Texas pastors demand a “religious liberty” exemption to coronavirus stay-at-home orders

Kentonio · Apr 3, 2020

driewerf said:
Oh yes they did. They scrupulously read Leviticus 18:22.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Do you eat pork? Because if you do, you have no right to be quoting Leviticus to people.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

Sparagmos said:
Are you just making stuff up as you go here? That’s not true at all. Reckless endangerment is a thing. Attempted crimes are against the law.

What you describe is indeed the de facto system, but I am suggesting such things are unconstitutional.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

loveofourlord said:
sorry thats not good enough, 80% of those that died in south korea, gee well you all died, but good news we will charge those that infected you, in a situation like this there is no presumption of innocence, if this was a more deadly virus the goverment would have every right to kill you for breaking quarantine, as they can't risk waiting to find if your infected or not same here. Maybe once we have ways to test ou can go in with a recent test showing your not sick, but no you don't have the same rights now.

Your argument can be used to support a new round of witch hunts. "The episode is one of Colonial America's most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process."

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

Hank77 said:
Except they can when there is an Emergency Declaration at either the federal or state level.

They do such things, doesn't mean that they are Constitutionally allowed to.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

variant said:
Nobody is saying anyone is guilty of anything, just that large gatherings are a known obvious danger to public health right now.

If there is no presumption of guilt, then exists no presumption of illness either.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

Hank77 said:
If it's traced back to his church where he invited people even though he didn't personally infect anyone he would still be an accessory or held completely liable because that building is under his control.
But the point is that people could die and if they did he should be arrested for negligent homicide. Money isn't going to do them any good after they're dead.

Moncayo's employer, subcontractor Sky Materials Corporation, pleaded guilty to manslaughter last month and must also pay a $10,000 fine, as well as $100,000 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Sky foreman Wilmer Cueva was sentenced in December to one to three years in prison for disregarding safety warnings before the accident, and Harco employee Alfonso Prestia was sentenced to community service and probation.
NYC contractor charged with manslaughter in worker's death

You describe the system in force today, but I'm suggesting it is unconstitutional.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

Vylo said:
Murdering us all with a plague is not peaceably assembling IMO.

The same argument can be made against "witches" who assemble.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

expos4ever said:
Maybe so, but we need to be protected from morons who assemble. If they want to do themselves in, that's one thing. But they are recklessly endangering lives.

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

cow451 said:
The assembly of people with communicable diseases is well within the purview of restriction during National Emergencies so that displays of wholesale ignorance can be constrained to minimize the impact of a modern plague of Biblical proportion.

That may be how it's practiced, but I'm suggesting it's unconstitutional.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

cow451 said:
"A slippery slope" is a very weak argument, based on a misinterpretation of the freedom of Expression. A slippery slope beats watching loved ones being lowered into their graves.

If we ban everything that leads to death, then everything would be banned, and we would have no freedom at all. A big part of life involves the freedom of expression and assembly, and life inevitably leads to death, whether we like it or not. IMO that's one reason why the foundation of this republic is based on innocence (freedom) until guilt is proven - not guilt presumed before innocence is proven.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

cow451 said:
How many of your loved ones are you willing to sacrifice to back up your stance?

I sacrifice no one by allowing everyone the freedom to experience the effects of the causes that they make.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

Belk said:
Innocent until proven guilty is an injunction given to private citizens, not the government. The government is not required to presume innocence which is why the police are free to investigate those they presume are guilty.

Investigation of individuals does not equal punishment as a result of presumption of guilt.

"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes. See also In re Winship." (source)

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

Ana the Ist said:
I don't think the possibility of being a vector of disease = guilt.

We cannot and should not prosecute possibilities.

TLK Valentine · Apr 3, 2020

ananda said:
I sacrifice no one by allowing everyone the freedom to experience the effects of the causes that they make.

And the causes they infect others with?

High Fidelity · Apr 3, 2020

If they want to kill themselves then by all means, just lock them all in the church so they can do as they please without subjecting others to the consequences of their idiocy.

loveofourlord · Apr 3, 2020

ananda said:
Your argument can be used to support a new round of witch hunts. "The episode is one of Colonial America's most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process."

guess what this is a reality, multiple churches have been linked to DEATHS, I don't care what side you lean on Christians should be leaning on the side of not KILLING PEOPLE. You and those complaining are disgusting, god wouldn't want us out there killing others just to feel pious.

expos4ever · Apr 3, 2020

ananda said:
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Oh come on. I suspected this crisis would bring out this kind of weird thinking.

expos4ever · Apr 3, 2020

ananda said:
We cannot and should not prosecute possibilities.

This is possibly one of the dumbest things that I have read in these forums. And that is saying something.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
And the causes they infect others with?

If it can be proven that they infected others, then they should be penalized.

ananda · Apr 3, 2020

loveofourlord said:
guess what this is a reality, multiple churches have been linked to DEATHS, I don't care what side you lean on Christians should be leaning on the side of not KILLING PEOPLE. You and those complaining are disgusting, god wouldn't want us out there killing others just to feel pious.

What I'm speaking about has nothing to do with killing others, but what Constitutional law says.

Texas pastors demand a “religious liberty” exemption to coronavirus stay-at-home orders

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Similar threads