njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:29 pm
You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.
Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.
Have they needed to?
Two completely different things
Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.
Yeh really.
If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.
And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.
Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.
See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.
You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.
Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.
Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..
I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!
So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.
Don't conflate 'superiority' for common sense. But this is America and you're entitled to be delusional.
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:29 pm
You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.
Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.
Have they needed to?
Two completely different things
Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.
Yeh really.
If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.
And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.
Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.
See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.
You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.
Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.
Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..
I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!
So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.
Don't conflate 'superiority' for common sense. But this is America and you're entitled to be delusional.
D*mn right I am. Til you and yours finally take it away from me.
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:29 pm
You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.
Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.
Have they needed to?
Two completely different things
Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.
Yeh really.
If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.
And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.
Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.
See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.
You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.
Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.
Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..
I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!
So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.
Don't conflate 'superiority' for common sense. But this is America and you're entitled to be delusional.
D*mn right I am. Til you and yours finally take it away from me.
You're making another big assumption that what "we" want is what "you" have.
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:29 pm
You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.
Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.
Have they needed to?
Two completely different things
Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.
Yeh really.
If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.
And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.
Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.
See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.
You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.
Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.
Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..
I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!
So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.
Don't conflate 'superiority' for common sense. But this is America and you're entitled to be delusional.
D*mn right I am. Til you and yours finally take it away from me.
You're making another big assumption that what "we" want is what "you" have.
You're right. You don't want constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You want to be the boss. And determine how much of those rights you think we should have.
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:29 pm
You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.
Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.
Have they needed to?
Two completely different things
Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.
Yeh really.
If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.
And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.
Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.
See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.
You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.
Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.
Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..
I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!
So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.
Don't conflate 'superiority' for common sense. But this is America and you're entitled to be delusional.
D*mn right I am. Til you and yours finally take it away from me.
You're making another big assumption that what "we" want is what "you" have.
You're right. You don't want constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You want to be the boss. And determine how much of those rights you think we should have.
Democrats do not believe in the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution.
Like I say, the 4th of July ultimately will be nothing but Republicans celebrating our country.,
Peter Brown wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:24 am
Democrats do not believe in the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. Like I say, the 4th of July ultimately will be nothing but Republicans celebrating our country.
First thing this Dem does every day is put up the flag on my house.
Dems actually love all ten of the amendments in the bill of rights. Not just the second, which you fetish-ize to the exclusion of everything else in the Constitution.
Know what Peter Brown believes?
He believes George Floyd’s death was unrelated to the cop’s knee.
Last edited by ggait on Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:24 amDemocrats do not believe in the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. Like I say, the 4th of July ultimately will be nothing but Republicans celebrating our country.
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:35 am
First thing this Dem does every day is put up the flag on my house.
Dems actually love all ten of the amendments in the bill of rights. Not just the second.
Know what Peter Brown believes?
He believes George Floyd’s death was unrelated to the cop’s knee.
lol. It's hard to know that, what with the flag burning, book burning, speech-denying, gun-restricting, and mob-looting/rioting your Party promotes!
Anyhoo, you're in the minority in your Party today; soon, you won't even be welcome. A requirement to be a Democrat will be to take a knee when the National Anthem is played. Forget the players...watch what happens in the stands. Democrats will try to shame those who stand. They hate America, and they hate you.
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:35 am
First thing this Dem does every day is put up the flag on my house.
Dems actually love all ten of the amendments in the bill of rights. Not just the second.
Know what Peter Brown believes?
He believes George Floyd’s death was unrelated to the cop’s knee.
lol. It's hard to know that, what with the flag burning, book burning, speech-denying, gun-restricting, and mob-looting/rioting your Party promotes!
Anyhoo, you're in the minority in your Party today; soon, you won't even be welcome. A requirement to be a Democrat will be to take a knee when the National Anthem is played. Forget the players...watch what happens in the stands. Democrats will try to shame those who stand. They hate America, and they hate you.
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:13 am
The use of the word "sex" in the Civil Rights bill was inserted by a segregationalist to act as a poison pill...
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:29 pm
You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.
Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.
Have they needed to?
Two completely different things
Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.
Yeh really.
If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.
And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.
Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.
See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.
You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.
Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.
Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..
I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!
So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.
Don't conflate 'superiority' for common sense. But this is America and you're entitled to be delusional.
D*mn right I am. Til you and yours finally take it away from me.
You're making another big assumption that what "we" want is what "you" have.
You're right. You don't want constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You want to be the boss. And determine how much of those rights you think we should have.
ummmm, no. You'd be WRONG again. Your streak is alive. You have NO IDEA about what I think on this subject as I haven't told you. Keep making stuff up to fit your narrative.
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:13 am
The use of the word "sex" in the Civil Rights bill was inserted by a segregationist to act as a poison pill...
You forgot something. Smith was a DEMOCRAT.
As were most of the segregationists of that time. But they are pretty much all dead or Republican by now...
It is also true that to get enough votes to overcome the Southern Democratic resistance to the bill Republicans from outside the South gave enough votes to the bill to pass it.
