DOJ Steps Into California Lockdown Order

[Conager]

Can you name an American citizen whose religious practice has been banned?

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the plain language of the Constitution. It talks about the free exercise of religion. Doesn't say anything about simply not banning it.

Kind of like the second Amendment were it says shall not be infringed,

The government is expressly forbidden from telling you when, where, or how to practice your religion.

 

[phrodeau]

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the plain language of the Constitution. It talks about the free exercise of religion. Doesn't say anything about simply not banning it.

Kind of like the second Amendment were it says shall not be infringed,

The government is expressly forbidden from telling you when, where, or how to practice your religion.

A belief doesn’t protect property. The government can take away places of worship if it suits them. We proved that with the Native Americans.

 

[FlowersForFun]

A belief doesn’t protect property. The government can take away places of worship if it suits them. We proved that with the Native Americans.

Yes it does.

And property is further protected in the Constitution under 4A.

Sorry pho, but unfortunately for you the USA isn't a communist shit hole, people have individual rights including private property.

If freedom, civil rights and private property are such a huge problem for you and the other leftist, then the USA might not be the right country for you to live in.

Maybe you should consider, China or Venezuela??

 

[bellisarius]

Under what pretext can the governor seize ANY property? First of all there's the matter of "due process." Then you bump up against discrimination. Then the constitution.

Church property has been seized in the past under eminent domain, a very lengthy process.

 

[Pookie]

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the plain language of the Constitution. It talks about the free exercise of religion. Doesn't say anything about simply not banning it.

Kind of like the second Amendment were it says shall not be infringed,

The government is expressly forbidden from telling you when, where, or how to practice your religion.

The US Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in Reynolds v. United States the criminal conviction under a federal law banning polygamy was upheld.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the plain language of the Constitution. It talks about the free exercise of religion. Doesn't say anything about simply not banning it.

Kind of like the second Amendment were it says shall not be infringed,

The government is expressly forbidden from telling you when, where, or how to practice your religion.

No one in the US is being forbidden from practicing their religion.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yes it does.

And property is further protected in the Constitution under 4A.

Sorry pho, but unfortunately for you the USA isn't a communist shit hole, people have individual rights including private property.

If freedom, civil rights and private property are such a huge problem for you and the other leftist, then the USA might not be the right country for you to live in.

Maybe you should consider, China or Venezuela??

https://media.giphy.com/media/Vsl4fGedmYFRC/giphy.gif

 

[FlowersForFun]

The US Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in Reynolds v. United States the criminal conviction under a federal law banning polygamy was upheld.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

Pushing poly folks underground.

Much like the insane restrictions on abortions and other anti-liberty positions the SCOTUS has been upheld.....SCOTUS saying so doesn't make it right.

If the government can't substantiate a religious exercise is bringing harm or presenting an eminent threat of harm to others or infringing upon their rights? It and the control freaks running it need to step the fuck off.

 

[FlowersForFun]

No one in the US is being forbidden from practicing their religion.

But they are being unlawfully restricted from doing so freely.....by Democrats.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Vsl4fGedmYFRC/giphy.gif

How is that irony?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Rightguide]

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the plain language of the Constitution. It talks about the free exercise of religion. Doesn't say anything about simply not banning it.

Kind of like the second Amendment were it says shall not be infringed,

The government is expressly forbidden from telling you when, where, or how to practice your religion.

He doesn't understand, "Congress shall make no law" or the legal concept of "incorporation."

 

[Conager]

The US Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in Reynolds v. United States the criminal conviction under a federal law banning polygamy was upheld.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

That was, quite obviously, a wrong decision. You do realize it is Supreme Court also held that slavery was constitutional, right?

There's not a chance in hell that even today's Supreme Court would find that a Muslim having four wives can be prohibited by law.

If you cannot practice the tenets of one's religion, one is prohibited from the free exercise, thereof.
For SCOTUS to impose standards of morality, it would have to find some harm done. If gay marriage is legal, polygamy is.

