• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS shoots down Cuomo's bigotry and discrimination

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
11,739
Reaction score
3,736
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So it's the religious rule then? America has a secular government last I checked. Are we now headed toward a middle east style government where religion plays a key part in our government decisions? It's becoming clear what the motives for Trump's SC justices are. It looks like he's fulfilled some promises to the hardcore Christians of this country. Seems Guiliani is also wanting to bring Trump's election disputes to the SC. I think we know why. They have favors to pay off.

I think we've made a big mistake. This is a safety issue, and even with all these prayers, church staff and members are currently dying from Coronavirus. They need to be protected, just like the general population.


then so do liquor store buyers as that is not a needed service. so do rioters or even protesters. so does anyone who is not a critical service. equal under the law.
 

Buckeyes85

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
8,206
Reaction score
6,888
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The United States also has a constitution that says two very imoortant things that apply in this case. One is: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The second is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What's been done, is religious gatherings have been held to a different standard than any other group, or entity and there's no arguing that that isn't the case.
You quote the constitution, apparently pushing for a literal interpretation of that clause. Ok. Note, the first part: "Congress" shall make no law. Well, congress did not make the law in question. So I guess that means you and the Supremes were wrong on this one?

Alternatively, perhaps we can agree there are nuances at play- and have always been at play- that suggest a literal word for word application of the document is not practical or appropriate? Such as, implementing a restriction on gatherings in an effort to address a pandemic may not be a violation of the free exercise clause when applied to churches?

And before you bring up the walmart analogy or something else similarly silly, people do need to shop in order to survive. No one is going to die because they were not able to attend Sunday mass with 300 other people sitting near by.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You quote the constitution, apparently pushing for a literal interpretation of that clause. Ok. Note, the first part: "Congress" shall make no law. Well, congress did not make the law in question. So I guess that means you and the Supremes were wrong on this one?

Alternatively, perhaps we can agree there are nuances at play- and have always been at play- that suggest a literal word for word application of the document is not practical or appropriate? Such as, implementing a restriction on gatherings in an effort to address a pandemic may not be a violation of the free exercise clause when applied to churches?

And before you bring up the walmart analogy or something else similarly silly, people do need to shop in order to survive. No one is going to die because they were not able to attend Sunday mass with 300 other people sitting near by.

Are you actually trying to say that the states are exempt from the 1st Amendment?
 

Ginger Ale

Feels good!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
8,406
Reaction score
8,031
Location
Arizona
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The United States also has a constitution that says two very imoortant things that apply in this case. One is: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The second is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What's been done, is religious gatherings have been held to a different standard than any other group, or entity and there's no arguing that that isn't the case.
Held to a different standard? No, they have been elevated to a different standard of immunity during a pandemic. The SC has decided to use their bias and allow churches to skirt pandemic restrictions just like they skirt paying taxes, and people are dying because of it. Hospitals are overrun because of it.

Acting like these are normal circumstances is ludicrous. This decision was bias, and it's clear that Theists in the SC did not follow the constitution, but biblical law and church pressure when coming to a decision. Americans can worship at home, they can zoom a church service. There is no need to gather during a pandemic which will result in injury, illness, and death.
 

Ginger Ale

Feels good!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
8,406
Reaction score
8,031
Location
Arizona
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
then so do liquor store buyers as that is not a needed service. so do rioters or even protesters. so does anyone who is not a critical service. equal under the law.
I agree. All should participate in halting the spread of this virus during a pandemic. So, instead of cheering on church gatherings, why not be active in restricting protests and liquor stores?

I have a feeling it's because you don't really care. Your just using liquor stores and protests as an excuse. I think all three should meet the same restrictions. It's a pandemic, a, hopefully, once in a lifetime event. If our sons and daughters can fight wars to save Americans, then I think we as a nation can sacrifice one year of our lives to help save other Americans by doing ALL that we can.

Asking churches to stop gathering is not that big of a sacrifice. There are other ways to worship without hurting people.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
79,844
Reaction score
62,547
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
simply more dead americans during a pandemic.




literally what religion should be against.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Churches used to not be considered businesses, but now they are all becoming a huge tax free money making scheme. They're run by the most anti-religious people in the country and are now awarded bailouts by taxpayer money to beef up the pockets of the anti-religious scammers. They can go to hell
that is a pretty bigoted post. i thought democrats hated bigotry?
 

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
11,739
Reaction score
3,736
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree. All should participate in halting the spread of this virus during a pandemic. So, instead of cheering on church gatherings, why not be active in restricting protests and liquor stores?
you misjudge me. IF it can be shown that such a law is constitutional and can pass muster, then I am fine with it as LONG AS it is equally applied.

BUT I will NOT have this activist unequal BS. it undermines the entire fabric of our nation
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,541
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
As predicted, SCOTUS going off the rails now. Roberts wanted badly to keep the Court insulated from partisan politics, but he has lost his control.

There is no logical comparison between liquor stores which people visit one at a time, and a Church or synagogue which people visit collectively in large numbers. But the conservative justices are not moved by logic, only by ideology.
I just saw in the news today that a NY "bootle club" was visited by the cops and over 400 drunks were arrested for violating the state's COVID laws. So much for Alito's discrimination case that God's people, the Christians, are being treated differently than the sinful drunks of NY.
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,541
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Aren't New York state's casinos open for business since September?
Churches are open, but the amount of people who can gather is limited. That's what the case was about. As for casinos, they are allowed to be open then they have to be held to the same capacity limit.
 

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Churches are open, but the amount of people who can gather is limited. That's what the case was about. As for casinos, they are allowed to be open then they have to be held to the same capacity limit.
I rather suspect that there will be more targeted shutdowns in the next few weeks.
 

