Unlimited right to protest?

Current issues and things in the news

Moderator: Moderators

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Unlimited right to protest?

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

Is the right to hold protest rallies unlimited? Do "peaceful" protesters have the right to occupy the streets for however long they feel is necessary?

Whatever happened to the requirement for permits to hold protests?
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

emilynghiem
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:33 pm
Location: Houston
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #11

Post by emilynghiem »

Dear @koko

(A) for these social programs, that were put in place initially intended as 2 year temporary
programs for economic support after the Depression, but were never fully developed to make recepients INDEPENDENT from federal govt as planned,
I have found more people on left and right who support
LEAST RESTRICTIVE solutions, such as the Medical Associations and Health Care Cooperatives.
Kaiser Permanente is an employer based model.
AtlasMD in Wichita KS is a free market business based network.
And PPC in Houston (expanding to Dallas and Portland)
is a nonprofit foundation that helps train and invest in
members setting up and managing their own locally owned cooperatives.
www.medcoops.info www.ppcwebsite.org

My biggest complaint with Conservatives is not OFFERING the TRANSITION
from Govt based to locally owned and democratically managed programs that work
more cost effectively at achieving the same goals but better quality mgmt and accountability than federal govt can do alone.

(B) I am so glad to know that you are a lawyer on the side
of the progressive or liberal approach, favoring the social programs as a priority.

May I ask what areas you serve, and if you are in contact with certain
political groups, parties or leaders? I am currently working with Greens,
and some Libertarians open to the Cooperative approach to resolving health care issues
including conflicts over funding between prochoice/prolife and now both sides of the viral pandemic response.

I would be happy to introduce you to the lawyer helping the PPC nonprofit
to set up more groups to start training on the Cooperative approach to reforming medical care,
mostly by replacing the for-profit insurance with nonprofit benefits at cost which improves the quality
while creating jobs in nonprofit health care management,
cutting out deductibles and exclusions from pre existing conditions.

Are you more focused on criminal justice reforms?
Civil policies? or the political future of where our
schools and health care are heading? Thank you!
I would be glad to work with you on any areas of reform
where you feel most strongly called.

I volunteer with the public radio KPFT peace and justice community
in Houston, and with the Freedmen's Town national historic
district, Democratic Precinct 30. www.freedmenstown.net

koko wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:22 am
emilynghiem,

re due process and loss of liberty


The safety net programs created by FDR legislation in the 1930s are often called "socialist" or "Marxist" by cynical right wingers. They assert that these programs while benefiting some constitute a loss of liberty to others. Among them are Social Security, some health care reform, agricultural subsidization, infrastructural building, and subsidized education. Those critics who assert that these programs are "Marxist" fail to understand that the legal or social theory behind them were not created by Marx. Instead, they were suggested with some put into practice by our Founding Fathers. For example, health care reform was practiced by Ben Franklin before the Constitution was signed. Hamilton and Washington demanded the building up of infrastructure (see Hamilton's Report On Manufactures*). Agricultural reform and Social Security were demanded by Thomas Paine in 1795**. All of these "Marxist" ideals were created by Americanist Founders before Marx was born.

Right wingers like Trump and his crowd have done their best to end these safety net programs. They do so on the grounds that they somehow violate people's "liberty". Yet, these programs were validated by the courts and have plenty of historical precedent. There is nothing "Marxist" or subversive about them. On the contrary, they are of American origin. They promote the common welfare and do not constitute a loss of liberty for anyone.



*https://tinyurl.com/y9vpsxdm

**https://tinyurl.com/yczsvpkq

koko

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #12

Post by koko »

emilynghiem wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:11 pm



Yet these "liberal" judges and authorities
released enough of these due to the pandemic that resulted in crimes, including deaths, against law abiding citizens.

How is THAT to be justified as for the sake of "public health, safety and saving lives"?
When such releases ARE imposing threats to lives and the public,
as evidenced by cases of violent crime and even murder?

