|
Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] |
klingklang77
kraftwerk!
Member since 7/06 11486 total posts
Name:
Völlig losgelöst
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
And to add, you people seem to know an awful lot about people on these boards for being such relatively new posters. Why hide? It’s obvious you are old posters in disguise.
Many are old posters. I am sure you are well aware of that.
Uh, yeah, I said it was obvious, so you don’t need to clarify.
I was asking why hide?
Ask the people who are hiding, I have no clue. Ask Rainbow.
Actually I was asking about you and PrEtTyEyEz.
But nice way to deflect onto Rainbow.
I can only explain myself, which I did. No deflect. Ask Rainbow who she used to be and why she is not using that name anymore. I am sure she is not the only one.
Rainbow isn’t even on this thread. She doesn’t really make personal attacks on people by digging up stuff from their personal lives.
People have shared their lives on this site for as long as they were on. Nothing is personal if you decide to post it online.
I used Rainbow as 1 example. I know others used other names too in the past, Marathon Knitter for one, 2badsosad....
Not the same thing. Those posters did not hide.
|
Posted 11/28/20 4:46 PM  |
| |
|
Hofstra26
Love to Bake!
Member since 7/06 27915 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 8:56 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
And to add, you people seem to know an awful lot about people on these boards for being such relatively new posters. Why hide? It’s obvious you are old posters in disguise.
Many are old posters. I am sure you are well aware of that.
Uh, yeah, I said it was obvious, so you don’t need to clarify.
I was asking why hide?
Ask the people who are hiding, I have no clue. Ask Rainbow.
Actually I was asking about you and PrEtTyEyEz.
But nice way to deflect onto Rainbow.
I can only explain myself, which I did. No deflect. Ask Rainbow who she used to be and why she is not using that name anymore. I am sure she is not the only one.
Rainbow isn’t even on this thread. She doesn’t really make personal attacks on people by digging up stuff from their personal lives.
People have shared their lives on this site for as long as they were on. Nothing is personal if you decide to post it online.
I used Rainbow as 1 example. I know others used other names too in the past, Marathon Knitter for one, 2badsosad....
Not the same thing. Those posters did not hide.
So why did they change their names?
|
| Posted 11/28/20 9:54 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
|
| Posted 11/28/20 9:55 PM |
| |
|
Hofstra26
Love to Bake!
Member since 7/06 27915 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Message edited 11/28/2020 10:13:31 PM.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 10:13 PM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 10:17 PM |
| |
|
Hofstra26
Love to Bake!
Member since 7/06 27915 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, a temporary shutdown in a hot spot doesn't seem unreasonable as long as it's short term and not indefinitely. This whole situation sucks, there are no good answers that will make everyone happy.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 10:30 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, a temporary shutdown in a hot spot doesn't seem unreasonable as long as it's short term and not indefinitely. This whole situation sucks, there are no good answers that will make everyone happy.
So I take that as a no and you don’t keep up with the news as it is not at full capacity yet.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 10:33 PM |
| |
|
Hofstra26
Love to Bake!
Member since 7/06 27915 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, a temporary shutdown in a hot spot doesn't seem unreasonable as long as it's short term and not indefinitely. This whole situation sucks, there are no good answers that will make everyone happy.
So I take that as a no and you don’t keep up with the news as it is not at full capacity yet.
Take it as "none of your business".
|
| Posted 11/28/20 10:38 PM |
| |
|
klingklang77
kraftwerk!
Member since 7/06 11486 total posts
Name:
Völlig losgelöst
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
And to add, you people seem to know an awful lot about people on these boards for being such relatively new posters. Why hide? It’s obvious you are old posters in disguise.
Many are old posters. I am sure you are well aware of that.
Uh, yeah, I said it was obvious, so you don’t need to clarify.
I was asking why hide?
Ask the people who are hiding, I have no clue. Ask Rainbow.
Actually I was asking about you and PrEtTyEyEz.
But nice way to deflect onto Rainbow.
I can only explain myself, which I did. No deflect. Ask Rainbow who she used to be and why she is not using that name anymore. I am sure she is not the only one.
Rainbow isn’t even on this thread. She doesn’t really make personal attacks on people by digging up stuff from their personal lives.
People have shared their lives on this site for as long as they were on. Nothing is personal if you decide to post it online.
I used Rainbow as 1 example. I know others used other names too in the past, Marathon Knitter for one, 2badsosad....
Not the same thing. Those posters did not hide.
So why did they change their names?
Why don’t you ask them? I am pretty sure one of them just had TPTB change their name and not set up a new account.
