Poll of the Day > Florida pastor arrested for following the First Amendment

Topic List
Page List: 1
Revelation34
03/31/20 5:02:24 AM
#1:


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/florida-megachurch-pastor-arrested-for-breaching-covid-19-health-order

Duckbear thread title.
---
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms
... Copied to Clipboard!
dancer62
03/31/20 5:17:40 AM
#2:


Wrong title. "Florida Pastor Arrested For Endangering Congregation" fits the facts.

---
If ballet was easy, it would be pointe-less
... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34
03/31/20 5:18:58 AM
#3:


dancer62 posted...
Wrong title. "Florida Pastor Arrested For Endangering Congregation" fits the facts.


It wouldn't matter since that arrest violates the First Amendment. He will have a high paying lawsuit for when everything starts to get back to normal.
---
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin
03/31/20 5:19:12 AM
#4:


Hillsborough Sheriff Chad Chronister

THIS GUY AGAIN!!!!!

This is the third story I've seen with this guy, what a name

---
"Salt cures Everything!"
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
03/31/20 5:28:29 AM
#5:


Revelation34 posted...
It wouldn't matter since that arrest violates the First Amendment.

That's not actually how the First Amendment works.
---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin
03/31/20 5:29:04 AM
#6:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
That's not actually how the First Amendment works.

I agree.

I mean, if the church was on fire and a fireman said DON'T GO IN THERE!... that's not a First Amendment breach

---
"Salt cures Everything!"
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
03/31/20 5:33:09 AM
#7:


Lokarin posted...
I agree.

I mean, if the church was on fire and a fireman said DON'T GO IN THERE!... that's not a First Amendment breach

No, well, to be fair, this topic is referring to the often forgotten aspect of the First Amendment - it's not just free speech, it's also freedom of peaceful assembly.

The problem is, there's an implicit expectation of public safety that has been repeatedly applied to the First Amendment in the past (which is why you can't invoke freedom of speech to defend your right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater), but also the First Amendment really only applies to the federal government anyway, and only in their ability to pass laws restricting the right of the people to gather peacefully.

This would be a pretty clear case where stay-at-home orders would be upheld and, if anything, the pastor would be prosecuted for endangering the welfare of others or reckless endangerment.
---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin
03/31/20 5:34:13 AM
#8:


Being a plague rat is not 'peaceful' assembly

---
"Salt cures Everything!"
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos
... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34
03/31/20 5:49:11 AM
#9:


ParanoidObsessive posted...


That's not actually how the First Amendment works.


"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
---
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms
... Copied to Clipboard!
loseless
03/31/20 6:31:22 AM
#10:


I don't know if the constitution of the US actually especifies this, but in most lawful states, the declaration of state of emergency can suppress rights and liberties, such as public and peaceful assembly. If so, then it does not matter what amendment was violated, as they are not in effect.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Fam_Fam
03/31/20 7:08:55 AM
#11:


the government suspected the right to freedom of assembly during the state of emergency and told people not to have large gatherings or they'd be putting peoples' lives at risk / would get in trouble

he then had a large gathering, put peoples' lives at risk, and is getting in trouble

fair, next
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin
03/31/20 9:33:59 AM
#12:


... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0
03/31/20 9:43:41 AM
#13:


Revelation34 posted...
It wouldn't matter since that arrest violates the First Amendment. He will have a high paying lawsuit for when everything starts to get back to normal.

You're wrong, admittedly I'm not entirely sure how the courts would go but I saw a report that detailed how government efforts to deal with disease in the past had generally had support of the courts.

The man was not targeted because of his speech. He was not targeted because of his religion. The first amendment really doesn't come into play here. He was arrested for violating the order that applied to everyone, the government should be able to make a simple and compelling argument that they would have arrested anyone compelling people to gather in direct defiance of the reasonable emergency order.

It's difficult for me to see the courts siding with this person, it would require a court overturning a rather great deal of precedent.
... Copied to Clipboard!
DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC
03/31/20 9:57:57 AM
#14:


Revelation34 posted...
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
"Congress shall make no law"

I don't think Congress had anything to do with this, so no 1A violation.

---
"If at any point violence is the answer to someone questioning your beliefs, your beliefs are poorly formed and indefensible." -- Chris Kluwe
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
03/31/20 1:13:20 PM
#15:


Revelation34 posted...
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If you want to take that approach, then jailing anyone ever is a violation of the first amendment because it prohibits them from freely exercising their free speech. That would obviously be stupid, so you probably shouldn't want to take that approach.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ScritchOwl
03/31/20 1:30:16 PM
#16:


Free speech does not cover hate speech

Free speech does not cover defamation

Free speech does not allow you to harm others

If the pastor told his congregation to stone someone the only was it would be legal is if the stonee was given a coupon to a dispensery or to that effect.

Telling a group of people to break quarantine to prove your faith is wrong especially since they enacted quarantines back in in biblical days (see leviticus). I dunno a pastor breaking quarentine seems just as bad as a antivaxxers screaming about essential oils and ignoring the safety of others because they skim to find parts that enable them and ignore all else

---
I rather go skinny dipping with a voltorb.
... Copied to Clipboard!
VeeVees
03/31/20 1:39:43 PM
#17:


typical scumbag megachurch with idiot followers

---
Rudy sucks
... Copied to Clipboard!
FrozenBananas
03/31/20 1:53:19 PM
#19:


I saw a clip of his sermon, but cant find it now.

the dude was talking about the only things they have to worry about is the rapture. Dude is a mad man

---
I could do this all day.
Yeah yeah, I know...
... Copied to Clipboard!
dainkinkaide
03/31/20 1:55:18 PM
#20:


Revelation34 posted...
He will have a high paying lawsuit for when everything starts to get back to normal.
I mean, you're not wrong on this point. His lawyers are going to make a lot of money off of his parishioners. He's still going to lose, but his lawyers will probably advise him to submit expensive appeal after expensive appeal.

So yes, the lawsuit will be high paying for his lawyers.

---
The problem with the internet today is that it's filled with entire generations that did not grow up with the great wisdom of the Wyld Stallyns.
... Copied to Clipboard!
#21
Post #21 was unavailable or deleted.
dainkinkaide
03/31/20 4:58:49 PM
#22:


Mr Hangman posted...
These quarantine orders are all on very shaky ground legally. It might not be challenged in court because most people will follow them voluntarily, and if it is challenged it might simply be dropped once the orders are lifted. But if it goes on for any length of time, there will be serious questions about the civil rights ramifications and what constitutional authority, if any, these orders are derived from.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905).

Admittedly, this case was regarding whether or not it violated the Constitution to require people to get vaccinated against smallpox by force of law during the smallpox epidemic, but Justice Harlan and 6 other SCOTUS Justices came to the conclusion that it fell well within a state's police powers to use reasonable regulations regarding restraints on Constitutional rights to protect public health in the face of an epidemic.

---
The problem with the internet today is that it's filled with entire generations that did not grow up with the great wisdom of the Wyld Stallyns.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34
03/31/20 5:07:18 PM
#23:


Oh I didn't even notice this thread. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/78478121
---
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms
... Copied to Clipboard!
#24
Post #24 was unavailable or deleted.
WhiskeyDisk
03/31/20 5:52:42 PM
#25:


Not to start some sort of anti-Semitic dogpile, but I wish Cuomo would do something about the Hasidic community in Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree NY that continues to carry on like everything is normal. The last numbers I saw for their tiny community as of Friday were easily 4x as many infections as any other town in the county.

---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0
03/31/20 8:43:16 PM
#26:


ScritchOwl posted...
Free speech does not cover hate speech

Free speech does not cover defamation

Free speech does not allow you to harm others

If the pastor told his congregation to stone someone the only was it would be legal is if the stonee was given a coupon to a dispensery or to that effect.

Telling a group of people to break quarantine to prove your faith is wrong especially since they enacted quarantines back in in biblical days (see leviticus). I dunno a pastor breaking quarentine seems just as bad as a antivaxxers screaming about essential oils and ignoring the safety of others because they skim to find parts that enable them and ignore all else

Uh... hate speech absolutely is covered by freedom of speech in the US. Libel, Slander, and "imminent threats" are the only speech not protected as told by a community college gov professor.
... Copied to Clipboard!
#27
Post #27 was unavailable or deleted.
FrndNhbrHdCEman
03/31/20 9:24:36 PM
#28:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
That's not actually how the First Amendment works.


---
Official nosy neighbor and gossip
https://imgur.com/uGKwGsK
... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0
03/31/20 10:35:01 PM
#29:


Mr Hangman posted...
^Fraud is also in there and I'm sure we can come up with some other exceptions if we sat and thought about it.

But yeah, it does cover hate speech, certainly covers defamation when it's true, plenty of legal free speech can harm others in some way or another (certainly harms a rapist to tell everyone he's a rapist, for example).

Fraud isn't really speech. It's generally just theft.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin
04/05/20 6:03:30 PM
#30:


... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil
04/05/20 8:41:40 PM
#31:


I think there's going to be a number of lawsuits resulting from the government mandated lock downs. You have a ton of businesses and people who are being personally and professionally damaged from their respective lock downs. As stated earlier, it absolutely is a right that we have as american citizens to peaceably assemble as well as the other inferred and enumerated rights we have.

Whether or not the courts will agree, time will tell. But plenty of people will have reason to be aggrieved by this. Not the least of which the people who are imprisoned or fined for 'violating' the protective order.

