South Bay United Pentecostal Church Loses at Supreme Court

[Salty]

THE OP and the purpose of this thread -that Agent 47 brought up is that a church was suing for the right
under the First Amendment in which the govt was prohibiting the free exercise.

GENTLEMEN!!! - I could not care less about the doctrines of a church -in regards to this unfortunate decision

So for those of you who brought up the doctrine - are you saying that if a Triniatian church brought the case - then the Court would have ruled differently! It would NOT have made a difference!!!

If you want to discuss the subject of the UPC and possibly being a cult - then do so in the correct forum.

(Note - this is plain old Salty talking - NOT Salty the Administrator)

And Agent 47 - thank you for this informative court case

 

[Agent47]

No, accepting non-trinitarian religions as orthodox is ignorance. You're likely not a Christian if you're doing this.

Trinity is convoluted, it's far from perfect. Orthodox is CULTIC. I'd love to know the thought process behind guessing what is Orthodox and what is not. But that's for another thread.

It's amazing how a 'cult' fought for you all the way to SCOTUS. What is your non 'cult' religion doing?

 

[Yeshua1]

Trinity is convoluted, it's far from perfect. Orthodox is CULTIC. I'd love to know the thought process behind guessing what is Orthodox and what is not. But that's for another thread.

It's amazing how a 'cult' fought for you all the way to SCOTUS. What is your non 'cult' religion doing?

I am curious how they would have voted if was a Jewish temple or Muslim Mosque case!

 

[Salty]

I am curious how they would have voted if was a Jewish temple or Muslim Mosque case!

Muslim- that could have made the difference!

 

[timtofly]

Obviously a mosque was not sued, thus never got the chance. Now this one church gets all the blame. I doubt it is over. If other rulings have to come down, some one will figure out how to re-visit this one.

 

[church mouse guy]

THE OP and the purpose of this thread -that Agent 47 brought up is that a church was suing for the right
under the First Amendment in which the govt was prohibiting the free exercise.

GENTLEMEN!!! - I could not care less about the doctrines of a church -in regards to this unfortunate decision

So for those of you who brought up the doctrine - are you saying that if a Triniatian church brought the case - then the Court would have ruled differently! It would NOT have made a difference!!!

If you want to discuss the subject of the UPC and possibly being a cult - then do so in the correct forum.

(Note - this is plain old Salty talking - NOT Salty the Administrator)

And Agent 47 - thank you for this informative court case

UPC is demonic and lost a case before an equally corrupt institution that okays abortion, for example, and you think the decision is wrong concerning a pandemic? Even if you are correct, who can afford to fight the Feds over this since the lockdown will soon be over and who cares about the demonic UPC since Satan seems to have abandoned them on this case?

Let Russell Moore rush to the rescue of the UPC--as if it were a mosque to be built next to his home.

 

[Salty]

THE OP and the purpose of this thread -that Agent 47 brought up is that a church was suing for the right
under the First Amendment in which the govt was prohibiting the free exercise.

GENTLEMEN!!! - I could not care less about the doctrines of a church ...

 

[Salty]

"... Even if you are correct, who can afford to fight the Feds over this"

Well there are several national religious groups would do this either for free or reduced rate.

since the lockdown will soon be over


and who cares about the demonic UPC since Satan seems to have abandoned them on this case?

So when do you think it will be totally over - ie no masks, full travel allowed, ect.
And is it possible it could hit us again this coming winter?

Let Russell Moore rush to the rescue of the UPC--as if it were a mosque to be built next to his home.

So you would refuse his help?

 

[church mouse guy]

Well there are several national religious groups would do this either for free or reduced rate.


So when do you think it will be totally over - ie no masks, full travel allowed, ect.
And is it possible it could hit us again this coming winter?



So you would refuse his help?

Well, perhaps you yourself would like to donate your time and money to the cultic UPC, which you say is off topic to define what this demonic cult is. As for the great Russell Moore, he used his office at the SBC to aid in the construction of a demonic mosque, for which the SBC has not given him full recognition. However I am sure that the UPC and the Jihadis will each contribute to the SBC, aren't you?