My God, you are so annoying. You have nothing to add to any discussion. All you do is argue.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 10:57 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, a temporary shutdown in a hot spot doesn't seem unreasonable as long as it's short term and not indefinitely. This whole situation sucks, there are no good answers that will make everyone happy.
So I take that as a no and you don’t keep up with the news as it is not at full capacity yet.
Take it as "none of your business".
But you were ok making it everyone else’s business on here. A simply no would have ended the discussion. Even if you don’t go, I am surprised you didn’t hear about the restrictions.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 11:16 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
And to add, you people seem to know an awful lot about people on these boards for being such relatively new posters. Why hide? It’s obvious you are old posters in disguise.
Many are old posters. I am sure you are well aware of that.
Uh, yeah, I said it was obvious, so you don’t need to clarify.
I was asking why hide?
Ask the people who are hiding, I have no clue. Ask Rainbow.
Actually I was asking about you and PrEtTyEyEz.
But nice way to deflect onto Rainbow.
I can only explain myself, which I did. No deflect. Ask Rainbow who she used to be and why she is not using that name anymore. I am sure she is not the only one.
Rainbow isn’t even on this thread. She doesn’t really make personal attacks on people by digging up stuff from their personal lives.
People have shared their lives on this site for as long as they were on. Nothing is personal if you decide to post it online.
I used Rainbow as 1 example. I know others used other names too in the past, Marathon Knitter for one, 2badsosad....
Not the same thing. Those posters did not hide.
So why did they change their names?
Why don’t you ask them? I am pretty sure one of them just had TPTB change their name and not set up a new account.
My God, you are so annoying. You have nothing to add to any discussion. All you do is argue.
Why are you so concerned over me and no one else changing their name? That is the question.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 11:16 PM |
| |
|
Hofstra26
Love to Bake!
Member since 7/06 27915 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, a temporary shutdown in a hot spot doesn't seem unreasonable as long as it's short term and not indefinitely. This whole situation sucks, there are no good answers that will make everyone happy.
So I take that as a no and you don’t keep up with the news as it is not at full capacity yet.
Take it as "none of your business".
But you were ok making it everyone else’s business on here. A simply no would have ended the discussion. Even if you don’t go, I am surprised you didn’t hear about the restrictions.
Your comment makes no sense, as usual. The topic at hand is about politics, try and remember what board you're actually posting on before you make another dumb, off topic, useless post.
|
| Posted 11/28/20 11:22 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, a temporary shutdown in a hot spot doesn't seem unreasonable as long as it's short term and not indefinitely. This whole situation sucks, there are no good answers that will make everyone happy.
So I take that as a no and you don’t keep up with the news as it is not at full capacity yet.
Take it as "none of your business".
But you were ok making it everyone else’s business on here. A simply no would have ended the discussion. Even if you don’t go, I am surprised you didn’t hear about the restrictions.
Your comment makes no sense, as usual. The topic at hand is about politics, try and remember what board you're actually posting on before you make another dumb, off topic, useless post.
Lol yeah I know it was my post :)
|
| Posted 11/28/20 11:32 PM |
| |
|
klingklang77
kraftwerk!
Member since 7/06 11486 total posts
Name:
Völlig losgelöst
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by klingklang77
And to add, you people seem to know an awful lot about people on these boards for being such relatively new posters. Why hide? It’s obvious you are old posters in disguise.
Many are old posters. I am sure you are well aware of that.
Uh, yeah, I said it was obvious, so you don’t need to clarify.
I was asking why hide?
Ask the people who are hiding, I have no clue. Ask Rainbow.
Actually I was asking about you and PrEtTyEyEz.
But nice way to deflect onto Rainbow.
I can only explain myself, which I did. No deflect. Ask Rainbow who she used to be and why she is not using that name anymore. I am sure she is not the only one.
Rainbow isn’t even on this thread. She doesn’t really make personal attacks on people by digging up stuff from their personal lives.
People have shared their lives on this site for as long as they were on. Nothing is personal if you decide to post it online.
I used Rainbow as 1 example. I know others used other names too in the past, Marathon Knitter for one, 2badsosad....
Not the same thing. Those posters did not hide.
So why did they change their names?
Why don’t you ask them? I am pretty sure one of them just had TPTB change their name and not set up a new account.
My God, you are so annoying. You have nothing to add to any discussion. All you do is argue.
Why are you so concerned over me and no one else changing their name? That is the question.
|
| Posted 11/29/20 3:31 AM |
| |
|
Mill188
LIF Adult
Member since 3/09 3072 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, a temporary shutdown in a hot spot doesn't seem unreasonable as long as it's short term and not indefinitely. This whole situation sucks, there are no good answers that will make everyone happy.