The other arguments on the side of the rightwing/conservatives:
(a) How to protect people medically without violating Constitutional rights and freedoms

There is a THIRD alternative: of allowing those who do not want their businesses or freedoms
imposed on by shutdowns or other measures to MANAGE THEIR OWN medical and law enforcement
policies and resources PER DISTRICT, so they are not in conflict with people wanting govt protections
and intervention who can implement those protocols in their OWN districts.

We need to separate and democratize districts to be self supporting anyway,
in order for EITHER the Govt to be cost effective in providing health care for the Liberals who believe in that
OR the free market institutions to provide these services to Conservative taxpayers who believe in that instead.

Why isn't a "least restrictive" approach by Govt offered
to prevent lawsuits against the restrictions NOT proven to be restricting the right people
as in (b) below:

(b) How to manage the demands of crowds, without "depriving of liberty without due process"

by the nature of the virus being asymptomatic in the greater cases of spread,
this is hard to prove WHO is at risk. So this is where their argument comes from
that TESTING is needed to PROVE someone is doing this "spreading" BEFORE depriving them of rights.

This is equivalent to a restriction as requiring people to SIGN UP with organized
groups before protesting so legal and medical responsibility for safety issues can be ensured.
Either for the virus/pandemic concerns or the additional prevention of
any other risks or threats to life, safety or property.

To be CONSISTENT, if we are going to say that RISK OF SPREAD of
asymptomatic infection "where we cannot confirm in advance WHICH people
are risking the spread to others" is ENOUGH to restrict crowds at protests,
then the RISK of SPREAD PLUS ADDED PROBLEMS of crowd control
when there have been "threats of violence against police" would be even
MORE reason to seek safe arrangements made IN ADVANCE with participants.

If we are asking BUSINESSES to reduce their capacity to 25% and make
sure employees can SAFELY serve the public, the same should apply
to POLICE needing to be in proportionate numbers to safely serve the participants at protests.




re " Yet these "liberal" judges and authorities
released enough of these due to the pandemic that resulted in crimes, including deaths, against law abiding citizens."

Please identify the identities of the judges and released felons.

While I would readily agree that dangerous felons who represent a menace should not put society in great jeopardy, I cannot specifically address the assertion that "liberal" judges did these things since release of prisoners is more often done by governors. This especially so for those convicted of murder as that involved commutation of sentence - a prerogative of the governor:

https://tinyurl.com/y8w3jw2x


So how can a "liberal judge" exercise an authority not granted under the law?



re "self management and law enforcement"

Government has always had the right to impose what are called "isolation and quarantine" laws. This goes back to the Bible, the Anglo Saxon common law, and even to the Constitution's commerce clause. It is constitutionally legal so that no one has the right to take it upon themselves to violate this law with impunity.

Businesses have the legal recourse to pay for their own security if they wish. In fact, they get a tax deduction as a business expense under § 162 of the Internal Revenue Code (I worked in the tax field for 15 years and know that for a fact).

re "free market" solutions for those in business as a means of providing medical care, the law as asserted by the Republican Supreme Court is that health care under present law can be regulated under the government's taxing authority. Thus, a company may not refuse to pay taxes that are used to finance government health care. However, this does not enjoin a business from starting its own health care. Such expenses are legally deductible on a tax return for individuals in § 213 of the IRS Code. There are similar deductibles for businesses. One thing's for sure, this free market "solution" doesn't help those who are poor. It only helps the rich. Universal health care as envisioned by Ben Franklin, by other Founding Fathers, and even by Republican Teddy Roosevelt is the ideal solution. Every European country has such a system - not one of them claims it hurts their due process rights. If it works there, in Japan, in Israel (their system is financed by USA tax dollars), then it can work here.


re Reduction of attendants and police at 25% capacity, my view is that this should be settled on a case by case basis as there is no one size fits all categorization for any of that.

koko

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #13

Post by koko »

For a long while on this forum we saw repeated allegations of violence created by BLM and Antifa. While the claims were repeated again and again, and while I challenged people to prove this assertion, not one shred of evidence was presented to support this claim. Thankfully, the unproven allegations have stopped.

