Numark3

none of that is what I said. But okay. my point is that comparing the two are lazy, intellectually dishonest, and political manipulation. You don’t agree, which is wrong, but okay. I have no need to convince you. I think the protests should be allowed because of course they should be. Preventing them from occurring is obviously unconstitutional i think churches should be open. But that legal issue is much closer.

that’s not what I’m saying at all but ok. We can’t have a genuine discussion about this because you have no idea what you are talking about. The law on the first amendment is thousands of pages long. You can’t understand that it goes beyond the actual words in the constitution. neither right is absolute? Okay. Of course they can be limited.

Their reasoning is public health. I can link you to the Supreme Court opinion if you want to learn more about the state’s reasoning.

im not saying I agree with it, I don’t. I’m just saying the protest issue is entirely irrelevant and is used by politicians to rile up the less informed. So they can say “derrr they don’t restrict protests but they restrict churches...” and you can to grasp that what constitutes freedom of religion is not the same thing as what constitutes freedom of speech. Both are protected, but they are two entirely different concepts. but yea, everyone is a fool. 200 years of cases and opinions are fools for not grouping them together. Everyone is a fool but you.

I’m just pointing out that comparing the protests to churches is comparing two entirely different concepts that have entirely different bodies of law. It is not apples to oranges, it’s fruit to sports. Applying first amendment law to freedom of religion is an entirely different concept than applying the relevant law to freedom of speech. you can throw your hissy fit because you don’t understand it at all. The difference between me and you is that I understand this topic is highly confusing and complicated, while you think it is very simple. You should be more aware of your ignorance.

lol okkkkkkkk. It’s as simple as “they did it to churches so they can do it to protests.” your stance is is beyond moronic, and not grounded in anything but a misunderstanding of the first amendment. no, but I think the past 200 years of decisions that have formed two entirely different standards and rules for these seperate first amendment rights KINDA means something.

You can disagree. But the distinction is based in fact and law (not based on political opinions) you should email the Supreme Court and let them know their understanding of the law is idiotic.

The government cannot just prevent people from protesting in public. They can put restrictions on time and place, but they can’t just restrict it. um no? Different standards apply to different first amendment rights...

Oh yea, it’s that simple

im being fully serious in this discussion. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both first amendment rights. Neither are absolute rights. limits on attendance to religious services (equally applied to all religions) is going to be upheld. And it has been upheld consistently, including the Supreme Court. restrictions on protests have been made and are okay. But simply preventing people from protesting in public spaces, would never be attempted or upheld. It’s clearly unconstitutional How is that an idiotic statement?

Um yes? The conservative-majority Supreme Court just said limits on church is within a state’s right. and there’s a reason no state has placed restrictions beyond curfews (see, some restrictions are okay!) on protests. It would be shot down instantly as unconstitutional. cry about your constitution, this isn’t a partisan point. Did the government shut down the conservative protests? Genuine question.

the right to go to a church is not anywhere near as strong as a right to protest in public. like it or not, that is the way it is.

why? Fauci said right away they increase the spread and that he can’t comment on restrictions on protests. jordan guy Is pandering to you (hey, it worked!). He knows damn well the government can’t restrict or limit these protests. amazing to see politicians fool people (like you) in real time

people equating government restrictions to not restricting protests is really obnoxious and uninformed. did they restrict the conservative protests?

yea, people equate the stock market to the economy to casually. who is rushing it?

seriously. One person has been caught with multiple accounts....DR says the guy with multiple accounts. LOL

okkkkkkkkkkk

is it really seattlite???

when you ramble about black pills, simps, and the entire world is out to get men....you might want to log off and reflect a little bit.

I don’t think this couple should have been charged for a number of reasons. But the fact the gun is not functional or loaded is irrelevant. The statute they were charged under does not require that. the website you linked to is factually wrong about that. Not tying to argue or say it’s your fault, the news sites should do a better job of making sure what they say is true

the Internet in 2020 folks! I have no idea what so much if this even means. And I don’t want to But what you said about the law, is 100 percent wrong. And very uninformed

“In a stunning reverse of position, Walmart has changed its punishment: rather than ban the couple from the store for a year, the couple is now being forced to be at Walmart for the next year.

He is a harmless internet nutjob that is fun to gawk at. that is nothing to aspire to.

only to this clown. No one else actually bothers me, including you

Will this account tell the stories? Or your other account? we can’t wait to hear how you were a lowly assistant