There are no good answers. What the church was saying is that if other businesses are deemed essential (i.e., hardware stores, liquor stores, etc.) and allowed to operate at 50% even in "hot spots," they should be too. For many people, going to synagogue or mass is an essential need, and there are many aspects of faith that cannot be practiced unless at church or temple. However, the fact that Cuomo effectively shut them down was tantamount to disregarding the first amendment.
|
| Posted 11/29/20 5:49 AM |
| |
|
Mill188
LIF Adult
Member since 3/09 3072 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
I also think Cuomo is just having a hissy fit because someone had the nerve to question him! 
|
| Posted 11/29/20 5:49 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by valentinesbaby48
Posted by Hofstra26
Posted by Mill188
Posted by Hofstra26
Not sure why the SC is getting involved in cases of religion, where did separation of church and state go??
This IS a First Amendment case.
"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."
The term separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution itself, but Thomas Jefferson wrote about it afterward.
The Constitution obviously didn't account for a global pandemic that would hinder our ability to gather in order to mitigate a highly contagious virus. Limiting capacity in places of worship doesn't hinder one's ability to practice their faith. I disagree with the decision, I think that in this case the public health needs to be put first.
Do you go to church on a regular basis?
What I do or don't do has nothing to do with it. While I understand why people want to be at church, not being able to attend services in person in no way takes away one's right to practice. We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and unfortunately, there are things that we'll all need to do without until we're at a point where things are better, under control and we're past the worse of this.
If stores, restaurants, etc need to limit capacity it makes ZERO sense that churches should allow full capacity, it would be a breeding ground for germs to spread. Sad that we STILL have to drive this point home over and over again but if everyone just did what was necessary right now we'd all get back to normal faster.
Churches are not at full capacity even after this ruling. They are at 50 percent like many other businesses.
The lawsuit came about when Cuomo shut them down almost completely along with synagogues in certain hot spots in Brooklyn a few months back.
The church was complaining that they followed ALL rules, limited capacity, enforced masks and distancing and not one spike was traced back to them. They felt it was unfair to be shut down just because of the zip code they were in.
Thanks for the clarification.
IMO, a temporary shutdown in a hot spot doesn't seem unreasonable as long as it's short term and not indefinitely. This whole situation sucks, there are no good answers that will make everyone happy.
There are no good answers. What the church was saying is that if other businesses are deemed essential (i.e., hardware stores, liquor stores, etc.) and allowed to operate at 50% even in "hot spots," they should be too. For many people, going to synagogue or mass is an essential need, and there are many aspects of faith that cannot be practiced unless at church or temple. However, the fact that Cuomo effectively shut them down was tantamount to disregarding the first amendment.
The reason liquor stores stay open is not to overload the hospitals.
|
| Posted 11/29/20 6:22 AM |
| |
|
KarenK122
The Journey is the Destination
Member since 5/05 4431 total posts
Name:
Karen
|
Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
The difference between a Church and a hardware store staying open is that people are sitting for at least an hour in a church. You are not sitting in a hardware store for an extended period of time. I do agree that religion is a needed resource though for many people and they should be under the same rules that a school is. Have them set up with barriers and 6 feet apart and all times and personally, I do not believe they should be shut. Unfortunately, many religious groups are not following guidelines and makes them a vector.
|
| Posted 11/29/20 6:42 AM |
| |
|
drpepper318
MIR MIR MIR!
Member since 6/07 8274 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
Posted by KarenK122
The difference between a Church and a hardware store staying open is that people are sitting for at least an hour in a church. You are not sitting in a hardware store for an extended period of time. I do agree that religion is a needed resource though for many people and they should be under the same rules that a school is. Have them set up with barriers and 6 feet apart and all times and personally, I do not believe they should be shut. Unfortunately, many religious groups are not following guidelines and makes them a vector.
I agree. Even though mass is about an hour, my church follows guidelines of using only every third row & pew capacity limits so you’re nowhere near anyone else. The nearest person is for sure at least 10 feet away and everyone has on a mask. I’ve never felt unsafe at mass. It’s important to me personally to receive the Eucharist each week so although yes we can pray anywhere, for some of us church is very essential for the sacraments. It can and is being done safely so churches should not be forced to close.
|
| Posted 12/1/20 1:50 AM |
| |
|
JennP
LIF Adult
Member since 10/06 3986 total posts
Name:
Jenn
|
Re: Michael Flynn and Amy Barrett
The lawsuit wasn't about houses of worship closing so not sure why that's being discussed.
It was about them being subject to the same (10/25) restrictions - which weren't even in place when the lawsuit was filed.
Even the Pope made a statement in disagreement with groups protesting the restrictions.
|
| Posted 12/1/20 2:33 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] |
Potentially Related Topics:
Currently 260091 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|