Now let's look at who the real terrorists are = it was the police all along:







https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/slash ... -protests/

Question: Did police slash tires at Minneapolis peaceful demonstration?

Answer: YES


Previously, I showed you videos of undercover police agent Jacob Pederson committing terrorist actions in St Paul.

Despite all this evidence people blame "terrorists" for these crimes.


Now you know the real truth - it was the government in the form of police terrorists who stimulated and committed much of these atrocities.

emilynghiem
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:33 pm
Location: Houston
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #14

Post by emilynghiem »

koko wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:07 pm
emilynghiem wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:11 pm



Yet these "liberal" judges and authorities
released enough of these due to the pandemic that resulted in crimes, including deaths, against law abiding citizens.

How is THAT to be justified as for the sake of "public health, safety and saving lives"?
When such releases ARE imposing threats to lives and the public,
as evidenced by cases of violent crime and even murder?

The other arguments on the side of the rightwing/conservatives:
(a) How to protect people medically without violating Constitutional rights and freedoms

There is a THIRD alternative: of allowing those who do not want their businesses or freedoms
imposed on by shutdowns or other measures to MANAGE THEIR OWN medical and law enforcement
policies and resources PER DISTRICT, so they are not in conflict with people wanting govt protections
and intervention who can implement those protocols in their OWN districts.

We need to separate and democratize districts to be self supporting anyway,
in order for EITHER the Govt to be cost effective in providing health care for the Liberals who believe in that
OR the free market institutions to provide these services to Conservative taxpayers who believe in that instead.

Why isn't a "least restrictive" approach by Govt offered
to prevent lawsuits against the restrictions NOT proven to be restricting the right people
as in (b) below:

(b) How to manage the demands of crowds, without "depriving of liberty without due process"

by the nature of the virus being asymptomatic in the greater cases of spread,
this is hard to prove WHO is at risk. So this is where their argument comes from
that TESTING is needed to PROVE someone is doing this "spreading" BEFORE depriving them of rights.

This is equivalent to a restriction as requiring people to SIGN UP with organized
groups before protesting so legal and medical responsibility for safety issues can be ensured.
Either for the virus/pandemic concerns or the additional prevention of
any other risks or threats to life, safety or property.

To be CONSISTENT, if we are going to say that RISK OF SPREAD of
asymptomatic infection "where we cannot confirm in advance WHICH people
are risking the spread to others" is ENOUGH to restrict crowds at protests,
then the RISK of SPREAD PLUS ADDED PROBLEMS of crowd control
when there have been "threats of violence against police" would be even
MORE reason to seek safe arrangements made IN ADVANCE with participants.

If we are asking BUSINESSES to reduce their capacity to 25% and make
sure employees can SAFELY serve the public, the same should apply
to POLICE needing to be in proportionate numbers to safely serve the participants at protests.




re " Yet these "liberal" judges and authorities
released enough of these due to the pandemic that resulted in crimes, including deaths, against law abiding citizens."

Please identify the identities of the judges and released felons.

While I would readily agree that dangerous felons who represent a menace should not put society in great jeopardy, I cannot specifically address the assertion that "liberal" judges did these things since release of prisoners is more often done by governors. This especially so for those convicted of murder as that involved commutation of sentence - a prerogative of the governor:

https://tinyurl.com/y8w3jw2x


So how can a "liberal judge" exercise an authority not granted under the law?



re "self management and law enforcement"

Government has always had the right to impose what are called "isolation and quarantine" laws. This goes back to the Bible, the Anglo Saxon common law, and even to the Constitution's commerce clause. It is constitutionally legal so that no one has the right to take it upon themselves to violate this law with impunity.

