SCOTUS rules against California Church lockdown, BUT...

So apparently they can limit services to 25% capacity, and while this sounds like a win..

It is very important to read the WHOLE ruling, looks like the 1st amendment wasn’t upheld after all..

From the Link

A divided Supreme Court has ruled that California can no longer continue with a ban on indoor church services put in place in response to the coronavirus pandemic, but said the state can keep in place restrictions on singing and chanting inside.

but said the state can keep in place restrictions on singing and chanting inside.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Great job whoever voted for this...... hope you enjoy, losing everything, that everyone has died to protect..

What about hollerin? Thats how Baptist roll.

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

What does that mean? "free exercise thereof"

I think what it means is: Anyone says anything about it, no law protects them. Hammer away!!

Sooner or later Law Abiding Citizens are gonna understand ... laws only constrain the law abiding. The other team is lawless. Our turn now!!

Snakes what about snakes ?? and speakinging in tongues >> a wop bap a loo bop

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

Tell your pastor to send the hymnlist to your cellphones. Record yourself singing the hymn.

Play the cellphone recording in church, whhile you're singing.

Retarded rules calls for creative solutions.

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

What constitution?

I thought Obama said it was a bunch of negatives telling the Government what it could not do and he wanted it fundamentally changed to what the government can do to peon masses.

Guess he won and that is exactly what Biden supporters voted for - telling people they can go to church but not sing or recite anything together. Just what Biden supporters voted for, congrats to the winning team.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did they really split hairs in that regard? 🤔

Like, "Congress didn't ban free speech in California, California did..." sort of reasoning??

"Congress shall make no law......", but the Supreme Court can???

I thought the supreme court decisions were cut and dry; i.e., you can or you can't. I didn't realize they could implement new "conditions" or standards.

Am I confused, wrong, ignorant or.....?

🤷🏾‍♂️

a reply to: EternalShadow
It's what Democrats are best at.

Splitting hairs.

Just look at the impeachment sham.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
What about hollerin? Thats how Baptist roll.

I went to a local Baptist church (before the lock down), and there is no "hollerin'.

You might be thinking of ones down south in Georgia or something, they might holler a bit there, not sure.

a reply to: EternalShadow

It’s called corruption, unfortunately from here on out; it look like anyone that says anything about it will be (is already) labeled a “conspiracy theorist”, for simply pointing out the laws WE follow... and they abuse......

a reply to: lakenheath24

"Hollerin"? Ain't nothing.😂

Pentecostal's roll up in carpets and do "hollerin", at the same time!

I love my Baptist brothers! I'd shed my blood, to defend their "right" for "hollerin" and belief!

Heck! I'd even defend a "Catholic", with my blood, if "government" got in their way.

I know. .... But everybody deserves a chance.
That's what Jesus gave us all. A chance.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You didn't go long enough. It's a "hollerin"! But a good "hollerin", in a good sorta way.

Is interesting, the Church power in the US is now completely dead and done for it, no matter what constitutional rights always prevail but first somebody have to make a constitutional issue of the mandates, seems in California nobody wants to challenge, and for what I see, none of the Democrat run states, they like their dictators just the way the are.

Soo I do no feel sorry for their lost of rights at all.

a reply to: Nivhk

It's how you "appear" to be "unbiased". You can stand for nothing! And still win!

I suppose in the "new woke American reset" we are just supposed to be content that SCOTUS actually ruled on something.

Oh we talking Eastern Kentucky. My Appamms can do some hollerin now.


a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Even God is smart enough to know not to congregate during a pandemic. They talk about this sort of thing in the Bible.

a reply to: darkbake

What pandemic? The engineered one; the one the is magically falling off everywhere now?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The Baptist Churches I have attended here in Georgis sing the same hymns that Medothist Churches sing and Church of God sing .
No hollering

a reply to: darkbake

"Pandemic"? What pandemic? Where is this "pandemic"?.
I haven't seen it!
You, and people like you, keep saying there is a "pandemic"! .... But I am yet to see it with/by observation. Other than the usual winter sniffling and coughing.

Forcing people by, "color/colour of law" into smothering themselves with a facemask, doesn't make a "pandemic". I haven't seen it. Neither have the "medical" folk I know.

But obviously, a "pandemic" can change the form of a government. How convenient.

Obviously, a "pandemic", can make people like Bill Gates go from wanting to extinguish people from planet Earth.

To "saving" them?