Jump to content
KJP

Coronavirus Pandemic

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Temperature checks have been the biggest example of security theater.   Even a significant percentage of symptomatic CS patients have little to no fever.

 

While I agree, I also think there are plenty of people who aren't able to miss a paycheck because of financial difficulties. 

 

My girlfriend teaches at a studio and they are not required to wear masks while teaching and neither are the students. 

 

I just never heard about Dewine getting rid of this tempature check requirement..can someone verify this announcement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Trump coming out would certainly help. There has been a lack of leadership on the matter and sowed a lot of confusion. Heck Trump does not have to wear a mask if he does not want to, however, he has to acknowledge that they are beneficial and encourage people to wear them. 

 

Yes, and DeWine somehow needs to get the Ohio legislature on board with mask-wearing as well.  How good is your leadership if you can't even get your own party to follow?

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/05/republican-state-lawmakers-block-democratic-proposal-requiring-masks-at-ohio-statehouse.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Foraker said:

 

Yes, and DeWine somehow needs to get the Ohio legislature on board with mask-wearing as well.  How good is your leadership if you can't even get your own party to follow?

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/05/republican-state-lawmakers-block-democratic-proposal-requiring-masks-at-ohio-statehouse.html

 

The rural GOP follows but one God... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, troeros said:

 

While I agree, I also think there are plenty of people who aren't able to miss a paycheck because of financial difficulties. 

 

My girlfriend teaches at a studio and they are not required to wear masks while teaching and neither are the students. 

 

I just never heard about Dewine getting rid of this tempature check requirement..can someone verify this announcement?

 

My gym only requires masks going in and out. But everyone's temperature is taken at the door. 

 

Amazes me that I'm often the only one in there (in a gym filled with liberals tbh) wearing a mask during my workout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

My gym only requires masks going in and out. But everyone's temperature is taken at the door. 

 

Amazes me that I'm often the only one in there (in a gym filled with liberals tbh) wearing a mask during my workout

I would have a difficult time wearing a mask if I were in a heavy cardio workout, or workout of any sort. Of course I work out at home so I dont have to worry about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, troeros said:

So is this accurate information regarding phase 2 of reopening for Ohio? My girlfriend's employer, who works at a dance studio says they won't be required to do tempature checks anymore for their employees starting July 1st...

 

Is this accurate information? I was sort of shocked to hear her boss post this information.

 

DeWine will announce something on Thursday - the current orders, which include temperature checks, are extended through the end of the week.  It's not that it's necessarily dropping off 7/1, just that no order yet exists for continuing it after 7/1 (which is now 7/4 I guess) but that could change by Thursday.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

My gym only requires masks going in and out. But everyone's temperature is taken at the door. 

 

Amazes me that I'm often the only one in there (in a gym filled with liberals tbh) wearing a mask during my workout

 

I saw ~5 people in the grocery store this weekend wearing a mask, and I live in the most densely populated, liberal areas in Cincinnati.

 

While a few very vocal objections have come from the right-wing, I don't think number of people wearing masks during their daily routines is really split along party lines, at all. In my anecdotal experiences, it's been the opposite of what is implied in the media. 

 

Like many issues, the 1% yelling and screaming about something don't represent anything beyond their own interests. It seems to me that mask-wearing is a hyper-localized behavior. If you're at the store and 90% of people have a mask on, the pressure is strong enough that you'll probably do it too. If you go to the store and only see a few oddballs like me wearing a mask, you won't bother.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ram23 said:

While a few very vocal objections have come from the right-wing, I don't think number of people wearing masks during their daily routines is really split along party lines, at all. In my anecdotal experiences, it's been the opposite of what is implied in the media. 

 

Polling...what is it?

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/us-polls-show-partisan-divide-attitudes-covid-19

Quote

And mask-wearing, now mandated in several major US cities, has become a divisive political issue in the Kaiser poll: 70% of Democrats versus 37% of Republicans say they wear a mask when leaving the house, and only 48% of Republicans said President Donald Trump should be wearing a mask in public.

 

https://www.people-press.org/2020/06/25/republicans-democrats-move-even-further-apart-in-coronavirus-concerns/

 

image.png.15cdaf53e29c9322889283eabf632c63.png

 

This took 20 seconds to Google.  Try it next time.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Polling...what is it?

