Yeah, it seems that churches aren't exempt, which I am on board with. Same thing here in Australia. You mean CAN'T spread the virus there?
On the contrary, I'm sure that many religious communities DO believe that the virus cannot be spread among them.
Oh, it's a slam-dunk. 9-Zip isn't out of the question. This is well settled law, though I suspect they would apply the Jacobson test rather than the Lemon test. At issue is the kind of emergency authority allowed by the Supreme Court under the 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It’s not enough to declare a constitutional right as overriding emergency decisions, the court ruled 115 years ago, but to determine that the state overstepped emergency powers to limit access to constitutional rights by using the least intrusive restriction necessary to satisfy a legitimate emergency state interest: - So two pongs, the second must be satisfied first. “Under the pressure of great dangers,” constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted “as the safety of the general public may demand.” That settled rule allows the state to restrict, for example, one’s right to peaceably assemble, to publicly worship, to travel, and even to leave one’s home. We accept these temporary measures because of the exigent circumstances of the emergency and the application of these restrictions in dealing with it. In a pandemic, we need to keep people separated as much as possible, and so churches are being shut down even though the right to freely express religious beliefs in public is among the first explicit rights protected in the Constitution. These measures will surely pass the Jacobson even with the application of strict scrutiny test that it was the least intrusive measure on which to serve the state’s interest while dealing with the pandemic. Now, having two officers take a lone paddle boarder into custody, putting him in close contact with two arresting officers, when he was initially hundreds of feet from anyone? That looks like it flunks the second prong.
And God has felt the need to prove them the idiots they are.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/04/27/pastor-landon-spradlin-coronavirus-death/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/bishop-gerald-glenn-coronavirus.html
I'm not sure if you believe that. I THINK you're a believer in God of some sort, if I correctly recall our previous discussions.
So a State law can suspend constitutional rights? Sometimes open violation of unjust laws it's the only way to deal with unjust laws. There are always viruses. why don't you just suspend all public gatherings indefinitely because someone might get the flu and die. I think the pastor has a very sound Supreme Court case here, and I hope it gets there and I hope the State loses. The First Amendment cannot be suspended I don't care what the circumstances are
I'm currently living in a rather Democratic **** city. Once I can get my new career going I'll move out of this place quit paying property taxes to these idiots. That being said I want anyone who violates the constitutional rights of my fellow citizens to pay the consequences. I don't care if the Democrats, I don't care if they go to some stupid megachurch. That is their right and it does not get suspended because of some Chinese flu.
I absolutely disagree on fundamental constitutional grounds. People have the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't get suspended. nobody ever cares that they spread the flu. The death rates are about the same.
Yeah, I agree. I think what I meant was that I agree that churches were included in the list, but to the extent that churches would respect it and decide not to meet voluntarily. Churches which didn't respect it are stupid, but they have the right to meet. Also, I wouldn't have a problem if the government named and shamed any irresponsible churches and recorded the number plates of any church attendees and placed certain restrictions on their drivers licenses after giving a clear warning that this is what would happen. I have no problem with any of that whatsoever. Isn't the fact that the flu has a vaccine and treatments and has been around for thousands of years slightly distinguish it from coronavirus?
I don't think there's anything wrong with offering services online. Churches should be encouraged to do this. Well in terminology perhaps. The flu has a greater mortality rate although I suspect that's because a lot of cases of the flu go by on confirmed because people don't get tested for the flu. Also the coronavirus has been around for a long time. The strain of it no but the strain of flu we going to have next season is new, that's why I sometimes even if you get a flu shot you might still get the flu.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The protests seemed to average about 1mm between each person. So a bit different to stadium seating as with Trump's rally.
medical personnel. False, it's antibodies that matter. And we don't have antibodies for any of the coronavirus strains. Further you do understand antibodies built up to blend virus can work against another virus right? The vaccine against smallpox was developed by using a cowpox virus.
Well I don't think that it would've taken the encouragement from medical professionals in order for churches to switch to online. They either would have decided to do either that, or go against the health order and meet physically, or else not meet at all, physically or online, which many of the churches with mainly old people would have had to do. Anyway, meeting online has SUCKED for the past few months! We return this Sunday thankfully. Well we DO for the flu obviously! So I'm not sure what you're arguing.
well in all reality the only people that should quarantine are the people at high risk. I'm pointing out that the strain of the virus doesn't really matter if you don't have any antibodies to it.
Not at all. My point is the dearth numbers compared to infection rates show it's less deadly than the flu. It's more prolific but that's due to lack of antibodies.