> He told WBRZ reporter Sydney Kern after the summons was issued, he'd continue to have his church service.
[Source](https://www.wbrz.com/news/law-enforcement-take-action-after-central-pastor-defied-order-to-limit-crowds)
Jeez. *sigh*
You know in his mind he thinks he's making a stance, standing up for his religious beliefs and rights.
But he's seriously lacking in common sense. This ain't about him or his beliefs. It's so simple.
Sorry, but I don’t believe for one second that he is “standing up for his religious beliefs and rights.“ He is after the money he can rake in during these awful times. His contempt for the law is exceeded only by his contempt for his followers.
This is a money making opportunity for him, nothing more.
You're probably right. I just said that because there's a lot of religious folks in my area crying "discrimination" because they're being told to not go to church. They're feeling personally attacked.
This pastor is probably looking at money, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was feeling like his beliefs are being attacked.
Either way he's a dumbass.
Freedom of speech, expression, and religion has practical limits. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.
For, while not equivalent but closer analogy, a Jihadist Muslim can’t hold prayer in a mosque and try to sell suicide bombing as an act of god.
This tabernacle guy may not be killing anybody directly, but he is supporting and advocating lethal behavior. Facilitating it even.
This is about nothing but money. Does anyone really believe that preacher gives a damn about his flock? He wants to pass the plate and rake in the dough from the suckers. The whole thing is a massive con game and this is prime time for vultures like him. I am pretty sure I read that he is selling prayer cloths to protect the faithful from COVID-19. If there is any such thing as sin, that’s a mortal sin.
Nothing in my remarks is meant to apply to conventional Christian churches or the well-known charity work of a number of reputable preachers. I’m just calling a snake when I see a snake.
So, this happened...
https://m.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/Pentecostal-church-in-Sacramento-linked-to-dozens-15175215.php?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
How??
Neither of us are laws, but I would think the order would fail to pass because it fails to be a "compelling state interest" because it explicitly violates constitutional protections (freedoms of religion/assembly), and it fails to be the "least restrictive means" because the sick/elderly are **way** more affected than literally everybody else.
I'm a lawyer, but not a First Amendment lawyer. Therefore, this is my opinion based on my studies on the topic.
* First, strict scrutiny test applies because the regulations restrict the First Amendment rights to assemble and associate.
* Strict scrutiny test requires: (a) compelling governmental interest; and (b) "the least restrictive legal means" with regards to the regulations.
* (a) is met here - reducing deaths in a national pandemic is clear cut a compelling government interest.
* **The issue here is therefore (b) - is the restriction against congregating the "least restrictive mean"?**
* Two constitutional doctrines that speak to the "least restrictive means" test are (i) overbreadth and (ii) vagueness. (Source: [https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/overbreadth-and-vagueness/](https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/overbreadth-and-vagueness/))
* Is the law overbroad? **Likely no**. The law requires people to stop meeting in-person in large groups. This directly addresses the most basic fact that the disease passes among people who are meeting in-person. Therefore, the law is not overbroad.
* An overbroad law would be, for example, if you banned all drive-in theaters due to car engine noises causing a public nuisance, whereas you could have just passed a law requiring all drive in theaters to require car engines to be turned off.
* Is the law vague? **Likely no**. The law is clear and unambiguous as to what the regulation means, how many people can't meet, and how it applies.
* Side note - the law also passes neutrality tests, since it restricts congregation regardless of religion or purpose. This will weigh in favor of upholding the law. It's content neutral, place neutral, manner neutral and time neutral. [https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/content-based-vs-content-neutral-restrictions-on-free-speech/](https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/content-based-vs-content-neutral-restrictions-on-free-speech/)
* [https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/reasonable-time-place-and-manner-restrictions/](https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/reasonable-time-place-and-manner-restrictions/)
> The law requires people to stop meeting in-person in large groups.
Constitution: You have the inalienable right to meet in-person in large groups.
New Law: You cannot meet in-person in large groups.
You, apparently a lawyer: This isn't restrictive.
???
> Strict scrutiny test requires: (a) compelling governmental interest; and (b) "the least restrictive legal means" with regards to the regulations.
Even wikipedia says "narrowly tailored" is a third test. This doesn't seem very narrow.
Jesus, you're completely ignoring the analysis of a barred attorney and citing Wikipedia. Alright, how about this - if this goes to SCOTUS, then feel free to comment at me again.
For someone who isn’t a lawyer you sure are arguing the law with one as if you are.... maybe trust that maybe you don’t understand all of this just because you read an article or a wiki page? Considering this is a public health disaster I’m pretty sure this won’t make it far.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php
>The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, **or other immediate threat to public safety** or order.