I believe, in principle, that everyone should have the right to their own bodily autonomy and frankly the right to make idiotic and stupid decisions. You also have the right to shun those people from society and disassociate yourselves from them for potentially being exposed to stupid viruses. As long as no one is forcing them to go to their dumbass church service, they should be able to make that decision to potentially kill themselves.

Yes, those people are then capable of going around and infecting other people. But it's also, in my opinion, the decision of the people who are potentially interacting with those idiots as well. If I want to ride a motorcycle, I have to concede the idea that I have a significantly increased likelihood of dying by doing so and not of my own fault. But I make that decision when I go out onto the road. Likewise I think in the midst of the pandemic we're all making a conscious decision to potentially expose ourselves to COVID every time we leave the house and its up to us to make sure we're doing everything in our power to prevent ourselves from being infected.

Having said that, I don't personally have a problem with staying in quarantine but I can certainly understand why someone might.

I'd like to add one thing, if someone kills themselves out of loneliness or whatever from the lock down, is that death then the responsibility of the government for enacting the lock down?

---
I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76
... Copied to Clipboard!
b_hamnite
04/06/20 7:57:13 AM
#32:


Counter sue the pastor for bio terrorism. Bet he'd drop any bullshit suit he's brought up then.

---
I miss the days when you could bring a game home and play, no updates to wait for. Now, get off my lawn.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125
04/06/20 9:26:32 AM
#33:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
Not to start some sort of anti-Semitic dogpile, but I wish Cuomo would do something about the Hasidic community in Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree NY that continues to carry on like everything is normal. The last numbers I saw for their tiny community as of Friday were easily 4x as many infections as any other town in the county.

That community is like its own little sovereign nation. It's wild the things they do.

---
https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2
"I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/06/20 10:31:30 AM
#34:


Jen0125 posted...
That community is like its own little sovereign nation. It's wild the things they do.

You have no idea Jen. Case in point:

https://i.imgur.com/mlBwmqm.png

And they have a fairly large enclave forming in Vail's Gate where they've taken over a large apartment complex in an attempt to start another "colony" between New Windsor and Cornwall. I live on the opposite side of town from Vail's Gate, but my brother, his wife, and their infant live about a block away from that enclave. With the fools in Newburgh to one side, and that enclave on the other, it's not a great situation for the spread since that enclave is back and forth to KJ all day every day.

---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
04/06/20 11:22:59 AM
#35:


Smarkil posted...
I believe, in principle, that everyone should have the right to their own bodily autonomy and frankly the right to make idiotic and stupid decisions. You also have the right to shun those people from society and disassociate yourselves from them for potentially being exposed to stupid viruses. As long as no one is forcing them to go to their dumbass church service, they should be able to make that decision to potentially kill themselves.

The problem, however, is that it's not just themselves that they're endangering. Sure, we have the right to shun people who might have gotten themselves infected, but that's hard unless they wear a giant sign saying "I gather in large groups every week I'm probably infected." The fact of the matter is that people still have to go outside sometimes, even with distancing recommendations in place. Cutting down on the number of people that are able to gather in large numbers helps to make sure that when people do go outside, they're less likely to encounter infected people (and, by extension, to become infected and risk infecting other people).

These regulations aren't to protect individuals, they're to protect society. Yes, society is made up of individuals and the regulations require actions and sacrifices on the part of individuals, but it's a mistake to think of this in terms of telling people not to endanger themselves. This is much, much bigger than that, and the more people comply with the recommendations/requirements, the more lives are going to be saved.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
jsb0714
04/06/20 1:04:48 PM
#36:


Revelation34 posted...
It wouldn't matter since that arrest violates the First Amendment. He will have a high paying lawsuit for when everything starts to get back to normal.
That would set a dangerous precedent. Should a situation like this happen again, everyone would just ignore the stay at home orders because some dipshit was previously given money by an inept jury.
... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas
04/06/20 1:27:02 PM
#37:


This is a terrible thread.

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34
04/06/20 8:23:29 PM
#38:


b_hamnite posted...
Counter sue the pastor for bio terrorism. Bet he'd drop any bullshit suit he's brought up then.


Can't counter sue on a constitution violation.

jsb0714 posted...

That would set a dangerous precedent. Should a situation like this happen again, everyone would just ignore the stay at home orders because some dipshit was previously given money by an inept jury.


Wouldn't be inept at all since the constitution is supposed to be followed by the government.
---
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms
... Copied to Clipboard!
DesertPenguin09
04/07/20 12:01:16 AM
#39:


This is hilarious. People are saying they can do something because the government gave them a right, and yet that same government is telling them to stay inside and that's against what the government gave them originally.

So you like the government when it gives you what you want, but as soon as that gets compromised by said government, that same government is bad? Can't win can you?

