembly and it doesn’t change because it’s a protest. Your continued attempt to draw an imaginary distinction is idiotic. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: And they can force social distancing, and masks, and limit number of participants because that’s what they’re doing with churches. And for those who don’t comply they can arrest and fine as needed. That’s the precident or removed rights that we’re seeing with freedom of religion and assembly and it doesn’t change because it’s a protest. Your continued attempt to draw an imaginary distinction is idiotic. You can disagree. But the distinction is based in fact and law (not based on political opinions) you should email the Supreme Court and let them know their understanding of the law is idiotic. Edited July 31, 2020 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: um no? Different standards apply to different first amendment rights... You’re so full of *****! This is literally the exact opposite of how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Fauci's hand wave at Jordan at the end...like an F... you. Might as well be an F you to the American people asking these same questions. And for the record. Protests are fine by me. Going to football games. Yep. This is a joke. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Crayola64 said: You can disagree. But the distinction is based in fact and law (not based on political opinions) you should email the Supreme Court and let them know their understanding of the law is idiotic. Your argument is that the SC is always right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, whatdrought said: You’re so full of *****! This is literally the exact opposite of how it works. lol okkkkkkkk. It’s as simple as “they did it to churches so they can do it to protests.” your stance is is beyond moronic, and not grounded in anything but a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Just now, whatdrought said: Your argument is that the SC is always right? no, but I think the past 200 years of decisions that have formed two entirely different standards and rules for these seperate first amendment rights KINDA means something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Jordan forgot to bring up Fauci has opined on the protests! These protests!! Fauci warns protests will 'backfire,' slow economic recovery Anthony Fauci, the top government official on infectious diseases, warned Monday that protests in opposition to governors' stay-at-home orders meant to slow the spread of the coronavirus will "backfire" and further delay the reopening of the economy. "Clearly this is something that is hurting from the standpoint of economics and the standpoint of things that have nothing to do with the virus, but unless we get the virus under control, the real recovery economically is not going to happen," Fauci said on "Good Morning America." "So what you do if you jump the gun and go into a situation where you have a big spike, you’re going to set yourself back," he said. "So as painful as it is to go by the careful guidelines of gradually phasing into a reopening, it’s going to backfire. That’s the problem." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/493647-fauci-warns-protests-against-against-stay-at-home-orders-will Fire him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilzfancy Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 7 minutes ago, B-Man said: Now that is some bullcrap, I can understand Lewis having a funeral, he was a long time congressperson but George Floyd was a nobody before he was killed and he had 3 funerals 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: lol okkkkkkkk. It’s as simple as “they did it to churches so they can do it to protests.” your stance is is beyond moronic, and not grounded in anything but a misunderstanding of the first amendment. no, but I think the past 200 years of decisions that have formed two entirely different standards and rules for these seperate first amendment rights KINDA means something. It’s called an equal application of the law. You can’t draw arbitrary distinction for one groups right to assembly and another's. Thinking you can make such arbitrary decisions is what makes you a liberal and someone who doesn’t understand the basic idea of the constitution. As I said, full of *****. so precedent is king, huh? I’m sure glad there’s no black marks on the SCOTUS record.... I Dred the thought. Edited July 31, 2020 by whatdrought 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, whatdrought said: It’s called an equal application of the law. You can’t draw arbitrary distinction for one groups right to assembly and another's. Thinking you can make such arbitrary decisions is what makes you a liberal and someone who doesn’t understand the basic idea of the constitution. As I said, full of *****. so precedent is king, huh? I’m sure glad there’s no black marks on the SCOTUS record.... I Dredd the thought. I’m just pointing out that comparing the protests to churches is comparing two entirely different concepts that have entirely different bodies of law. It is not apples to oranges, it’s fruit to sports. Applying first amendment law to freedom of religion is an entirely different concept than applying the relevant law to freedom of speech. you can throw your hissy fit because you don’t understand it at all. The difference between me and you is that I understand this topic is highly confusing and complicated, while you think it is very simple. You should be more aware of your ignorance. Edited July 31, 2020 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts