• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Racism in the Military

D

Deleted member 24525

Guest
They are right now in several places in the country.
No they are not. You are free to practice your religion, just not in large groups.
(And oh by the way the SCOTUS ruled last week that these limitations are not unconstitutional-read about it)
Don’t forget the Protests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Michigan, against “tyrannical” governors
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
Cool, online protests only from now on. The scary virus applies to the whole first amendment.

That’s the thing about protests...they’re a way to push back against the system.

Trying to bottle up these protesters would be about as effective as trying to bottle up a bunch of guys walking around with rifles at the State Capitol. Oh wait...
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
No they are not. You are free to practice your religion, just not in large groups.
(And oh by the way the SCOTUS ruled last week that these limitations are not unconstitutional-read about it)
Don’t forget the Protests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Michigan, against “tyrannical” governors
I’m aware of the shameful Supreme Court decision. Protests should be treated the same but of course we know why they aren’t.
 

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
If church services can be banned without infringing on peoples right to practice their religion, then crushing peaceful protests is fine too. They are free to protest from home.
So...black clad troopers charging into church spraying tear gas and packing heat...I missed that news report.
 
D

Deleted member 24525

Guest
I’m aware of the shameful Supreme Court decision. Protests should be treated the same but of course we know why they aren’t.
Why is it shameful?
A California church had limitations placed on the number of people who could attend the service.

Kavanaugh compared it to grocery Stores, but Roberts said that’s not a fair comparison nor ingenuous argument. That a more fair comparison is a concert or a sporting event because of the nature of the meeting place.

They did not ban religious services, they are not arresting people for being of a certain religion, they’re allowing people to practice their religion- they are allowing people to meet to practice a religion. They’re just temporarily capping the number of attendees, and the Supreme Court said that is allowable because it is Equal Protection of the Law.

no different than the fire Marshall placing limitations on the building capacity in the interest of public safety.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Why is it shameful?
A California church had limitations placed on the number of people who could attend the service.

Kavanaugh compared it to grocery Stores, but Roberts said that’s not a fair comparison nor ingenuous argument. That a more fair comparison is a concert or a sporting event because of the nature of the meeting place.

They did not ban religious services, they are not arresting people for being of a certain religion, they’re allowing people to practice their religion- they are allowing people to meet to practice a religion. They’re just temporarily capping the number of attendees, and the Supreme Court said that is allowable because it is Equal Protection of the Law.

no different than the fire Marshall placing limitations in the building capacity.
But not for protests. Cool.
 

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
No they are not. You are free to practice your religion, just not in large groups.
(And oh by the way the SCOTUS ruled last week that these limitations are not unconstitutional-read about it)
Don’t forget the Protests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Michigan, against “tyrannical” governors
up until a few weeks ago in some places it was no groups, not even drive up.

and yes, if a limit was placed on the number of people attending that is still the ability to practice, that is what most places have done now.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Have you been watching? The protestors are being gassed out and there are curfews in place. Don’t act like nothing is being done.
The curfews are for looting. Legitimate protests don’t happen in the middle of the night. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the people saying how important it is to protect the right for people to peaceably assemble and protest but not to assemble to worship, which are both guaranteed by the first amendment. People should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to join a giant protest, just as they should be free to attend church in whatever numbers they’re comfortable with.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
No they are not. You are free to practice your religion, just not in large groups.
(And oh by the way the SCOTUS ruled last week that these limitations are not unconstitutional-read about it)
Don’t forget the Protests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Michigan, against “tyrannical” governors
Point of order - SCOTUS did not rule on constitutionality. They just declined to grant an injunction while the lawsuit goes forward. Big difference.
 
D

Deleted member 24525

Guest
Point of order - SCOTUS did not rule on constitutionality. They just declined to grant an injunction while the lawsuit goes forward. Big difference.
Fair enough-result is the same. And unlikely to be reversed.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Point of order - SCOTUS did not rule on constitutionality. They just declined to grant an injunction while the lawsuit goes forward. Big difference.
Thank you! Strong, was your legal officer instruction. Retained you did.
Fair enough-result is the same. And unlikely to be reversed.
Not true. You simply cannot be sure. Granting an injunction is a big deal. It is throwing the weight of the highest court in the land behind an order without a full hearing of the facts and arguments, sometimes even before lower courts have weighed in. The bar is high because it short circuits the system.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
@Spekkio , I can know why people riot and not approve of it. Are you saying it is ok to riot if you are agrieved over racism? Anyone that believes that is more problematic then me. That my friends are the low expectations too many people have for minorities. Not expecting they can control emotion and be respectful. You are making excuses for criminals and demeaning the good people who peacefully protest and still respect other peoples life and property.
Arguing over when it is or isn't okay to riot is the wrong conversation, and is frankly irrelevant.

How do we get police to stop murdering people, and how do we get them to hold themselves more accountable so people don't want to riot is the right conversation.
 
Top