 

You quoted the point that already addressed the point raised in your response. If that really only took you 20 seconds, you wasted those 20 seconds.

 

It must be an amazing coincidence that downtown Cincinnati and the surrounding neighborhoods are home to the entirety of the 4% of liberals who don't wear masks. That, or this poll of yours massively under-represents young people and black people in urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

The Republicans (not DeWine) a losing a lot of senior citizens over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

You quoted the point that already addressed the point raised in your response. If that really only took you 20 seconds, you wasted those 20 seconds.

 

It must be an amazing coincidence that downtown Cincinnati and the surrounding neighborhoods are home to the entirety of the 4% of liberals who don't wear masks. That, or this poll of yours massively under-represents young people and black people in urban areas.

Nice anecdote thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

I saw ~5 people in the grocery store this weekend wearing a mask, and I live in the most densely populated, liberal areas in Cincinnati.

 

While a few very vocal objections have come from the right-wing, I don't think number of people wearing masks during their daily routines is really split along party lines, at all. In my anecdotal experiences, it's been the opposite of what is implied in the media. 

 

Like many issues, the 1% yelling and screaming about something don't represent anything beyond their own interests. It seems to me that mask-wearing is a hyper-localized behavior. If you're at the store and 90% of people have a mask on, the pressure is strong enough that you'll probably do it too. If you go to the store and only see a few oddballs like me wearing a mask, you won't bother.

 

 

 

 

Actually, to support @Ram23's point... I was at the Giant Eagle at I-77 and Rt. 82 in Broadview Heights, and I think out of the approx 200 people in there, maybe 5 were not wearing masks.

 

Compared to Dave's in Ohio City, where I usually shop, where its normally about 50/50. 

 

I was shocked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

You quoted the point that already addressed the point raised in your response. If that really only took you 20 seconds, you wasted those 20 seconds.

 

It must be an amazing coincidence that downtown Cincinnati and the surrounding neighborhoods are home to the entirety of the 4% of liberals who don't wear masks. That, or this poll of yours massively under-represents young people and black people in urban areas.

 

Your personal experience is not data.  I don't know why this is so hard for conservatives to comprehend.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Actually, that is not hypocritical at all and illustrates the conservative viewpoint fairly well, unless you can find a conservative arguing in favor of compelled service, which you just admitted you can't.  It was the progressives in Masterpiece Cakeshop arguing for compelled service.  No one, to my knowledge, is arguing for compelled service here.  You have private individuals (customers) complaining about the decision to deny service because they think denying them service is unfair or unwarranted, but until one of them sues the business for refusing, it's not a parallel to the baker's forced-service case (and in that case, the government was emphatically on the side of the customer being able to force the business owner to serve against his will).

 

If there ever is an argument advanced for forcing businesses to serve maskless customers, it will almost certainly use legal arguments pioneered by progressives and their inquisitorial bodies ("civil rights" commissions, etc.) for forcing business owners to violate their consciences when those consciences offend politically correct sensibilities.

 

You fail to establish how serving gay customers is equivalent to a customer potentially killing a business' employees and other customers by refusing to follow health precautions in a pandemic.  And you never can.  This is neither entirely about business or individual rights.  It's about how no one has the right to murder others through willful irresponsibility, whether it happens in a business or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Listen, I get it, and I know we will need to agree to disagree on this issue. It would be great if every citizen looked after their fellow man in the exact same way. However, that likely is unrealistic and not practical given the certain freedoms that are baked into our Constitution and we must account for that. 

Beyond advocating for masks as a good thing, and realizing it will take time for them to be adopted on a larger scale, there really is not much more that can be done. It takes time to get a buy in. Just like with Drunk Driving. Passing a law does not equal compliance, you have to get the public buy in and right now, it is slower than many would like. Making it mandatory will still not change that. 

 

Again, I am sorry that you are having to go through this right now, and again, you and your father are in my prayers. 

 

Point out where it says in the Constitution that you have to right to make others sick or kill them by ignoring health precautions in a national crisis.  I'll wait.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DarkandStormy said:

 

Your personal experience is not data.  I don't know why this is so hard for conservatives to comprehend.

data is not the only thing that matters. Data is important, but there are other factors that need to be considered that cannot easily be measured by data. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/data-driven-policy-decisions-numbers-dont-contain-whole-truth/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

You fail to establish how serving gay customers is equivalent to a customer potentially killing a business' employees and other customers by refusing to follow health precautions in a pandemic.  And you never can.  This is neither entirely about business or individual rights.  It's about how no one has the right to murder others through willful irresponsibility, whether it happens in a business or not.