---
The sun is coming up, over the hill
Or maybe it's not I can't even tell...
... Copied to Clipboard!
Red_Frog
04/07/20 1:37:16 AM
#40:


DesertPenguin09 posted...
This is hilarious. People are saying they can do something because the government gave them a right, and yet that same government is telling them to stay inside and that's against what the government gave them originally.

So you like the government when it gives you what you want, but as soon as that gets compromised by said government, that same government is bad? Can't win can you?

The United States government does not give anyone rights, and more specifically the Bill of Rights exists to restrict the government from transgressing rights.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34
04/07/20 2:13:37 AM
#41:


Red_Frog posted...


The United States government does not give anyone rights, and more specifically the Bill of Rights exists to restrict the government from transgressing rights.


That's an oxymoron.
---
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin
04/07/20 7:13:16 PM
#42:


ya, how can someone transgress on a right if you weren't given them?

---
"Salt cures Everything!"
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos
... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded
04/07/20 7:38:48 PM
#43:


He is right, the logic behind the founding of our government was to take everything you have without government when you are free (free speech, freedom to bear arms, liberty etc) and make it so the government can't touch these things
Lokarin posted...
ya, how can someone transgress on a right if you weren't given them?

so he is saying you already had those rights the moment you were born, government job (according to the people who founded and built out government) isn't to GIVE you the right to free speech, you already have that right and it's governments job to PROTECT what you already have

---
Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition
... Copied to Clipboard!
DesertPenguin09
04/07/20 7:43:55 PM
#44:


It can also be seen as part of the benefits of being a citizen of this country. That's part of why people come here. To get those rights that you claim they are born with. So only people born within the US get those rights? If the government wasn't around there would be no rights, it would be chaos and law of the land.

---
The sun is coming up, over the hill
Or maybe it's not I can't even tell...
... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded
04/07/20 8:04:54 PM
#45:


DesertPenguin09 posted...
It can also be seen as part of the benefits of being a citizen of this country. That's part of why people come here. To get those rights that you claim they are born with. So only people born within the US get those rights? If the government wasn't around there would be no rights, it would be chaos and law of the land.
The right to free speech cannot be GIVEN, only TAKEN.

---
Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition
... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34
04/07/20 8:45:00 PM
#46:


Wanded posted...

The right to free speech cannot be GIVEN, only TAKEN.


That is not how America works.
---
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms
... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil
04/07/20 11:20:48 PM
#47:


adjl posted...
The problem, however, is that it's not just themselves that they're endangering. Sure, we have the right to shun people who might have gotten themselves infected, but that's hard unless they wear a giant sign saying "I gather in large groups every week I'm probably infected." The fact of the matter is that people still have to go outside sometimes, even with distancing recommendations in place. Cutting down on the number of people that are able to gather in large numbers helps to make sure that when people do go outside, they're less likely to encounter infected people (and, by extension, to become infected and risk infecting other people).

These regulations aren't to protect individuals, they're to protect society. Yes, society is made up of individuals and the regulations require actions and sacrifices on the part of individuals, but it's a mistake to think of this in terms of telling people not to endanger themselves. This is much, much bigger than that, and the more people comply with the recommendations/requirements, the more lives are going to be saved.

Isn't it though? The people who are compromised for whatever reason, old age, immunocompromised, etc. can choose to sequester themselves largely from society. Even something as simple as the common cold can very easily be deadly to someone in that position. In order for those people to be infected, they would also have to make a choice to interact with potentially infected people. Before anyone says it, I get why this virus is dangerous. Asymptomatic, incubation periods, etc. I get that. But the concern here is for the people who are compromised in some way. The death rate for otherwise healthy individuals appears to be inconsequentially low, though the data is still being collected.

Now lets talk about lives saved. I think at some point we actually have to have a conversation about the worth of a human life. I know its easy to talk in platitudes about how every life is priceless, etc. but that's really not true. If this virus was only a concern for say, people with MS, we definitely would not be shuttering the economy for them. But let's assume the estimated number of deaths from the virus is half of what it currently is. Do we still take the same approach to preventing the spread? At what point do we say, 'You know, this isn't a big enough problem to be concerned about'.

I find it concerning that so many people are in favor of what effectively amounts to minor martial law. Partial law? People in California and similar states are being arrested and/or fined for being out in public. Just the other day a guy was arrested for paddle boarding out in the ocean completely by himself. That absolutely upsets me and I think it should upset everyone.

I hate to trudge out the same old Franklin quote that's been used a thousand times, but it's more important now than it ever was - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

I'm not defending people making dumbass decisions. But I am defending their right to make their dumbass decisions. If the result of their decisions is their selves dying and possibly infecting other people? I think I could live with that. I would also note that I think anyone willingly spreading the virus, akin to having aids and not telling a sexual partner or whatever, should absolutely be a crime. And a severe one. Otherwise, I think the people should be free to make their own decisions.

---
I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1