As for the lockdown and churches, do you think that the demonic UPC did a good job? More likely, the Chief Justice who thought that Obamacare was a tax and who refuses to discipline the FISA judges, thought that the UPC was a Protestant denomination like the SBC and decided to strike a blow against it. It is doubtful that the Chief Justice knew that the UPC is a demonic cult. The US Supreme Court is infamous for bad decisions dating back to the time of Dred Scott. So if you think that this decision is bad, you can't put it with all of the other bad ones from Washington DC. What I find curious is that Satan abandoned the UPC when they got to Washington DC. Perhaps the continuation of the lockdown is more important to Satan than the idiotic UPC--do you know any of them? Indianapolis is crawling with UPC installations and many Indianapolis people are being led to hell by the UPC.

 

[Salty]

As for the lockdown and churches, do you think that the demonic .

be glad to answere your question - when its in the applicable forum.

 

[church mouse guy]

be glad to answere your question - when its in the applicable forum.

Once you mentioned UPC and lockdowns, it is relevant. You can use your pulpit to defend the UPC.

Do you think that the UPC did a good job?

 

[church mouse guy]

Should we expect the SBC to spend money on the UPC case?

 

[Adonia]

Walking the fine line between public health and personal liberties


Washington-Supreme Court on Friday turned away a request from a church in California to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.

“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion concurring in the unsigned ruling.

“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,” the chief justice wrote. “And the order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”


Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted dissents.

“The church and its congregants simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. “California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices.”

“The state cannot,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, quoting from an appeals court decision in a different case, “‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.’”

The court’s ruling was its first attempt to balance the public health crisis against the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom. And it expanded the Supreme Court’s engagement with the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, after rulings on voting in Wisconsin and prisons in Texas and Ohio.

The case was brought by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, Calif., which said Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, had lost sight of the special status of religion in the constitutional structure.


“The Covid-19 pandemic is a national tragedy,” lawyers for the church wrote in their Supreme Court brief, “but it would be equally tragic if the federal judiciary allowed the ‘fog of war’ to act as an excuse for violating fundamental constitutional rights.”
Supreme Court, in 5-4 Decision, Rejects Church’s Challenge to Shutdown Order

The full ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf

Mr. Roberts is a disgrace.

 

[Adonia]

Jesus talking to His Father shows they are 2 separate personalities communicating.
John 12
27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.” 29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to Him.” 30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake.

And this, God through His Son, made the worlds. So God did not make all things alone.
Hebrews 1
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

And Christ turns over the kingdom back to the Father at the end, with Christ then subject to Him. Christ reigns until He has all His enemies under His feet, then God the Father reigns.

1 Corinthians 15
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

"The Father and I are one", Jesus said. "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me". John 14:16,17,26 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; … John 16:7,13,14

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit of truth, they all are one!
.

 

[Yeshua1]

Total bummer, though, that Justice Roberts sunk this. It's not official. Bush's presidency was a bust. Praying Trump gets reelected and can appoint some justices to off-set the damage Roberts would love to do.


Roberts Sides with Liberal Justices as SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Restrictions on Religious Services

he has been a real Trojan Horse!

 

[Walter]

I subscribe to trinity but it is far from perfect. Using it to classify cults is ignorance on stilts

You deny the Trinity you are not a Christian. The END!

 

[Salty]

Lets try this one last time!!!!

This the OP!!!

Walking the fine line between public health and personal liberties


Washington-Supreme Court on Friday turned away Friday a request from a church in California to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.

“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion concurring in the unsigned ruling.

“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,” the chief justice wrote. “And the order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”




“The church and its congregants simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. “California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices.”

“The state cannot,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, quoting from an appeals court decision in a different case, “‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.’”

The court’s ruling was its first attempt to balance the public health crisis against the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom. And it expanded the Supreme Court’s engagement with the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, after rulings on voting in WI and prisons in TX and Ohio

“The Covid-19 pandemic is a national tragedy,” lawyers for the church wrote in their brief, their , “but it would be equally tragic if the federal judiciary allowed the ‘fog of war’ to act as an excuse for violating fundamental constitutional rights.”

So - here is the bottom line - Does a church have a right to continue meeting regardless of what the courts say, under the First Amendment? Regardless of any doctrine that they might believe.

If you want to discuss Church doctrine - go to this link::

 

[Agent47]

You deny the Trinity you are not a Christian. The END!

I would debate you on Trinity any time if it mattered but it does not.

This 'cult' did more than your 'doctrinally sound' sect and that makes you mad. I'm reminded of the Good Samaritan. It is the reviled who beat the religious and self righteous at exhibiting humanity.

For purposes of this thread please stick to the subject; challenging Covid-19 measures at SCOTUS