You really have never understood the Masterpiece case. Let me help you out. It was not about gay rights, it was about compelled speech. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

data is not the only thing that matters. Data is important, but there are other factors that need to be considered that cannot easily be measured by data. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/data-driven-policy-decisions-numbers-dont-contain-whole-truth/

We've allowed the non data Neanderthals to take over COVID response from doctors. Its working out well. We've undone 3 months of quarantine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You really have never understood the Masterpiece case. Let me help you out. It was not about gay rights, it was about compelled speech. 

Nope. It was about public accommodations.  

 

And being gay is different than choosing to not wear a mask during a pandemic.  Non mask wearers are not a class of people.

Edited by freefourur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Point out where it says in the Constitution that you have to right to make others sick or kill them by ignoring health precautions in a national crisis.  I'll wait.

 

 

You have the right of free expression and liberty created in the first amendment. Wearing a mask or not wearing a mask is an expression of that liberty. Now, private businesses can compel you if you want to choose to do business with them, to wear the mask, but you have a choice. However, government cannot do so. there is a 1st amendment argument here. 

 

Again, should everyone where masks from a moral standpoint, YES. 

Does the law in the US have the ability to forcibly compel them to do so? That is what is up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You really have never understood the Masterpiece case. Let me help you out. It was not about gay rights, it was about compelled speech. 

 

I don't think I've ever made any arguments here about that case, so not sure where you get the "never understood" it as if I have a track record on making statements about it.  

Second, you're still ignoring the point.  Even if the argument is about compelled speech, what exactly is the compelled speech argument in the case of a business demanding its customers use masks in a temporary situation to literally protect their lives and those of all their other customers?   You're still arguing that people have the right to risk other people's lives.  They absolutely do not.  It's not a free speech or expression issue at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, freefourur said:

And being gay is different than choosing to not wear a mask during a pandemic.  Non mask wearers are not a class of people.

 

Karen has a card, though. LOL.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You have the right of free expression and liberty created in the first amendment. Wearing a mask or not wearing a mask is an expression of that liberty. Now, private businesses can compel you if you want to choose to do business with them, to wear the mask, but you have a choice. However, government cannot do so. there is a 1st amendment argument here. 

 

Again, should everyone where masks from a moral standpoint, YES. 

Does the law in the US have the ability to forcibly compel them to do so? That is what is up for debate.

 

But freedom of expression is not without limitations, specifically when it comes to public safety/health, so this argument doesn't fly whatsoever.  You'd actually have to go out of your way to ignore all case precedent on this to continue to make the argument that people should be able to endanger others through expression.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I don't think I've ever made any arguments here about that case, so not sure where you get the "never understood" it as if I have a track record on making statements about it.  

Second, you're still ignoring the point.  Even if the argument is about compelled speech, what exactly is the compelled speech argument in the case of a business demanding its customers use masks in a temporary situation to literally protect their lives and those of all their other customers?   You're still arguing that people have the right to risk other people's lives.  They absolutely do not.  It's not a free speech or expression issue at all. 

People have a right to look after their best interests so long as they do not cause harm to others around them. This is clearly a gray area where the issues intersect with each other. It is not as simple as the drunk driving analogy being thrown around because driving is not a right. Free expression is a right. There is a free expression and free speech argument that can be made in this case which muddies the waters a lot. What may be clear as day to you may not be to the next person and you have to account for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

But freedom of expression is not without limitations, specifically when it comes to public safety/health, so this argument doesn't fly whatsoever.  You'd actually have to go out of your way to ignore all case precedent on this to continue to make the argument that people should be able to endanger others through expression.  

