To: E. Pluribus Unum
Nice with the Outline link.
Another way to do it is with http://archive.vn/ - create the archived article, then link that.
Federalist Society Trump judge for The Win!!!
2 posted on
10/10/2020 4:32:39 PM PDT by
kiryandil
(Chris Wallace: Because someone has to drive the Clown Car)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
The problem with the court decision is that it appears to allow only outside church meetings. Not much help in the rain or in winter.
3 posted on
10/10/2020 4:36:55 PM PDT by
aimhigh
(THIS is His commandment . . . . 1 John 3:23)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Exactly! First Amendment...Freedom of Religion *and* Peaceful Assembly!
4 posted on
10/10/2020 4:42:05 PM PDT by
Gay State Conservative
(Thanks To Biden Voters Oregon's Now A Battleground State)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
There really needs to be civil and criminal penalties for elected officials violating people’s constitutional rights.
5 posted on
10/10/2020 4:44:24 PM PDT by
ConservativeInPA
("War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." - George Orwell, 1984)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
6 posted on
10/10/2020 4:52:39 PM PDT by
preacher
( Journalism no longer reports news, they use news to shape our society.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum; drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; ...
Pesky Calvinists.</sarc>
7 posted on
10/10/2020 5:07:32 PM PDT by
Gamecock
("O God, break the teeth in their mouths." - Psalm 58:6)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Lots of felonies to go around.
8 posted on
10/10/2020 5:14:59 PM PDT by
wastedyears
(The left would kill every single one of us and our families if they knew they could get away with it)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
“nor the free exercise thereof...”
9 posted on
10/10/2020 5:37:11 PM PDT by
Regulator
To: E. Pluribus Unum
The District’s current restrictions substantially burden the church’s exercise of religion. More, the District has failed to offer evidence at this stage showing that it has a compelling interest in preventing the church from meeting outdoors with appropriate precautions, or that this prohibition is the least-restrictive means to achieve its interest.
Somewhat weak statement from the judge... How does the District have compelling evidence they have an interest in preventing worship services at all? Why limit this ruling to only instances of worship that are "outdoors with appropriate precautions"?
To: E. Pluribus Unum
“The Court determines that the church is likely to succeed in proving that the District’s actions violate [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993] RFRA,” wrote U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Trevor McFadden in a decision late Friday.>>>>
My Dad’s cousin’s son.
12 posted on
10/10/2020 9:33:03 PM PDT by
kvanbrunt2
(spooks won on day 76)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
the 850-member congregation that has held worship services every Sunday since 1878 (except for three weeks during the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic) Gee, two weeks (plus one) to "flatten the curve" worked back then....
...and we are now at 29 weeks and counting!?!?!?
13 posted on
10/10/2020 9:41:14 PM PDT by
lightman
(I am a binary Trinitarian. Deal with it!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson