re: Open the state MeeMaw

quote:

---

The US Supreme Court (Vinson) on the right to assembly in Feiner v New York:
quote:
“When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with the traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious.”

---

Too bad the state destroys their argument by allowing Walmart, grocery stores, and home improvement stores to be open. If there was immediate danger that would warrant suspending the 1st amendment, it would have to be be applied universally.

Ignored? Look, people are trying to explain basic civics to you two. It's really surreal watching the two of you call literally anyone else in here dumbasses. You asked, I literally posted a supreme court decision directly refuting your entire argument.

There's really not anything else that can be done for you I guess. You're not going to get it.

Do you guys think banning the sale of food would be in the interest of public safety? You really can't wrap your head around the concept of why that's more essential than a haircut or bartending or valve salesman or whatever it is you do?

It's so simple.

quote:

---

They still can though the medium for it may have changed.

---

No answer, the question. Can churches meet freely without legal repercussions?

quote:

---

Do you guys think banning the sale of food would be in the interest of public safety? You really can't wrap your head around the concept of why that's more essential than a haircut or bartending or valve salesman or whatever it is you do?

---

I never had to stop working. I'm just not so callous as to pretend I'm better than others.

quote:

---

If they follow the law they can.

---

That's a no.

Well, as I've explained, if they do so in a manner that threatens public safety, there is no protection of such assembly in the constitution.

quote:

---

Valid counterargument? All you said was that because we're keeping the grocery stores open that there's no regulations of other industries that could be valid.

It's simply untrue and not the letter of the law obviously.

---

I'll give you this one because you probably didn't see my ETA. Here it is:

quote:

---

ETA: Another example is that some services are allowed to continue (like home construction projects), but others are not (like hair cuts). The guys who have come by my house to give quotes and do work haven't been social distancing or wearing masks, or any of that crap. Why is that service okay, while other services are not? They will struggle to make this distinction in court.

Chiropractors were allowed to be open this entire time in Alabama (I've gone to mine every week), but dentists were not? How are these different? Dentists already wore face coverings.

---

quote:

---

No answer, the question. Can churches meet freely without legal repercussions?

---

That will depend. Churches were always allowed to hold services. There has never been a law saying how that service should be held though. There currently is a legal restriction preventing in person service with the exception of drive up. But no law has been violated with the current restriction.

The 1st amendment does not protect a church regarding holding service nor does it prevent the government from preventing a church from holding in person services. The 1st amendment affords every person the right to free exercise what religion they want to practice.

Some states are in fact restricting construction obviously. What is "essential" is an interesting argument when you go industry by industry. I would point out though, that doing so is predicated on the larger premise that there is a need to distinguish between essential and non-essential industry to protect public health in a public health emergency such as this.

Reasonable people could disagree on what is essential, no argument from me there. It's much harder, however, to argue the government does not have the constitutional right, and even obligation, to create laws to protect public health.

Literally one of the central tenets of social contract theory. Why else would we cede some of our natural freedoms to live in a society? We do it because we know that law and order ultimately protects our individual freedom. I.E. It's good that other ppl aren't allowed to murder us.

Bizarre to see ppl so ignorant of our own constitution drape themselves in it tbh.