Actually, there is a lot of case precedent that suggests otherwise, contrary to your opinion on the matter. It is very nuanced and there are certain time, place and manner considerations to take into account. Obviously, it is perfectly legal for Easton Town Center to require all customers wear masks all the time. That is a restriction that a private property owner is allowed to make, even if it were a violation of free expression. It is not necessarily the case for the Statehouse to mandate masks. It would likely be reasonable for schools to mandate masks, but not so much for public parks to have the same mandate. There are significant time, place and manner restrictions that would come into play when analyzing the situation and a blanket mask mandate would likely not survive Constitutional scrutiny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

People have a right to look after their best interests so long as they do not cause harm to others around them. This is clearly a gray area where the issues intersect with each other. It is not as simple as the drunk driving analogy being thrown around because driving is not a right. Free expression is a right. There is a free expression and free speech argument that can be made in this case which muddies the waters a lot. What may be clear as day to you may not be to the next person and you have to account for that. 

 

What in the holy hell do you think a deadly, contagious virus does, exactly?  Literally the ONLY way your argument would make any sense is if we lived in an alternate reality where viruses don't spread person to person.  Since we don't, it's a ridiculous position.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonoh81 said:

 

What in the holy hell do you think a deadly, contagious virus does, exactly?  Literally the ONLY way your argument would make any sense is if we lived in an alternate reality where viruses don't spread person to person.  Since we don't, it's a ridiculous position.

 

 

You make think that, but unfortunately case law by the Supreme Court suggests otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

You make think that, but unfortunately case law by the Supreme Court suggests otherwise. 

Case law actually supports the ability of government to take extreme measures during pandemics. I think you are arguing just to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, freefourur said:

Case law actually supports the ability of government to take extreme measures during pandemics. I think you are arguing just to argue.

On short term basis of course. Again, it depends on the facts and it will be very fact specific. But there is precedent for a first amendment claim against a mask mandate in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

On short term basis of course. Again, it depends on the facts and it will be very fact specific. But there is precedent for a first amendment claim against a mask mandate in my opinion.

A basis for it your opinion is not case law. So we've determined that case law is not on your side.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

On short term basis of course. Again, it depends on the facts and it will be very fact specific. But there is precedent for a first amendment claim against a mask mandate in my opinion.

 

So it's okay to restrict the incitement of panic and libeling coworkers and threatening the president permanently, but there's absolutely no precedent, according to you, to mandate temporary restrictions on behavior during the worst health crisis in a century.  What you admit here is that you're okay with people dying because of the minor inconvenience of mask use, among other precautions.

Save your prayers.  Even if I believed you were sincere, which I don't, the fact that you're okay putting other families through this makes me sick.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One of the first, more extensive, NEW re-lockdown done by any state yet. 

 

I hope y'all are ready for the second wave of shut downs. No matter what your state governor has said in the past, when you run out of hospital beds you run the true risk of becoming the Italy or Wuhan. No state, no matter how dire the economic impact, wants to be in that position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Which is why I specifically asked about whether you've seen any "well-known conservative activists" formally arguing this as opposed to just random angry people on the Internet who happen to be caught on the omnipresent cameras of the modern world venting at the business' policy.

 

 

That may be true.

 

But consider whether a President Biden making the same speech would have the same impact.

 

Since I doubt many of us could name any "conservative activists", it's kind of a moot point.  There are people threatening to sue, damaging property, and assaulting employees because they don't think they should have to abide by mask restrictions.  I'd say that qualifies as not giving a damn about businesses rights to operate as they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

On short term basis of course. Again, it depends on the facts and it will be very fact specific. But there is precedent for a first amendment claim against a mask mandate in my opinion.

 

What precedent?  Maybe you could cite it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget precedents! This is why freedumbers should wear a mask! Beware!!

 

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

People have a right to look after their best interests so long as they do not cause harm to others around them. This is clearly a gray area where the issues intersect with each other. It is not as simple as the drunk driving analogy being thrown around because driving is not a right. Free expression is a right. There is a free expression and free speech argument that can be made in this case which muddies the waters a lot. What may be clear as day to you may not be to the next person and you have to account for that. 

 

You dodged the questions about the Constitutionality of shelter-in-place orders.  Does public safety override my right to peacefully assembly?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, troeros said:

 

One of the first, more extensive, NEW re-lockdown done by any state yet. 

 

I hope y'all are ready for the second wave of shut downs. No matter what your state governor has said in the past, when you run out of hospital beds you run the true risk of becoming the Italy or Wuhan. No state, no matter how dire the economic impact, wants to be in that position. 