Businesses have the legal recourse to pay for their own security if they wish. In fact, they get a tax deduction as a business expense under § 162 of the Internal Revenue Code (I worked in the tax field for 15 years and know that for a fact).

re "free market" solutions for those in business as a means of providing medical care, the law as asserted by the Republican Supreme Court is that health care under present law can be regulated under the government's taxing authority. Thus, a company may not refuse to pay taxes that are used to finance government health care. However, this does not enjoin a business from starting its own health care. Such expenses are legally deductible on a tax return for individuals in § 213 of the IRS Code. There are similar deductibles for businesses. One thing's for sure, this free market "solution" doesn't help those who are poor. It only helps the rich. Universal health care as envisioned by Ben Franklin, by other Founding Fathers, and even by Republican Teddy Roosevelt is the ideal solution. Every European country has such a system - not one of them claims it hurts their due process rights. If it works there, in Japan, in Israel (their system is financed by USA tax dollars), then it can work here.


re Reduction of attendants and police at 25% capacity, my view is that this should be settled on a case by case basis as there is no one size fits all categorization for any of that.
Let's take this one at a time

(A) for the abuse of PR bonds and releases of dangerous persons

1. the problems I have found complaints with on both sides: if the CURRENT charges are still not convictions,
that's where people on both sides are in conflict over whether holding such persons can be justified "based on past convictions"
Does this constitute proof someone is still too dangerous to release? If we don't agree until AFTER they commit another crime,
that's why they get released until they do. But after the records show they repeated crimes after previous releases, that's where people complain they shouldn't be released again!

2. what is MISSING that would solve this problem is an established MEDICAL way of proving who is in WHAT stage of recovery
from either an abusive, addictive or otherwise dangerous condition. (I believe medical R&D on spiritual healing therapy can
prove this medically that the various stages and degree of danger can be professional assessed without criminalizing or politicizing the scientific process)

3. Here is the best resource for researching dangerous releases,
either before or during the pandemic, that were challenged as abusing PR bonds (intended for NONVIOLENT misdemeanors, not violent repeat offenders still posing risks)
https://www.facebook.com/andy.kahan.9
EXAMPLE POST here: https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/ ... ge.828991/

What I respect about Andy Kahan is he DOESN'T criticize only liberal officials, but ANY officials caught enabling these dangerous releases that
result in other threats or crimes or repeat crimes. If you go through his FB page, you can see which ones are national or Houston/Harris county based,
which are related or before the pandemic, etc. He works on local and national basis, and reports any cases that involve unethical or irresponsible management
posing undue risk to the public.

* ADDED NOTE: about judges being out of their authorized jurisdiction
YES the Harris County Judge is over County Commissioners Court which is NOT a criminal court position.
So this has been successfully challenged. The Governor and AG made this clear, and stopped the overreach.

(B) for quarantines and lockdowns
YES this is necessary to restrict travel and contain outbreaks.

However, what was missing was the CHOICE TO MANAGE MEDICAL RESPONSE PER DISTRICT.

This is similar to arguments by taxpayers not represented by either
abortion policies or forcing taxpayers to pay for health care through federal govt
WHEN THERE WERE LEAST RESTRICTIVE WAYS.

Once you restrict travel between states, or cities,
then WITHIN counties or cities, districts COULD BE ALLOWED
to democratize their own local response so they can decide
if the risks/costs of hospitalization are low enough and the
damage to businesses is greater, that it's better for those
residents who want to implement medical precautions, testing
and support to the businesses ready to operate under those
medical procedures.

I would also compare to gun zones, and locking down a campus.
If there are multiple threats or attacks, then you could see all airports shut down.

But once the threat is contained, the shutdown is limited to only the areas
where active threats are still in process.

Schools, businesses and other sites that do or do not want to add
gun-free restrictions are, similarly, fighting legally to defend their own policies
for their own members.

As long as they take legal, financial and medical responsibility for their policies,
as AGREED TO among the residents affected,
that isn't infringing on the rights of other people.

My argument is we need to offer THIS CHOICE of managing local
resources and policies democratically PER DISTRICT to prevent
the beliefs of one group from imposing on others. Why not use
this opportunity to democratize health care and policy enforcement?