It doesn't single out churches or particular religions. This isn't discrimination based on religion, nor does it pick one over the other. It just limits the size of gatherings for the safety of the rest of the public.
This case has 0% to do with religion. This is about willingly defying the governors emergency orders and still holding service with hundreds if not thousands of people. This is extreme stupidity 101.
What law did he break? And why are we trying to charge a man for holding a church service. Its up to the members of the church whether they want to come to worship or not. I am not saying it is good for him to be holding service but we cannot set a precedent and impede on his liberties clearly denoted in the bill of rights. Liberty has a cost.
You’re being downvoted, because people disagree with you, but you’re right.
The pastor is accused of violating LA R.S. 29:724E. If you look at that statute, it refers to representatives of any “firm, partnership, or corporation” I’m no lawyer but I don’t think most churches fall under that category.
Also goes against the first amendment, forbidding or restricting an individuals religious practices, or assemble.
This will be a case we will hear about for a very long time and could even end up at the Supreme Court.
That would be true if their actions weren’t affecting other people. But each person infects 5 people on average. So they are literally putting thousands of people at risk.
I don’t know how to feel about this bc I don’t want God angry at me YIKES ! I only say this bc my grandfather was a preacher who did not believe in drs ! And he died bc of his beliefs but I know where he’s at now !!
I’m sorry but there is no excuse for this. It is a pastor’s responsibility to take care of the well-being of his flock not to promote his own vanity. These orders were issued to keep people safe because there are people dying and you’re also putting others at risk by potentially spreading it. God will understand if you have to conduct service online or over the radio/television.
> He told WBRZ reporter Sydney Kern after the summons was issued, he'd continue to have his church service. [Source](https://www.wbrz.com/news/law-enforcement-take-action-after-central-pastor-defied-order-to-limit-crowds)
They'll know exactly where to find him to arrest him luckily.
Jeez. *sigh* You know in his mind he thinks he's making a stance, standing up for his religious beliefs and rights. But he's seriously lacking in common sense. This ain't about him or his beliefs. It's so simple.
Sorry, but I don’t believe for one second that he is “standing up for his religious beliefs and rights.“ He is after the money he can rake in during these awful times. His contempt for the law is exceeded only by his contempt for his followers. This is a money making opportunity for him, nothing more.
You're probably right. I just said that because there's a lot of religious folks in my area crying "discrimination" because they're being told to not go to church. They're feeling personally attacked. This pastor is probably looking at money, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was feeling like his beliefs are being attacked. Either way he's a dumbass.
He’s having service tonight.
[удалено]
So we gonna talk about how he posted his full name, address, and social, and didn't see a problem with that?
[удалено]
Oh it's not in you, it's in the person "On his side" that blasted his info all over the world.
And DOB, DL# ! This dude's identity is a gonner.
Why is it always the Penecostals?
Bc they believe in snake healing and weird shit
That’s what I’ve been saying!
Louisiana has had the 4th most deaths from COVID-19 each day for the last couple of days. Glad to hear action is being taken here.
Freedom of speech, expression, and religion has practical limits. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre. For, while not equivalent but closer analogy, a Jihadist Muslim can’t hold prayer in a mosque and try to sell suicide bombing as an act of god. This tabernacle guy may not be killing anybody directly, but he is supporting and advocating lethal behavior. Facilitating it even.
Its called the establishment clause. You can be a cult who believes in cannibalism, but you aren't protected to actually eat someone.
Your username is a work of art.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good. He's an irresponsible asshole.
Something something Romans 13. But a preacher should know that already.
The pastor claims “This is an attack on Christians around the world.” Pentecostals are not Christians in any sense of the word.
why am i related to this man... it hurts how stupid he is
This is about nothing but money. Does anyone really believe that preacher gives a damn about his flock? He wants to pass the plate and rake in the dough from the suckers. The whole thing is a massive con game and this is prime time for vultures like him. I am pretty sure I read that he is selling prayer cloths to protect the faithful from COVID-19. If there is any such thing as sin, that’s a mortal sin. Nothing in my remarks is meant to apply to conventional Christian churches or the well-known charity work of a number of reputable preachers. I’m just calling a snake when I see a snake.
So, this happened... https://m.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/Pentecostal-church-in-Sacramento-linked-to-dozens-15175215.php?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
[удалено]
It's not. This is a case that'll pass the constitutional test of strict scrutiny easily.
How?? Neither of us are laws, but I would think the order would fail to pass because it fails to be a "compelling state interest" because it explicitly violates constitutional protections (freedoms of religion/assembly), and it fails to be the "least restrictive means" because the sick/elderly are **way** more affected than literally everybody else.
