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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

It seemed to me you were agreeing with the restrictions Cuomo was putting in place, based on those low numbers as a maximum.

Plus there've been others who've just said the restrictions were percentage based and I hadn't seen the exact restrictions.

---

I don’t speak to the health experts to know if the specific numbers make sense. I have to assume Cuomo has and if someone doesn’t think that he got the number right, well that’s a political not a legal issue. I get the court is always political though so I’m not shocked by that. But I would think that the court would defer to the experts in this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

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

---

better than where yours is buried

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I don’t speak to the health experts to know if the specific numbers make sense. I have to assume Cuomo has and if someone doesn’t think that he got the number right, well that’s a political not a legal issue. I get the court is always political though so I’m not shocked by that. But I would think that the court would defer to the experts in this matter.

---

I have no idea how it got from his list to the Supreme Court either, but it also doesn't take rocket science to realize 10% or 10 people whichever is FEWER is ridiculous given he was allowing HOME gatherings that size at the seme time.

This has been a primary part of my issue- telling a church they can only have 10 people at a service is like telling them they can't have a service. I mean, a private baptism would have more than that. I get some are saying 'fine, I don't think they should have them at all' but the question was in regards to Cuomo's restrictions, not what PSDers THINK restrictions should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

Because of this decision, the way has been paved for church (mosque, synagogue, coven) to be deemed an “essential” enterprise. Period.

---

Ok, and so long as it is safe within context of epidemic then I support that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

So you're fine with a liquor store being deemed essential, but God forbid it be a church.

---

My belief in what a liquor store should or should not be deemed is simply not at issue (as far as I am concerned that just another deflection by means of #whattabout).

What is at issue is (a) whether religious organizations should be deemed something other than non-essential businesses — I say no, in disagreement with the Supreme Court decision.

And (b) whether by extension religious practices such as congregating in large groups for worship, funerals, weddings should be less restrictive than for non-essential enterprises — again I say no, in disagreement with the Supreme Court.

Note my quoting Justice Sotomayor in dissent, not justice Roberts, much less any of the six on the other side. Her position is mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

Justice Sotomayor (dissenting)

“Justices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily... Free religious exercise is one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights. States may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles are not at stake today. The Constitution does not forbid States from responding to public health crises through regulations that treat religious institutions equally or more favorably than comparable secular institutions, particularly when those regulations save lives. Because New York’s COVID– 19 restrictions do just that, I respectfully dissent.”.

---

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

---

That isn’t a reason to allow all churches a special status that other similar business/activities shouldn’t receive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

You and Nasty deflected to the numbers and percentages — which I admit were the catalyst for the legal case and even possibly reasonable, but ultimately irrelevant in view of the decision.

See, I don’t don’t really give a ratsass about the numbers — I never have in this discussion except perhaps to respond to a post or two.

---

We didnt deflect to the numbers and percent, we brought that up so as to discuss the substance of the topic. We are of the stance that the numbers should dictate behavior and we both made that clear.

But here you are saying you dont care about the numbers (the science of spread), you care about the semantics, and the precedent of those semantics.

That's fine, I don't care about the semantics, I care about the science and stats. We hinge our opinions on completely diff aspects of the issue at hand. I think my approach is the more sensible approach.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

So you're fine with a liquor store being deemed essential, but God forbid it be a church.
.

---

Liquor isnt essential for me, but it certainly is for many people.

Same with church.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

(as far as I am concerned that just another deflection by means of #whattabout).

---

Im.sorry, your entire response to my science/stats argument is, but what about other businesses that are unnecessarily shut down?

That's not whataboutism?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

That isn’t a reason to allow all churches a special status that other similar business/activities shouldn’t receive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

lol, it is a reason for them to be open.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Yes, but church is viewed at in a clearly diff category then other business. I know many people who would happily die for their religion, I don't know anyone willing to do so for a cheeseburger. That's not an opinion that's a fact.

The argument that should be brought forth shouldn't be based on what me and sitewolf say, nor the atheist agenda you subscribe to, it should be based on science and that's it. If a place can operate safely as essentials then let them open with essential. If they can't operate safely as non essential, don't let them open with non essential.

The only thing that matters is the spread, but you guys are caught up in some argument dreamt up by the atheist agenda pushers, lol, stop it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Except that the cheeseburger gives pay checks which people need. It’s not more important for someone to get their wants within their communities over someone else having a job/paycheck coming in. It is opinion lol. That’s the thing, you are focused on one sided opinions not taking the whole into account/placing your opinions over everyone else’s.

The science, health experts and politics involved did create standards for people to follow. The churches wanted to be treated different than other similar things, hence this discussion/scotus ruling. What hasn’t been provided is reasoning other than opinion for this. Which is fine but as I have said just admit you have the opinion it’s more important/should get treated special due to that belief.

We are all simply capable of understanding this topic/issue without seeing everything as ridiculous religious/atheist propaganda. Our focus has never been what you keep trying to say it is even if you keep repeating it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

You keep pulling out the label 'other similar activities' and the term 'special treatment', which is the core of this entire debate here. It's not special treatment unless it's categorized with your 'other similar activities

And no, it's not 'nasty and sitewolf think so', there have been protections under the 1st amendment that have allowed religious organizations to be in their own category for centuries....and THAT'S more what sticks in the atheist's craw than anything

---

Me and others have asked multiple times for a comparable example with large groups and risky activity like singing. No one has ever provided an answer. The things similar to churches with large groupings and risk factors are also not allowed/have restrictions in place.

What does the first amendment state should happen in cases like this? No one has made that argument until now but go ahead and show how they were being singled out/discriminated against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

We didnt deflect to the numbers and percent, we brought that up so as to discuss the substance of the topic. We are of the stance that the numbers should dictate behavior and we both made that clear.

---

And once again, I will say that in the context of the Supreme Court decision, the numbers are not relevant.

Did you read the opinions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

But here you are saying you dont care about the numbers (the science of spread), you care about the semantics, and the precedent of those semantics.

That's fine, I don't care about the semantics, I care about the science and stats. We hinge our opinions on completely diff aspects of the issue at hand. I think my approach is the more sensible approach.

---

You might want to look up the definition of semantics before intellectually soiling yourself again.

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

---

So the issue is you don’t care about the actual topic and have been making up random arguments for other people so you could try and be included? Agreed.

Scotus decisions are used for more than just one state, this is setting precedent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

I have no idea how it got from his list to the Supreme Court either, but it also doesn't take rocket science to realize 10% or 10 people whichever is FEWER is ridiculous given he was allowing HOME gatherings that size at the seme time.

This has been a primary part of my issue- telling a church they can only have 10 people at a service is like telling them they can't have a service. I mean, a private baptism would have more than that. I get some are saying 'fine, I don't think they should have them at all' but the question was in regards to Cuomo's restrictions, not what PSDers THINK restrictions should be.

---

It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that businesses that aren't essential shouldn't be anywhere near full during a global pandemic of a highly infectious disease. Especially ones that we all know tend to cater towards elderly citizens. The red zones, which have the 10 person limit are identified by the NY Public Health as the specific cluster of COVID. The area(s) around them are the orange zones, which have more leniency. So perhaps we really need to ask why the church is fighting so hard for the right to continue infecting people. They have already been identified as a cluster of COVID infections and now they will get to continue to do so. These aren't proactive restrictions, but reactive ones.