This would help prevent shutdowns NEXT TIME there is an outbreak,
or a disabling attack of any kind, so that districts would already be set up by then
to be self governing with their own locally contained economic, medical and
lega/govt administration to represent and manage the residents there.

^ PS @koko if your background and expertise in law
could help set up a process for districts to democratize,
I already promoted this idea to help with pandemic response.
But now with the added demands from police and protest policies,
this has become even more critical to democratic process and order.
Please let me know if you would be interested in consulting or advising
on a proposal I would like to make to Governors and Senators on this!
Thank you! I have one other friend who was a Texas lawyer but left
because of the rampant political abuses both sides blame the other for.
I am asking his help, as well, to form a loose team of citizens to write
up proposals to reform and localize the representation so districts
can work together to address their own communities and not run amok!

koko

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #15

Post by koko »

emilynghiem,

PR Bond


These are pre trial options and do not involve release of convicted criminals. In your earlier post you mentioned release of those in prison and the possible menace they represent to society. These are two very different subjects.

Those bonds may be recognized by a magistrate on a case-by-case basis and will entail a person's past rap sheet, his/her current standing in the community, and the severity of any pending charges. However, release of convicted criminals is the prerogative of a governor and parole board. A complete review of the person's prison record must be undertaken. Such a process takes far more time and deeper research so as to protect society from any further harm that the person may cause.

what is MISSING that would solve this problem is an established MEDICAL way of proving who is in WHAT stage of recovery ... dangerous releases

I believe this is a matter that is critical to the well being of society. However, I was only involved in tax law work and have absolutely no expertise or qualification to discuss this matter. Yes, I can agree that society needs to take more preventive steps to avoid recidivism. However, I cannot make suggestions to what those legal parameters or sociological solutions should be.



Again, my initial challenge to you was your assertion that "liberal judges" were responsible for the systemic shortcomings that allows releases (or, it appears, the preventive detention) of potential menaces to society. I accept your assertion that there are systemic shortcomings and that these are correctable. However, I do not see any evidence from your post that liberals are responsible for these failings. This especially so since you are writing about Texas which is a Republican and highly conservative state whose politicians created the laws and political milieu that you live in.

authorized jurisdiction ... overreach
On this we agree. Besides it is the law and it cannot be usurped by any administration other than that which authorized by law.

quarantines and lockdowns
OK. We agree on that as well. Such authority goes back to ancient history and there is plenty of legal precedent to justify its legality.


restrict travel between states, or cities,
then WITHIN counties or cities

This has been done in certain jurisdictions where, for example, an Indian reservation demanded proof of tribal association and residence in order to allow entry of travelers into their res. This is also legal and has been for a long while - I remember from my studies many decades ago of a county in Wisconsin in the 1880s that was so full of diptheria that people were not permitted into or out of it.

As for the implementation of local options this may on the surface sound like a good idea. But how would small districts with limited resources manage or finance it? Or what of those cities which are overpopulated and have to restrict access with medical rationing like they did for while in NYC? The better alternative is for a balancing of local/county/state/federal authority and resources in order to manage a crisis. How exactly is for those far more qualified to envision and develop such plans as I am not qualified to do anything like that. Of course, there are certain districts where a church or religion may have greater influence than we normally have in society. The law must attempt to respect the concept of separation of church and state where this is feasible. Those institutions may provide medical and economic adminstration that may even surpass those of the government. And if it does, then let's let it happen!

NEXT TIME there is an outbreak

It is a matter of record that Obama left a full plan to manage an outbreak which Trump rejected. It has also been reported that if Trump had only taken preventive steps just one week before he did it would have spared the lives of 50,000 people. How shameful that this occurred and how his apologists have nothing to say about it. If this claim is true you have to wonder how will history look back on this - will people say he only made an honest mistake or will it say he has the blood of 50,000 innocents on his hands? Time will tell.

process for districts to democratize

As a retiree, my lobbying days which go back to the late 1960s are over. I lobbied for the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title IX, against war, and for several environmental laws. But those days are gone so I regret to say I cannot be of help. Still there can be no question that decentralization (called federalism by some) can be used as social laboratories which may lead to social growth and progress. As such research into it should never be discouraged. I wish you well in this quest.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #16

Post by Overcomer »

It's certainly wrong to take to the streets in the hundreds in the middle of a pandemic when people should stay home as much as possible, only go out when necessary, practice social distancing when out, wear masks, etc., etc., etc. to prevent the spread of the virus.

