Nevada Supreme Court case

[JustRalph]

https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/supreme-court-denies-nevada-churchs-appeal-of-covid-19-rule/

Gorsuch in dissent

[boxcar]

https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/supreme-court-denies-nevada-churchs-appeal-of-covid-19-rule/

Gorsuch in dissent

If the marxist left didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any. :coffee:

[JustRalph]

If the marxist left didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any. :coffee:

Exactly right

[Tom]

Another court decision from Mad Magazine
These idiots in black dresses have never read the constitution.

What do you expect when you have a court of 9, and 8 of them are idiots and one is in a coma?

[boxcar]

Some here may know who pastor John MacArthur is. But if not, he's a pastor of a large congregation in Kommiefornia. He, along with his fellow ruling elders, of his congregation have had enough of this phony virus crisis. He clearly understands that Caesar does not rule in Christ's church and has written an open letter in defiance to Newsome's (and possibly other government officials') oppressive mandates as these pertain to the Church. His superbly crafted letter is published in his blog.

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B200723?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=gtyblog

[Greyfox]

The decay of American values supported by a Supreme Court decision. :bang:

[Tom]

The decay of American values supported by a Supreme Court decision. :bang:

Just to be honest, the SC NEVER had any values of any kind.
They have always been a bastion of elitists, wacko's and mentally disturbed (literally). And they wear dresses. Even the alleged men.

[biggestal99]

Another controversial SCOTUS opinion.

What else is new.

Half the country hates it. Half love it.

Seems like every SCOTUS opinion has its advocates and detractors.

I bet Tom liked Bush v Gore opinion.

Allan

[Tom]

Another controversial SCOTUS opinion.

What else is new.

Half the country hates it. Half love it.

Seems like every SCOTUS opinion has its advocates and detractors.

I bet Tom liked Bush v Gore opinion.

Allan

I like the ones that follow the constitution - OUR constitution.
They have been some I do not like, but have to support because of that.

It's is called being a citizen of THIS country. Unlike that little bitch in the black dress.

[boxcar]

Another controversial SCOTUS opinion.

What else is new.

Half the country hates it. Half love it.

Seems like every SCOTUS opinion has its advocates and detractors.

I bet Tom liked Bush v Gore opinion.

Allan

There was nothing controversial about the facts of the case: Nevada very clearly has a set of double standards: one for managing the number of people inside a business and another different set for churches.

What isn't new are the double standards always embraced by leftists.

[Tom]

I believe what we have here is unequal representation under the law, and probably a bit of violation of freedom of religion.

[biggestal99]

There was nothing controversial about the facts of the case: Nevada very clearly has a set of double standards: one for managing the number of people inside a business and another different set for churches.

What isn't new are the double standards always embraced by leftists.

Double standards in this case clearly are constitutional.

Just like male citizens have to register for selective service and females do not.

SCOTUS has ruled.

Now you can return to whining.

Allan

[Tom]

Double standards in this case clearly are constitutional.

Just like male citizens have to register for selective service and females do not.

SCOTUS has ruled.

Now you can return to whining.

Allan

Clearly NOT constitutional, but whatever you need to rationalize your bizarre, un-scientific beliefs. There is NO SCIENCE to support the ridiculous allegation that going to Church is more harmful than going to a bar or any other public place, other than the democrat insistence on freedom FROM religion.

[boxcar]

Double standards in this case clearly are constitutional.

Just like male citizens have to register for selective service and females do not.

SCOTUS has ruled.

Now you can return to whining.

Allan

Another one who should stay far away from analogies. I don't believe I have ever met a liberal who can structure a logically sound analogy. :rolleyes:

Now, what does any selective service exemption based on gender have to do with one standard for secular groups congregating and one standard for religious groups assembling when the fairer sex is not prohibited for volunteering for military service? It's right here that your ill-conceived analogy falls flat on its keister. Where is there such an out for religious worshipers? :coffee: