Worship is Essential: President Trump Vows to Override Governors on Religious Liberty

[MMC]

Trump cant override the Demo Governors. But what he has done that the left is incapable of figuring out. Is that he has put the Demo governors in the limelight and on the hot seat. They are playing defense.


Even the religious left is not liking what the Demo governors are doing. Lawsuits have popped up all over the country.


Although, one thing Trump can do.....is put the DOJ on the issue. Which Barr has already made a statement about it and has been warning States that he will look into the matter.


Now the Religious knows that Trump agrees with them and is on their side. That is not good for Democrats.


Churches Across U.S. File Lawsuits Against Democrat Governors

https://www.breitbart.com/.../churches-across-u-s-file-lawsuits-against-democrat-governors
May 13, 2020 · The Thomas More Society filed the civil rights lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, asserting: California is one of only eight states whose response to the COVID-19 pandemic has included no accommodation for—hardly even a mention of—the religious rights of its citizens.



AG Barr Assures Faith Leaders Administration Will Shield ...

https://news.yahoo.com/ag-barr-assures-faith-leaders-163510992.html
Apr 24, 2020 · During a White House conference call with more than 500 faith leaders on Thursday, Attorney General William Barr assured the participating priests, rabbis, and ministers that the administration is on guard against overzealous state governments intent on “singling out” religious groups with punitive coronavirus lockdown measures.



DOJ Warns California Over Stay-At-Home Orders, Citing ...

https://freedomwire.com/doj-california-lockdown
May 20, 2020 · DOJ Warns California Over Stay-At-Home Orders, Citing Civil Rights Concerns Posted by Grace Saldana | May 20, 2020 | US After more than two months of strict lockdown orders, the Department of Justice finally had something to say about California’s repeated discrimination against churches and religious groups.

[MMC]

It is questionable whether "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is implicated in prohibiting people from gathering at places of worship, since people can still freely worship at home and attend services over the internet.

Not all churches or mosques have internet capabilities. Nor Synagogues. While they can freely worship at home. They cannot do so with the fellowship of those with the same fate.

Moreover some Churches have taken services outside with 6ft physical distancing and masks. Only to be shut down by Deviate Democrats.

[MMC]

You righties are too often getting your panties in a wad, governors have these rights to protect Innocent people from fools who still think germs don't exist because they can't see them. Grow up children. Religious freedom is fine, you can worship however you like but getting other people sick isn't your right.


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...y-inslee-said/


https://www.nga.org/consulting-2/powers-and-authority/

You leftist whackjobs…..if you are so scared of germs and think reality guarantees that you will be safe at all times. Stay home, believing you are a couch potato hero.

[DGUtley]

It is questionable whether "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is implicated in prohibiting people from gathering at places of worship, since people can still freely worship at home and attend services over the internet.

I strongly disagree. Exercising your faith to a lot of us means coming together as a community of worshipers. Or, going to a church. Or, going to see a minister and pray with him/her/sis.

[DGUtley]

You righties are too often getting your panties in a wad, governors have these rights to protect Innocent people from fools who still think germs don't exist because they can't see them. Grow up children. Religious freedom is fine, you can worship however you like but getting other people sick isn't your right. https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...y-inslee-said/
https://www.nga.org/consulting-2/powers-and-authority/

Grow up yourself and learn what law is about. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Governors have the right to do what they can/want to do consistent with the laws of their state, the United States, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of each individual state. It's clear that religious freedom isn't "fine" with you. You are comfortable with the government controlling religious freedom. Fortunately, our founders were not.

[FindersKeepers]

Not all churches or mosques have internet capabilities. Nor Synagogues. While they can freely worship at home. They cannot do so with the fellowship of those with the same fate.

Moreover some Churches have taken services outside with 6ft physical distancing and masks. Only to be shut down by Deviate Democrats.

Around here we have both Mennonite and Amish churches that don't have internet services.

[Admiral Ackbar]

You righties are too often getting your panties in a wad, governors have these rights to protect Innocent people from fools who still think germs don't exist because they can't see them. Grow up children. Religious freedom is fine, you can worship however you like but getting other people sick isn't your right.


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...y-inslee-said/


https://www.nga.org/consulting-2/powers-and-authority/

The Chairman smiles on this post. He appreciates your dedication to removing freedom from the people to worship. He is with you on the march to changing the old ways so that people will be "free" to think in new socialist ways.

The right to assemble is not taken away by the existence of a virus.

Here is how freedom works 101. If you are worried about getting sick at church service then DONT GO!. Don't be all Maoist and trample on others rights.

The Chairman does with out a doubt smile down on your Authoritarian world view.

Mao.jpg

Since you are advocating practice of religion is ok as long we comply with our political masters, I thought you might enjoy seeing how the your fellow Cadres of the Chairman have handled things. You know... to give you some pointers.

[Dr. Who]

I strongly disagree. Exercising your faith to a lot of us means coming together as a community of worshipers. Or, going to a church. Or, going to see a minister and pray with him/her/sis.

I would argue that in terms of the Constitution, "free exercise thereof" implies a free exercise equality such such that no religious faiths have restrictions imposed that are not equally imposed on others.

State governments have the right and authority to place restrictions on congregation if they have a compelling government interest are doing so in an ‘even-handed’ manner. The banning of congregation in the context of a public health emergency is not specific to religious institutions but part of a general interdiction on public gatherings to prevent the spread of disease. The constitutionality of such public health interventions has been firmly established by SCOTUS. The most relevant decision is that of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):

"The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

[Dr. Who]

Not all churches or mosques have internet capabilities. Nor Synagogues. While they can freely worship at home. They cannot do so with the fellowship of those with the same fate.

Moreover some Churches have taken services outside with 6ft physical distancing and masks. Only to be shut down by Deviate Democrats.

Not all of the faithful are physically capable of attending services. Being freely permitted to do something does not imply an equality of capability.

[DGUtley]

I would argue that in terms of the Constitution, "free exercise thereof" implies a free exercise equality such such that no religious faiths have restrictions imposed that are not equally imposed on others.

Respectfully, you would be wrong in that respect. Religion is entitled to no restrictions on the free exercise thereof even if same is equally placed on others - b/c of 1A - subject to my discussion below.

State governments have the right and authority to place restrictions on congregation if they have a compelling government interest are doing so in an ‘even-handed’ manner. The banning of congregation in the context of a public health emergency is not specific to religious institutions but part of a general interdiction on public gatherings to prevent the spread of disease. The constitutionality of such public health interventions has been firmly established by SCOTUS. The most relevant decision is that of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
"The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Any attempt to infringe on the 1st Amendment must be met with strict scrutiny upon a compelling governmental interest and the infringement must be the narrowly tailored to the least restrictive means. Thus, it cannot be "reasonable regulation" it must be the least restrictive means possible under a strict scrutiny standard. The burden is on the government to prove all three elements, analyzed under a strict scrutiny test:

1. is necessary to a "compelling governmental interest"
2. is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling interest.
3. the "least restrictive means" possible is being used to achieve that interest.