Louisiana Pastor asking people for their Stimulus Checks

[Steven15]

Also proclaims 'true Christians do not mind dying'. He's facing misdemeanor charges for holding services despite a ban on gatherings

What is going on this world.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...stor-wants-people-donate-stimulus-checks.html

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

Also proclaims 'true Christians do not mind dying'. He's facing misdemeanor charges for holding services despite a ban on gatherings

What is going on this world.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...stor-wants-people-donate-stimulus-checks.html

While he sounds like a complete ass

He won't and shouldn't ever face penalties for the charges

Bringing up charges like this is a thinly veiled deterrent

 

[Steven15]

While he sounds like a complete ass

He won't and shouldn't ever face penalties for the charges

Bringing up charges like this is a thinly veiled deterrent

The law said no more than 10 people. He hosted over a 1,000 for Easter. I hope he's in prison for life

 

[CU1TruTiger4Life]

Nice try Chief.

I’ve already used my check for some survival buckets of food from my Pastor Jim Bakker.

https://store.jimbakkershow.com/product-category/food/entrees/buckets/

 

[Steven15]

Slowest times in history of the WZ and this is moved within 3 minutes haha. I see someone is offended

 

[CU1TruTiger4Life]

Slowest times in history of the WZ and this is moved within 3 minutes haha. I see someone is offended

Moving of posts make no sense right now. I think the algorithm is broken.

 

[yoseftiger]

What’s thinly veiled is this dude using the title of pastor as a cover for him being a crook preying on people for their stimulus money. I have a feeling that most of his congregation desperately needs the money, and certainly doesn’t need someone in a position of leadership telling them to donate it to him and his ilk.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

The law said no more than 10 people. He hosted over a 1,000 for Easter. I hope he's in prison for life

Once again, not that I agree with him or his church goers.
1. That's stupid
2. Amendment I
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.
3. You sound like a communist


I understand congress and the Louisiana state government aren't the same, but a constitutional lawyer will take the case to the Supreme Court pro Bono to make a name for himself. Louisiana won't secede penalize someone for holding church.

 

[FLaw47]

Once again, not that I agree with him or his church goers.
1. That's stupid
2. Amendment I
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.
3. You sound like a communist


I understand congress and the Louisiana state government aren't the same, but a constitutional lawyer will take the case to the Supreme Court pro Bono to make a name for himself. Louisiana won't secede penalize someone for holding church.

I'm assuming you think banning public gatherings in general is blatantly unconstitutional? If not, why does religion deserve a carve out? People aren't allowed to commit ritual human sacrifice, for example, so free expression clearly has limits.

 

[okclem]

Also proclaims 'true Christians do not mind dying'. He's facing misdemeanor charges for holding services despite a ban on gatherings

What is going on this world.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...stor-wants-people-donate-stimulus-checks.html

Terrible, but people have been profiteering off of crises forever. There's a staggering amount of greedy people on the planet.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

I'm assuming you think banning public gatherings in general is blatantly unconstitutional? If not, why does religion deserve a carve out? People aren't allowed to commit ritual human sacrifice, for example, so free expression clearly has limits.

In general is unconstitutional, but the law is doubly unconstitutional when concerning religion

 

[FLaw47]

In general is unconstitutional, but the law is doubly unconstitutional when concerning religion

That's.... Not how that works

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

That's.... Not how that works

Just gives the defense more angles, easier case. Which is why it won't be persued.
I talked to a policeman yesterday who said what I already knew. Basically that they were told not to issue tickets, because it would be a waste of time.

 

[JAMCRACKER99]

Also proclaims 'true Christians do not mind dying'. He's facing misdemeanor charges for holding services despite a ban on gatherings

What is going on this world.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...stor-wants-people-donate-stimulus-checks.html

Perhaps he misread Trump's tweets from the other day thinking he tweeted Liberate Louisiana! therefore thinking it would be okay to disregard their local and state officials (and federal) guidelines regarding social distancing.

 

[FLaw47]

Just gives the defense more angles, easier case. Which is why it won't be persued.
I talked to a policeman yesterday who said what I already knew. Basically that they were told not to issue tickets, because it would be a waste of time.