But it still is a great self-own that trying to kill a bill led to a whole different view of the law and Civil Rights.
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:29 pm
You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.
Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.
Have they needed to?
Two completely different things
Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.
Yeh really.
If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.
And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.
Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.
See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.
You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.
Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.
Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..
I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!
So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.
Don't conflate 'superiority' for common sense. But this is America and you're entitled to be delusional.
D*mn right I am. Til you and yours finally take it away from me.
You're making another big assumption that what "we" want is what "you" have.
You're right. You don't want constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You want to be the boss. And determine how much of those rights you think we should have.
ummmm, no. You'd be WRONG again. Your streak is alive. You have NO IDEA about what I think on this subject as I haven't told you. Keep making stuff up to fit your narrative.
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:29 pm
You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.
Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.
Have they needed to?
Two completely different things
Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.
Yeh really.
If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.
And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.
Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.
See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.
You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.
Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.
Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..
I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!
So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.
Don't conflate 'superiority' for common sense. But this is America and you're entitled to be delusional.
D*mn right I am. Til you and yours finally take it away from me.
You're making another big assumption that what "we" want is what "you" have.
You're right. You don't want constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You want to be the boss. And determine how much of those rights you think we should have.
ummmm, no. You'd be WRONG again. Your streak is alive. You have NO IDEA about what I think on this subject as I haven't told you. Keep making stuff up to fit your narrative.
You don't have to tell me. Its obvious
Only to you apparently. But in your mind that's all that counts is what YOU think.
You'd be better off just talking to YOURSELF
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:13 am
The use of the word "sex" in the Civil Rights bill was inserted by a segregationist to act as a poison pill...
You forgot something. Smith was a DEMOCRAT.
As were most of the segregationists of that time. But they are pretty much all dead or Republican by now...
It is also true that to get enough votes to overcome the Southern Democratic resistance to the bill Republicans from outside the South gave enough votes to the bill to pass it.
But it still is a great self-own that trying to kill a bill led to a whole different view of the law and Civil Rights.
Another example of democrats creating the issues were still dealing with 6 decades later.
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:13 am
The use of the word "sex" in the Civil Rights bill was inserted by a segregationist to act as a poison pill...
You forgot something. Smith was a DEMOCRAT.
As were most of the segregationists of that time. But they are pretty much all dead or Republican by now...
It is also true that to get enough votes to overcome the Southern Democratic resistance to the bill Republicans from outside the South gave enough votes to the bill to pass it.
But it still is a great self-own that trying to kill a bill led to a whole different view of the law and Civil Rights.
Another example of democrats creating the issues were still dealing with 6 decades later.
No big deal though eh
You are blaming Democrats who are now dead or Republicans for the passage of a bill championed by Democrats with some Republican help as CREATING the issue?
It is not the party that is responsible - it is the particular people. And those particular people are no longer Democrats, so that makes it hard to identify the current D party with racism - that has been for the most part adopted by the Rs. But you keep trying...
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:13 am
The use of the word "sex" in the Civil Rights bill was inserted by a segregationist to act as a poison pill...
You forgot something. Smith was a DEMOCRAT.
As were most of the segregationists of that time. But they are pretty much all dead or Republican by now...
It is also true that to get enough votes to overcome the Southern Democratic resistance to the bill Republicans from outside the South gave enough votes to the bill to pass it.
But it still is a great self-own that trying to kill a bill led to a whole different view of the law and Civil Rights.
All the wish it were 1950 types think Liberty University was founded for religious reasons. It was founded because Falwell was a segregationist. Most of the religious schools in the south, founded in the 60's, 70's and 80's were founded for exactly the same reason. Racism has been hiding behind religion in this country for a long time.
ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:35 am
First thing this Dem does every day is put up the flag on my house.
Dems actually love all ten of the amendments in the bill of rights. Not just the second.
Know what Peter Brown believes?
He believes George Floyd’s death was unrelated to the cop’s knee.
lol. It's hard to know that, what with the flag burning, book burning, speech-denying, gun-restricting, and mob-looting/rioting your Party promotes!
Anyhoo, you're in the minority in your Party today; soon, you won't even be welcome. A requirement to be a Democrat will be to take a knee when the National Anthem is played. Forget the players...watch what happens in the stands. Democrats will try to shame those who stand. They hate America, and they hate you.
Little bites of the apple till the apples all gone.
One of the more hilarious events soon to occur is the DNC Convention (if they have it...the following will explain why they won't) when they play the national anthem to kick things off each night (forget America the Beautiful or the Pledge of Allegiance, those were toast for Dems in 2016!)
The decision to kneel or stand for the national anthem will cause MSNBC/CNN/AC/CBS/NBC to turn away, but not Fox, because almost all Democrats in the hall will kneel. You'll know who you're teaming up with then.
And incidentally, on some level I don't really care. I just find it amusing to watch Dems bow to their woke mob and back themselves into the proverbial corner.
