They can want to be classified as such all they like. I bet everyone thinks their business/organization is incredibly essential. But that desire or want doesn't have any impact. There has to be some real essential function they provide.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
There is always the option for them to encourage their area to take COVID more seriously and not lead to the area being classifed as a red zone and be put under the strictest restrictions.
These are not measures, these are lists. What measures were used to define what entities fall into each list?Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
*on a side note, do you see how in one post i was thinking 3 steps ahead of you, now 3 posts later we landed where I already was 3 posts ago? You see that right? This is a common theme for me on this forum and it's a conversation killer.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
So atheists are ignorant? You are constantly acting like you are under siege for being religious yet we aren’t denigrating religion. This is your prejudice showing.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
So now we're back to essential the english word, not the classification.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
In this context they are most definitely essential, I honestly dont see how that could even be up for debate. People center their lives and identities around this and to a degree beyond any other business entity. People form their entire existence and perspective predicated upon it. People consider these to be very essential things. People would easily trade in indoor dining for church service.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
YOU may not be, but there have been a few posters denigrating religion. So no. The use of 'we' is definitely not approptiate in the context of your post since the argument sitewolf and nasty are making includes rebuttals from posters denigrating religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by GasMan
Off memory, Noodles and dbroncs have definitely posted some very denigrating comments about religion.
I'd have to go back, but I think crovash has toed that line.
Most states go based on CISA guidance.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/f...AUG%2018v3.pdf
There is a reference on this site to the church, but it thankfully doesn't apply to opening for worship. It seems to just apply to the public service side of things that I mentioned earlier.
I'm not even religious, what the hell..Quote:
Originally Posted by GasMan
Well there's been a general tone towards religion in this thread based upon churches wanting to be treated what you deem as "special", dont complain now that some.of that gets reflected back towards you.
You reap what you sow. I didnt sow that seed into this convo, others did. So talk to them before you talk to me.
Once you do, I'll take full responsibility for the prejudice nature of my comment.
*well, I'll take responsibility for that regardless. It was prejudice. It was also factually incorrect and for any passive atheist reading through this, personally disrespectful. My bad.
I'm very careful about what I say about christianity, I should probably start doing the same for atheism. [emoji41]
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Either way, nasty clearly has a bias against atheist that most of us would check if it was directed at religious people.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
I haven’t said a negative word toward religion and in fact called out another poster that did. This was never about denigrating religion only about making the best public health decision. For you you to say you aren’t religious after going on and on about your mosque is ridiculous. I would say I’m surprised but I’m not.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Lofl you are so insanely delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
See, these aren't even objective measures, these subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
"As cities and states continue to shut down their nonessential businesses, what is considered essential will likely vary based on the needs of each location. But businesses that people rely on in everyday life will largely remain open.
Nonessential businesses are generally recreational in nature.*"
Maybe there are no objective measures, I dont know. If that's the case, then doesn't that lend even more credence to them attempting to be defined as essential, since it is very much a matter of opinion?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You also explained how one persons opinion on this shouldn't be the end all be all. I also have been explaining for a while now how your opinions are irrelevant to the case at hand (unless you are claiming they are the end all).Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
So which is it? I am not the one stating my opinion makes one essential and others not, that's you.
If a different area has churches not under this label that is fine with me. My stance has been local government and health experts should be able to make comprehensive plans/restrictions on business based on many things like service provided, risk factors and general public health in mind during this time.
Seriously. Dude is wildly inconsistent....and not solely on this topic. There is so little logic being displayed that it almost feels like he just throws a bunch of words in to a "random reply generator" and posts whatever it spits out.Quote:
Originally Posted by GasMan
*well, I'll take responsibility for (my comment). It was prejudice. It was also factually incorrect and for any passive atheist reading through this, personally disrespectful. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by GasMan
I wasn't going on and on, I just gave an example of how a "church" can easily operate safely under guidelines of an essential business.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You still have no idea the discussion lol. You seriously need to stop making up arguments and actually read what has been posted. I have no issue with churches being open in other places nor am I complaining about every business that goes against my opinion on what should be done. The only one overly focused on their opinion has been you pushing yours. In that you have been the hypocrite because you are fighting so hard for the essential label on churches but not all the other businesses that still won't have the label. You have been the one singling out one aspect here and not applying it across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
My standard is that local government with health experts can come up with comprehensive plans based on risk factors/services/community health in mind placing restrictions on business/organizations/social gatherings. I won't agree with all of them but I think that is in the public interest. Where I have an issue is singling out one type of organization like Churches as exempt from this. As more important than any others out there and forced to have different restrictions based not on risk factors/services/community health with expert advice included but instead based on some peoples personal opinions. If a bowling alley were doing this and SCOTUS were ruling in their favor that would be an issue. If somewhere has restrictions on all business being 25% capacity and restaurants fight to be the only places allowed at 100% I would disagree with ruling that it was illegal to give them the same restrictions as others too but I haven't seen that. I don't think restaurants should be immune to restrictions either.