That said, even if you could torture a ruling that says marriage is whatever consenting adults want it to be as long as there are two participants and exactly only two participants, that is not even remotely on point with clear, unambiguous interference in the free exercise of indisputably U]legal [/U], traditional religious practices.

What part of "free" exercise is ambiguous yo you?

 

[Conager]

No one in the US is being forbidden from practicing their religion.

Forbidding worship services is the indefensible forbidding of parishioners from practicing their religion which involves worship services.

Just because some people say, "I'm spiritual, not religious, I don't need a church to worship God, I find I feel closer to God in nature" does not mean that the government, under force of law, can prohibit the free exercise of religion by those who are both spiritual and religious and find that they feel closer to God through congregational worship.

. . .and that is before you get into the problem of freedom of Association. Nothing about prohibiting a church from engaging in their actual religious exercises is remotely constitutional.

 

[Rightguide]

That was, quite obviously, a wrong decision. You do realize it is Supreme Court also held that slavery was constitutional, right?

There's not a chance in hell that even today's Supreme Court would find that a Muslim having four wives can be prohibited by law.

If you cannot practice the tenets of one's religion, one is prohibited from the free exercise, thereof.
For SCOTUS to impose standards of morality, it would have to find some harm done. If gay marriage is legal, polygamy is.

That said, even if you could torture a ruling that says marriage is whatever consenting adults want it to be as long as there are two participants and exactly only two participants, that is not even remotely on point with clear, unambiguous interference in the free exercise of indisputably U]legal [/U], traditional religious practices.

What part of "free" exercise is ambiguous yo you?

The case she mentioned is not analogous to the present lock down orders.

 

[Pookie]

That was, quite obviously, a wrong decision. You do realize it is Supreme Court also held that slavery was constitutional, right?

There's not a chance in hell that even today's Supreme Court would find that a Muslim having four wives can be prohibited by law.

The Court isn't perfect and often makes flawed decisions. Judges are imperfect at best. You may be right about today's court allowing multiple wives as well. But, will the Court let you marry someone who doesn't want to marry you? Or someone who is a child? Or someone who is in a coma?

Few rights are absolute. As I posted, "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

And they legitimately do. You have the right to believe what you want, but your rights end where my/others' rights begin when it comes to your actions/practices. If you believe the Founding Fathers thought differently, then you're sadly ignorant.

If you cannot practice the tenets of one's religion, one is prohibited from the free exercise, thereof.
For SCOTUS to impose standards of morality, it would have to find some harm done. If gay marriage is legal, polygamy is.

That said, even if you could torture a ruling that says marriage is whatever consenting adults want it to be as long as there are two participants and exactly only two participants, that is not even remotely on point with clear, unambiguous interference in the free exercise of indisputably U]legal [/U], traditional religious practices.

What part of "free" exercise is ambiguous yo you?

Its not ambiguous to me at all. You're apparently just caught up in the delusion that all rights are absolute. You are absolutely wrong. Also, just because some practice that is "religious" and is also considered "traditional", doesn't mean it should automatically be allowed. That's just moronically absurd at best.

 

[hogjack]

Florida and Georgia hospitals have been overwhelmed since they re-opened the economy, beaches, and life in general. They may never recover.

California, a state known to stupidity, is playing it smart.

Wait, this just in: none of the above has any relation to reality

 

[phrodeau]

Forbidding worship services is the indefensible forbidding of parishioners from practicing their religion which involves worship services.

Just because some people say, "I'm spiritual, not religious, I don't need a church to worship God, I find I feel closer to God in nature" does not mean that the government, under force of law, can prohibit the free exercise of religion by those who are both spiritual and religious and find that they feel closer to God through congregational worship.

. . .and that is before you get into the problem of freedom of Association. Nothing about prohibiting a church from engaging in their actual religious exercises is remotely constitutional.

There are hundreds of online worship services. None are banned.

A minyan is ten people, which is allowed. Jesus said that all you need are two or three.