Corona virus and your shul

[grodnoking]

I am going to make a couple of assumptions. That you are Jewish and your Shul is closed. If these are correct has your Shul being closed stopped you from being able to practice your religion?

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.

If it's legal to assemble for liquor stores or should be peaceful enough for religious assembly.

[CountValentine]

If it's legal to assemble for liquor stores or should be peaceful enough for religious assembly.

You didn't answer my question.

[Afrages6]

You didn't answer my question.

It’s still an infringement on constitutional right to assemble for religion.

[yesitsme]

I am going to make a couple of assumptions. That you are Jewish and your Shul is closed. If these are correct has your Shul being closed stopped you from being able to practice your religion?

yes, my porch minyan doesn't have a kavve shtibel, and the herring they serve doesn't have fish

[CountValentine]

It’s still an infringement on constitutional right to assemble for religion.

You believe that and that is fine. Now you want to answer my question?

[grodnoking]

You didn't answer my question.

It’s still an infringement on constitutional right to assemble for religion.

[grodnoking]

You believe that and that is fine. Now you want to answer my question?

I am not able to practice my religion to the full extent that I wish too.

[CountValentine]

Ok I understand you believe that to. Now you want to answer my question? 

[grodnoking]

Ok I understand you believe that to. Now you want to answer my question? 

I am not able to practice my religion to the full extent that I wish too.

[Sam Finkelstein]

I am not able to practice my religion to the full extent that I wish too.

Problem may exist if it infringes on others' rights.

[CountValentine]

I am not able to practice my religion to the full extent that I wish too.

Ok now we are getting somewhere. I would suggest you have a better reason than that if you go before a judge. Restrictions/limits can be placed on 1A.

[grodnoking]

Problem may exist if it infringes on others' rights.

It shouldn't infringe on anyone's rights more than any other business that is allowed to open.

[grodnoking]

Ok now we are getting somewhere. I would suggest you have a better reason than that if you go before a judge. Restrictions/limits can be placed on 1A.

Not allowing my to assemble is not a restriction/limit of my 1A, it is a violation.
And why are they allowed to restrict or limit my freedom of religion more than my freedom to go get liquor.

[CountValentine]

Not allowing my to assemble is not a restriction/limit of my 1A, it is a violation.

That is your view and more than welcome to it. You are putting others at risk.
My view is that is no different than yelling fire in a crowded theater which is not allowed under our constitution.

[CountValentine]

And why are they allowed to restrict or limit my freedom of religion more than my freedom to go get liquor.

One right and one wrong is better than two wrongs. AKA: ...but officer 

[grodnoking]

That is your view and more than welcome to it. You are putting others at risk.
My view is that is no different than yelling fire in a crowded theater which is not allowed under our constitution.

I'm not putting anyone more at risk than the amount that others are putting people at risk in other allowed situations, some of which are not even a constitutional right.

[grodnoking]

One right and one wrong is better than two wrongs. AKA: ...but officer 

When it comes to the government making a law and violating constitutional rights, the "but officer" argument should very well hold up in court. The fact that the government restricts religion more than other things is a very valid but officer argument.

[CountValentine]

I'm not putting anyone more at risk than the amount that others are putting people at risk in other allowed situations, some of which are not even a constitutional right.

Lets say that something that is allowed is putting someone at 50% risk and something that isn't allowed is putting someone at 25% risk. You think that is going to be a winning argument? 

[grodnoking]

Lets say that something that is allowed is putting someone at 50% risk and something that isn't allowed is putting someone at 25% risk. You think that is going to be a winning argument? 

If the restriction of the lesser risk is a constitutional violation, while the higher is not, and the higher is allowed? Yes, that should be a clear shown example of how the law is violating my rights, when i should have a right to do something. The fact that they allow me to be near people in one place, but not in a place of worship shows that the law is clearly biased against religion.

[CountValentine]

If the restriction of the lesser risk is a constitutional violation, while the higher is not, and the higher is allowed? Yes, that should be a clear shown example of how the law is violating my rights, when i should have a right to do something. The fact that they allow me to be near people in one place, but not in a place of worship shows that the law is clearly biased against religion.

What it shows they are idiots making liquor stores essential.
Either way so far in IL their argument didn't get very far.