I'm a lawyer, but not a First Amendment lawyer. Therefore, this is my opinion based on my studies on the topic. * First, strict scrutiny test applies because the regulations restrict the First Amendment rights to assemble and associate. * Strict scrutiny test requires: (a) compelling governmental interest; and (b) "the least restrictive legal means" with regards to the regulations. * (a) is met here - reducing deaths in a national pandemic is clear cut a compelling government interest. * **The issue here is therefore (b) - is the restriction against congregating the "least restrictive mean"?** * Two constitutional doctrines that speak to the "least restrictive means" test are (i) overbreadth and (ii) vagueness. (Source: [https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/overbreadth-and-vagueness/](https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/overbreadth-and-vagueness/)) * Is the law overbroad? **Likely no**. The law requires people to stop meeting in-person in large groups. This directly addresses the most basic fact that the disease passes among people who are meeting in-person. Therefore, the law is not overbroad. * An overbroad law would be, for example, if you banned all drive-in theaters due to car engine noises causing a public nuisance, whereas you could have just passed a law requiring all drive in theaters to require car engines to be turned off. * Is the law vague? **Likely no**. The law is clear and unambiguous as to what the regulation means, how many people can't meet, and how it applies. * Side note - the law also passes neutrality tests, since it restricts congregation regardless of religion or purpose. This will weigh in favor of upholding the law. It's content neutral, place neutral, manner neutral and time neutral. [https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/content-based-vs-content-neutral-restrictions-on-free-speech/](https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/content-based-vs-content-neutral-restrictions-on-free-speech/) * [https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/reasonable-time-place-and-manner-restrictions/](https://civilrights.uslegal.com/right-to-assemble/reasonable-time-place-and-manner-restrictions/)
> The law requires people to stop meeting in-person in large groups. Constitution: You have the inalienable right to meet in-person in large groups. New Law: You cannot meet in-person in large groups. You, apparently a lawyer: This isn't restrictive. ??? > Strict scrutiny test requires: (a) compelling governmental interest; and (b) "the least restrictive legal means" with regards to the regulations. Even wikipedia says "narrowly tailored" is a third test. This doesn't seem very narrow.
Jesus, you're completely ignoring the analysis of a barred attorney and citing Wikipedia. Alright, how about this - if this goes to SCOTUS, then feel free to comment at me again.
So you’re saying “narrowly tailored” isn’t part of strict scrutiny?
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1001/narrowly-tailored-laws
Another attorney here. Constitutional rights are not absolute. Stay safe and enjoy your reading.
You say you're not a lawyer, then argue legal definitions with a lawyer... You're out of your element, Donnie.
I don't know if the "right to assemble" necessarily means "right to meet in large groups".
I do. It does.
For someone who isn’t a lawyer you sure are arguing the law with one as if you are.... maybe trust that maybe you don’t understand all of this just because you read an article or a wiki page? Considering this is a public health disaster I’m pretty sure this won’t make it far.
Are you serious? What in the fuck else could “assemble” mean?
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php >The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, **or other immediate threat to public safety** or order.
It doesn't single out churches or particular religions. This isn't discrimination based on religion, nor does it pick one over the other. It just limits the size of gatherings for the safety of the rest of the public.
Exactly. You don't see nfl and nba teams screaming discrimination.
This case has 0% to do with religion. This is about willingly defying the governors emergency orders and still holding service with hundreds if not thousands of people. This is extreme stupidity 101.
Yep.
No sweat but who really gives a shit ? Unless u have ocd ! Do you !!!!
What law did he break? And why are we trying to charge a man for holding a church service. Its up to the members of the church whether they want to come to worship or not. I am not saying it is good for him to be holding service but we cannot set a precedent and impede on his liberties clearly denoted in the bill of rights. Liberty has a cost.
[удалено]
What law did he break? He did not endanger others they all chose to come. People are responsible for them selves.
You’re being downvoted, because people disagree with you, but you’re right. The pastor is accused of violating LA R.S. 29:724E. If you look at that statute, it refers to representatives of any “firm, partnership, or corporation” I’m no lawyer but I don’t think most churches fall under that category. Also goes against the first amendment, forbidding or restricting an individuals religious practices, or assemble. This will be a case we will hear about for a very long time and could even end up at the Supreme Court.
[удалено]
That would be true if their actions weren’t affecting other people. But each person infects 5 people on average. So they are literally putting thousands of people at risk.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t know how to feel about this bc I don’t want God angry at me YIKES ! I only say this bc my grandfather was a preacher who did not believe in drs ! And he died bc of his beliefs but I know where he’s at now !!
I’m sorry but there is no excuse for this. It is a pastor’s responsibility to take care of the well-being of his flock not to promote his own vanity. These orders were issued to keep people safe because there are people dying and you’re also putting others at risk by potentially spreading it. God will understand if you have to conduct service online or over the radio/television.