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
48,138
Reaction score
12,571
Come on, is your argument seriously that people attend liquor stores and bike stores in the same fashion they do churches? The fact that Churches are attended by 20, 30, 40, 100, 500 people at once distinguishes them from liquor stores. That you don't acknowledge this is completely on trend for you. That a justice of the Supreme Court does not acknowledge it is a new phenomenon and shameful.

If Cuomo had singled out churches but not secular weddings you might have a point, but those aren't the facts, so you don't.
Why are you using a liquor store as a comparitison. How many people do you suppose a department store has in it on a daily basis or better yet how many people are in a manhattan skyscraper.
 

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are you using a liquor store as a comparitison. How many people do you suppose a department store has in it on a daily basis or better yet how many people are in a manhattan skyscraper.

There are two factors when it comes to considering risks of exposure. 1) How closely people are packed, and 2) the length of time of exposure. Going into a department store and coming out is a lot less time involved than sitting through a sermon or a political rally.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,739
Reaction score
14,942
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As predicted, SCOTUS going off the rails now. Roberts wanted badly to keep the Court insulated from partisan politics, but he has lost his control.

There is no logical comparison between liquor stores which people visit one at a time, and a Church or synagogue which people visit collectively in large numbers. But the conservative justices are not moved by logic, only by ideology.
Freedom of religion is a Constitutional right; buying a 40 of malt liquor is not. Nothing partisan about it.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,739
Reaction score
14,942
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I believe strip clubs were also exempt from NYC shutdown order. Boobs befor Bibles, I guess.
 

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
48,138
Reaction score
12,571
There are two factors when it comes to considering risks of exposure. 1) How closely people are packed, and 2) the length of time of exposure. Going into a department store and coming out is a lot less time involved than sitting through a sermon or a political rally.
People are as capable of distancing in a church as they are a department store yet only one is being told they are not allowed to operate.
 

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People are as capable of distancing in a church as they are a department store yet only one is being told they are not allowed to operate.
You don't seem to understand the difference I just explained to you.

Oh well. As long as you obey the law, I don't care.
 

Ginger Ale

Feels good!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
8,406
Reaction score
8,031
Location
Arizona
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
you misjudge me. IF it can be shown that such a law is constitutional and can pass muster, then I am fine with it as LONG AS it is equally applied.

BUT I will NOT have this activist unequal BS. it undermines the entire fabric of our nation
Unless it's a Trump (Rally) Protest? Or are those equally a no, like other protests are a no?

I'm thinking during a pandemic, all would be a NO.

If we can lock up Japanese Americans, regardless of their constitutional rights because of a war with Japan then we can all wear masks and not gather during a war on a virus.
 

Buckeyes85

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
8,206
Reaction score
6,888
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Are you actually trying to say that the states are exempt from the 1st Amendment?
Well, I think I was pretty clear.
The document, as written and specifically the first 10 amendments absolutely did not apply to the states. No debate on that issue.
He apparently wanted a literal application, so there you go. It says "congress" shall not... it doesn't say the states.
And there has never been an amendment that said the first 10 amendments do apply to the states.
But in practical terms, following the adoption of 13, 14, 15th amendments, the court has determined several of the first 10 amendments need to be incorporated to apply to the states- the absence of which the protections of 13-15 could be rendered largely meaningless.

So there are 2 options: argue for a literal word for word application, or accept that via 200 years of jurisprudence, it is understood that the document cannot or should not be applied literally, word for word. If the latter, then quoting the first to imply no law can ever be passed restricting religious activities is false.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well, I think I was pretty clear.
The document, as written and specifically the first 10 amendments absolutely did not apply to the states. No debate on that issue.
He apparently wanted a literal application, so there you go. It says "congress" shall not... it doesn't say the states.
And there has never been an amendment that said the first 10 amendments do apply to the states.
But in practical terms, following the adoption of 13, 14, 15th amendments, the court has determined several of the first 10 amendments need to be incorporated to apply to the states- the absence of which the protections of 13-15 could be rendered largely meaningless.

So there are 2 options: argue for a literal word for word application, or accept that via 200 years of jurisprudence, it is understood that the document cannot or should not be applied literally, word for word. If the latter, then quoting the first to imply no law can ever be passed restricting religious activities is false.

The Bill of Rights don't apply to the stated? Um... :ROFLMAO:
 

Buckeyes85

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
8,206
Reaction score
6,888
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Bill of Rights don't apply to the stated? Um... :ROFLMAO:
You probably should do some research/reading before you embarrass yourself.
I'd suggest you start with a search for any case before the adoption of amendments 13-15 wherein a party successfully argued against an action taken by a state based upon the protections in the original bill of rights/first 10 amendments. (Spoiler alert: you wont find any).

Your second research project will be identifying the amendment to the US constitution that says the first 10 amendments DO apply to the states. (Another spoiler alert: you wont find any).
 

99percenter

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
3,006
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Our founders would be ashamed. They created a secular govt for a reason. I doubt they would have put religion over public health.
 

99percenter

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
3,006
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I used to think george w bush was an utter failure with no accomplishments. I was wrong. You can consider roberts an accomplishment.
 

99percenter

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
3,006
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
the facts are if you allow a business to operate at 50% capacity then you must allow churches. you cannot discriminate.

why do you support discrimination?
the court evidently doesn't.
churches are not essential. grocery stores are. barbershops are. restaurants are. All these provide services essential to well being for the public. Churches provide no such service.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,927
Reaction score
13,542
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Time to build walls around the relevant areas to keep these disease spreaders contained....crazy we are at that point with these religious morons. Health based on science should always have a priority over religious bullshit.
 
Top Bottom