What happened to George Floyd was absolutely appalling, but people need to be protesting in safe ways that will not spread the virus to other people. Protest in social media. Put signs all over your yard. Lobby your politicians. Write letters to the editor of your publications.

But please, please, please stay home and STOP the spread of the virus.

I am sure that politicians are absolutely terrified at the thought of trying to tell people to stay home for fear of being labelled as racists. But common sense should prevail. Keeping people of all skin colours and ethnic backgrounds safe should be the priority right now. Given that African-Americans are twice as likely to get COVID-19 and die from it, then I think that protesting in non-communal ways is one way to show that black lives matter.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #17

Post by Zzyzx »

As I said elsewhere:

1st Amendment to the Constitution: 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.

How should the part in bold be modified to fit present situations?

Require permits (and fees)?
Limit the number of people?
Restrict where citizens may assemble?
Limit hours permissible?

Is it okay for states or cities to abridge the right to peaceably assemble?

If states and cities are legally entitled to ignore the 1st Amendment to restrict free exercise of right of assembly, they are equally entitled to also ignore the 1st Amendment and restrict free exercise of religion.

Fair enough?

I agree that perpetrators of violence and damage should be arrested and prosecuted (just as should 'bad cops'). However, non-violent / non-damaging people have every right to protest.

It seems s though many people are all for the Constitution as long as it protects them and their agenda -- not so much when it protects others or different agendas.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

koko

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #18

Post by koko »

Trump convention in Oklahoma to attract thousands:

https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/su ... y-in-tulsa


While technically not a protest, nonetheless it is a public gathering in which people will not wear protective equipment. This meeting will pose a great threat to society but certain people do not care. We have already seen a spike in corona virus cases but these people seem intent on aggravating the problem.

Quantrill
Banned
Banned
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 7:41 pm
Location: Texas
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #19

Post by Quantrill »

koko wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:08 am Trump convention in Oklahoma to attract thousands:

https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/su ... y-in-tulsa


While technically not a protest, nonetheless it is a public gathering in which people will not wear protective equipment. This meeting will pose a great threat to society but certain people do not care. We have already seen a spike in corona virus cases but these people seem intent on aggravating the problem.
So, you're saying all those protesting are wearing masks? And all those at the Trump rally are not wearing masks and the cause of the spike in Corona virus? What a one sided view you have.

If 'protests' are protected by the Constitution, then Christians gathering for worship is equally protected by the Constitution. Correct? So Churches should be exempt from any of these restrictions on gathering. Correct?

Quantrill

koko

Re: Unlimited right to protest?

Post #20

Post by koko »

Quantrill wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:25 pm
koko wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:08 am Trump convention in Oklahoma to attract thousands:

https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/su ... y-in-tulsa


While technically not a protest, nonetheless it is a public gathering in which people will not wear protective equipment. This meeting will pose a great threat to society but certain people do not care. We have already seen a spike in corona virus cases but these people seem intent on aggravating the problem.
So, you're saying all those protesting are wearing masks? And all those at the Trump rally are not wearing masks and the cause of the spike in Corona virus? What a one sided view you have.

If 'protests' are protected by the Constitution, then Christians gathering for worship is equally protected by the Constitution. Correct? So Churches should be exempt from any of these restrictions on gathering. Correct?

Quantrill



Such spikes occurred wherever people have not worn masks.

As for churches and the interventive power of the state during similar crises, we have already discussed how the courts ruled in the cases which arose over this issue during the pague of 1918 and beyond. Go back into search for your answer.

Post Reply