Well if a cop told you it must be true! They're famous for respecting the Constitution.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

Well if a cop told you it must be true! They're famous for respecting the Constitution.

What's the deal here... Do you have any actual issue with what I've said or are you just trying to be a dick? It's like I'm talking to a woman rn.

 

[FLaw47]

What's the deal here... Do you have any actual issue with what I've said or are you just trying to be a dick? It's like I'm talking to a woman rn.

I'm saying that you made a claim that didn't make sense. Then you cited someone whose opinion literally means less than nothing to me on your argument (the fact that a cop supports you, if anything, makes me think less of what you're arguing).

Free expression of religion is absolutely limited. Like I said, ritual sacrifice is illegal. Scalia wrote an opinion in the 90s explicitly stating there are limitations. If public gatherings are banned (and constitutional on a temporary basis), religion does not get a carve out. The fact that some cop was told not to ticket pastors is not indicative of anything at all. Do you personally thinks that the fact "sanctuary cities" exist means that illegal immigration isn't a crime?

 

[Rychek4]

Once again, not that I agree with him or his church goers.
1. That's stupid
2. Amendment I
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.
3. You sound like a communist


I understand congress and the Louisiana state government aren't the same, but a constitutional lawyer will take the case to the Supreme Court pro Bono to make a name for himself. Louisiana won't secede penalize someone for holding church.

You might be right.

But you should probably look at the overlap of COVID-19 deaths by age bracket and Trump voters by age bracket.

I don't want Trump to be reelected, but I still hope people stop congregating.

 

[nsp1996]

Nice try Chief.

I’ve already used my check for some survival buckets of food from my Pastor Jim Bakker.

https://store.jimbakkershow.com/product-category/food/entrees/buckets/

Lololol. You are a kook.

My pastor, Creflo Dollar (a.k.a. Michael Smith) is doing the Lords work, and not fornicating like Jim did with Jessicah Hahn or that little misuse of church funds.

Sure, Rev. Creflo, well, Mike, might have beat his daughter a bit, but you know, she was not respecting her elders...I am just hoping that my check will help Rev. Creflo bring the Lord to so many more people through my donation of 19.6 gallons of JP4 to fuel his Jet!!!!

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

I'm saying that you made a claim that didn't make sense. Then you cited someone whose opinion literally means less than nothing to me on your argument (the fact that a cop supports you, if anything, makes me think less of what you're arguing).

Free expression of religion is absolutely limited. Like I said, ritual sacrifice is illegal. Scalia wrote an opinion in the 90s explicitly stating there are limitations. If public gatherings are banned (and constitutional on a temporary basis), religion does not get a carve out. The fact that some cop was told not to ticket pastors is not indicative of anything at all. Do you personally thinks that the fact "sanctuary cities" exist means that illegal immigration isn't a crime?

Do you actually think a pastor will be convicted if a crime (and not overturned in a higher court) for holding church?

 

[FLaw47]

Do you actually think a pastor will be convicted if a crime (and not overturned in a higher court) for holding church?

I think there is a chance the SCOTUS would overturn such a thing but it'd be based off of nothing but the personal desires of certain justices. If it's constitutional to restrict any gatherings, it's constitutional to restrict religious gatherings. Same first amendment. The State has a compelling interest here. After all, churches still have maximum occupancy, where is the outcry there? This is also only a big deal because it's pastors who think they're above it all. An imam doing the same thing would get no support on this board (nor should they).

 

[FLaw47]

Do you actually think a pastor will be convicted if a crime (and not overturned in a higher court) for holding church?

I'm going to reply to this with some more information, now. I want to note that your initial argument was that these restrictions are unconstitutional. I don't care if a cop refuses to ticket someone for violating them - it doesn't make the pastor's action legal (or protected).

I'm yanking all of this from Wikipedia.

Reynolds v United States (1878)

In the preamble of this act ... religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty', it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In this case, these pastors are making overt acts against peace and good order. Everyone is restricted from large public gatherings and pastors are willfully ignoring that and creating a public safety hazard. I also don't believe it's a principle of Christianity to have in person gatherings.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) - (Summary from Wikipedia)

While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.

