COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Well.if we specifically talk about other businesses i will argue for them. Right now we were talking about churches and people arguing about them not needing to be open. That's a very ignorant stance.

And my initial accusation still stands, church is under the microscope because it fits within the atheist agenda. [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

It's funny how you think repeating the same nonsense over and over somehow makes it not nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

If your bowling alley can set protocol and safely operate with more than 10 people, then I certainly wouldnt care to stop any bowling entity/association asking for more than 10 people to be allowed inside.

---

In effect, you are simply arguing for your personal mosque to be certified for larger congregations by whatever local health officials are available, all because you have square footage.

So, your stance has absolutely no relation to the Supreme Court case.

You really have missed the point of the entire discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Well I think this might be the cause of our problems. I haven't once advocated for a mosque (or church) to be closed. I've advocated for strict enforcement of the occupancy restrictions. Cuomo's restrictions imposed occupancy limits on religious institutions, not to close them.

---

I misspoke, if you are advocating for my mosque to be capped at 10 people..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Notice she said she is willing to die for her religion. It is clearly more essential to her than eating inside a restaurant. That should be one of the takeaways here. Why? To help illustrate how your opinion is arbitrary.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Quite the stunningly ridiculous post. :laugh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

I think I just died from laughter.

---

Bye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Driving a car on a road doesn't make anyone more likely to get COVID and I know damn well you know that. Is this the best argument you have?

---

It is all so indicative of how pointless it is to take anything he's saying the least bit seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

In effect, you are simply arguing for your personal mosque to be certified for larger congregations by whatever local health officials are available, all because you have square footage.

So, your stance has absolutely no relation to the Supreme Court case.

You really have missed the point of the entire discussion.

---

No, church is essential, ok that's fine. It clearly is for many people (not me, btw). Go for it.

It is clearly deeper and further ingrained with peoples identity and outlooks than entertainment, so I dont but into your special privilege argument. The fact that you guys even think this really speaks volumes to the depth of your ignorance.

My take on the SC label game comes down to the science. There are two mosques here that are night and day different, one is operating in a scientifically sound manner, one thinks god will protect them from the virus and observes ZERO distance. I strongly support one and I strongly oppose the other. My support has nothing to do with what label either one is given, my support has to do with the science and stats of their behavior.

One mosque I would support to operate as essential, one I would not even support as non essential. They should have been shut down a while back, period. The label is so secondary to the actual science. That's my take on the label game.

As far as the english game, is church essential, yes it obviously is for many people. It is what many peoples life revolves around.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Bye

---

lol, that's a tough vortex to get out of...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Well I think this might be the cause of our problems. I haven't once advocated for a mosque (or church) to be closed. I've advocated for strict enforcement of the occupancy restrictions. Cuomo's restrictions imposed occupancy limits on religious institutions, not to close them.

---

Yes, and the ridiculously low numbers were the reason for the fight....10 or 25 people rather than a percentage occupancy limit is a poor way to deal with it since it allows the same number of people in a space designed for 100 as it does a space designed for 1000.

Had Cuumo's restrictions listed a percentage, we're likely not having this debate because this likely never reaches SCOTUS.

And the comparison with a bowling alley re occupancy doesn't work. Buildings are assigned maximum occupancies by the fire marshals based on the square footage of viably occupied space.....the lanes of a bowling alley are not viably occupiable and therefore not included when determining occupancy levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Yes when there is no reason to restrict people.other than you don't want it categorized as essential, then yes obviously I think that.

You dont?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

:facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

It's called CNN and NBC. If there was no atheist agenda then you would have no issue with churches safely opening. Again, if it's about safety then it's about spread. If churches can operate without spreading then there is no need to further limit how they operate. I already gave an example of my mosque.

For anyone to know what protocol my mosque follows and still wants it closed, well it's not science, if you're telling me it's not an atheist agenda then what is it?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

The sheer ignorance in your posts really blows my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

You asked for a legitimate reasonz I gave you one.

If you want science, then the science is that we have a 5,000 sq ft mosque, scientifically significantly more than 10 people can gather there without it being a spread issues.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Wow. We got a regular Bill Nye here. :laugh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Well NOW we're getting somewhere.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

You two have been in the same place this entire conversation basically: heads buried in the sand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Yes, and the ridiculously low numbers were the reason for the fight....10 or 25 people rather than a percentage occupancy limit is a poor way to deal with it since it allows the same number of people in a space designed for 100 as it does a space designed for 1000.

Had Cuumo's restrictions listed a percentage, we're likely not having this debate because this likely never reaches SCOTUS.

And the comparison with a bowling alley re occupancy doesn't work. Buildings are assigned maximum occupancies by the fire marshals based on the square footage of viably occupied space.....the lanes of a bowling alley are not viably occupiable and therefore not included when determining occupancy levels.

---

The restrictions were setup to allow a percentage occupancy or a specific number, whichever was lower. The numbers they are allowed go up as they go up in a higher zone. The zones were based on where there are COVID outbreaks. It's amazing how bad their argument was, but they were going to win by virtue of the numbers on the Supreme Court. Their argument essentially boils down to essential businesses being allowed to operate under less restriction than non-essential businesses.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/down...strictions.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

See, this kinda is our disagreement in a nutshell. Your concern is with labels. My concern is with science. I don't care about your concerns, they are irrelevant. My concerns are relevant to every American, my concern is what matters, not yours.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Nope. You're putting your personal interests above public safety, while others are saying that no one's personal interests should be put above public safety.

Just saying the word "science" repeatedly only makes you look more and more ridiculous. You're not actually showing any science, you're just making juvenile attempts at sounding intelligent and failing miserably.