There are no absolute freedoms of expression.

Free expression cases are typically judged under strict scrutiny (that compelling interest thing I talked about earlier).

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face", would be unconstitutional.

The government clearly has a compelling interest here (stopping the spread of disease). The application of these restrictions are also neutral (save the "essential" business BS that's going on.)

So, yeah. These restrictions (provided they don't run afoul of free assembly, which I'm almost certain they don't) are definitely constitutional when applied to religious organizations. Again, I don't care if cops were told not to ticket pastors. Cops are told not to enforce laws all the time (see "sanctuary" cities).

So please let me know if you have any good counter argument to what I've laid out here.

 

[FLaw47]

@BAnksMcFadden, any response?

 

[CU Alumnus]

Bit of a niggle here - from what I read, he is suggesting that people donate their stimulus checks to a church somewhere. Not necessarily his church.

Still stupid, still comes across as more about money than God, but it is an important difference.

 

[johnhugh]

Darwinism reigns supreme. The weak and stupid die off. These sheep should’ve known better, but they were blinded by their own stupidity

 

[TheValley91]

@BAnksMcFadden getting put into a body bag. One of the other users of the profile will step in though.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

@BAnksMcFadden, any response?

My response is that I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the same access to legal databases as him but for every random bullshit precedence the he quoted I'm sure there are 5 that agree that the bill of rights is the ultimate judgement on these matters . So I don't really care if some dipshit judge in Wisconsin made a dipshit ruling one time 80 years ago. I have it from primary sources that they are not to enforce these frivalous laws because it's a waste of resources and there won't be any convictions.

 

[FLaw47]

My response is that I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the same access to legal databases as him but for every random bullshit precedence the he quoted I'm sure there are 5 that agree that the bill of rights is the ultimate judgement on these matters . So I don't really care if some dipshit judge in Wisconsin made a dipshit ruling one time 80 years ago. I have it from primary sources that they are not to enforce these frivalous laws because it's a waste of resources and there won't be any convictions.

Well those were all Supreme Court cases and they have rather extraordinary precedential value.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

Well those were all Supreme Court cases and they have rather extraordinary precedential value.

Id be in bare assed if I were u.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

Well those were all Supreme Court cases and they have rather extraordinary precedential value.

Additionally in Wisconsin vs yoder
1. The state lost
2. The ruling was
States cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights. In this case, the state of Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief.

 

[FLaw47]

Additionally in Wisconsin vs yoder
1. The state lost
2. The ruling was
States cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights. In this case, the state of Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief.

That's fine. That case is where they came up with the "no undue burdens without a compelling interest", you putz. My point was that the state CLEARY has a compelling interest, unlike Yoder.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

That's fine. That case is where they came up with the "no undue burdens without a compelling interest", you putz. My point was that the state CLEARY has a compelling interest, unlike Yoder.

I think it can be very easily argued that the education of an entire sect of the population is more compelling than a virus that has a morbidity rate of roughly .12%

 

[FLaw47]

I think it can be very easily argued that the education of an entire sect of the population is more compelling than a virus that has a morbidity rate of roughly .12%

I brought some crow for you to eat. Your position is so wrong that SCOTUS didn't even bother to entertain it and upheld the restictions.

The Supreme Court last night by a 5-4 vote denied a California church's request to block enforcement of state restrictions on religious services.

The court also denied without noted dissent a similar request by two Illinois churches.

EDIT:

Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,,,,
Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.

 

[iceheart08]

Additionally in Wisconsin vs yoder
1. The state lost
2. The ruling was
States cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights. In this case, the state of Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief.

Annndddddd this is what it looks like when non-lawyers read and interpret case law.

See also: sovreign citizens

 

[iceheart08]

I brought some crow for you to eat. Your position is so wrong that SCOTUS didn't even bother to entertain it and upheld the restictions.

The Supreme Court last night by a 5-4 vote denied a California church's request to block enforcement of state restrictions on religious services.

The court also denied without noted dissent a similar request by two Illinois churches.

EDIT:

Quality use of the quotes feature