Hmm...it's almost like the virus should dictate the reopening of the economy. Once again the rest of world can figure out how to handle something that eludes Americans (Republicans.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, X said:

 

Since I doubt many of us could name any "conservative activists", it's kind of a moot point.  There are people threatening to sue, damaging property, and assaulting employees because they don't think they should have to abide by mask restrictions.  I'd say that qualifies as not giving a damn about businesses rights to operate as they see fit.

 

 

conservative activist one:

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-alex-jones-anti-mask-rally-texas-20200629-njazdttkerhtfh5jxoa4uycea4-story.html?outputType=amp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Actually, to support @Ram23's point... I was at the Giant Eagle at I-77 and Rt. 82 in Broadview Heights, and I think out of the approx 200 people in there, maybe 5 were not wearing masks.

 

Compared to Dave's in Ohio City, where I usually shop, where its normally about 50/50. 

 

I was shocked. 

 

I find it particularly concerning that folks aren't wearing masks in densely populated urban areas. In rural and even suburban areas, maintaining social distance in public is significantly easier than in urban areas, so the need for a mask is lower. You can't social distance at the urban-format grocery I use and you certainly can't social distance on a bus. Yet masks are virtually non-existent where I live and have been from day 1. If the media's polls indicate anything, it's either how willing people are to lie to a pollster, or how poorly representative sample sizes are of the general public (or both).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, freefourur said:

We've allowed the non data Neanderthals to take over COVID response from doctors. Its working out well. We've undone 3 months of quarantine.  

We've done three months of quarantine for naught. Government did nothing to play catchup in its mitigation efforts during those three months.

- SARS-CoV-2 continues to rage

- We still don't have adequate testing; molecular nor serology

- Contact tracers are far and few between

- $3+T in debt

-125+K fatalities 

- 40+M unemployed or underemployed

- Businesses are going under

- Even after "reopening," things are not back to, and will not get back to "normal" in the foreseeable future

 

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

You dodged the questions about the Constitutionality of shelter-in-place orders.  Does public safety override my right to peacefully assembly?

 

Snow Emergencies must be unconstitutional then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, freefourur said:

Nope. It was about public accommodations.  

 

And being gay is different than choosing to not wear a mask during a pandemic.  Non mask wearers are not a class of people.

 

Conservatives long ago stopped even pretending to care about "equal justice under the law." It's still a bit sad/hilarious to see them contort themselves to end up there.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Snow Emergencies must be unconstitutional then.

 

I was thinking the same thing.


"I wanna park on MY street!  This is unconstitutional!"


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

 

4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

but there's absolutely no precedent, according to you, to mandate temporary restrictions on behavior during the worst health crisis in a century.  What you admit here is that you're okay with people dying because of the minor inconvenience of mask use, among other precautions.

Save your prayers.  Even if I believed you were sincere, which I don't, the fact that you're okay putting other families through this makes me sick.

 

What I have said is that this is a gray area. I have always said it is a gray area. Certainly, there is some precedent to limit rights temporarily during a severe crisis, but there are certain protocols for doing this and certain standards. For example, the drunk driving analogy is thrown around a lot. The legality and bar to limit one's ability to drive drunk is a lot lower than the standard to limit free expression in times of crisis. It is a very high burden when it comes to limiting free expression, and a blanket mask requirement without exceptions would likely not pass this test. It is why the stay at home orders that governors passed in the Spring did not limit people's ability to have protests as it was their fundamental right. 

 

I do not like people dying and it is horrible to see and hear about people suffering from this virus. Hopefully we can reach a turning point in it soon. However, we have a framework of rights, and we cant just throw people's rights away every time there is a crisis. It is in times of crisis that we need to protect rights even more because people tend to want to jettison them in the name of "perceived" security, yet when the crisis is over, they never seem to get those rights back.. 

 

I am sorry that you are suffering now,  please don't be mad at me. I am only offering a perspective, one of many that may be out there. I know you may not agree with my perspective in some cases, but it is a perspective nonetheless. I don't make the policy, and there are many policies that I disagree with too, but we still need to live with them regardless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

You dodged the questions about the Constitutionality of shelter-in-place orders.  Does public safety override my right to peacefully assembly?

In case of the shelter in place orders, there were still many protests in OH, KY, MI, etc.  

As a matter of fact, the KY gov was essentially blocked by the courts from limiting people's right to protest on the Statehouse grounds and in front of the governors mansion because of their first amendment right to assembly and right to protest, even in a pandemic. 

A friend of mine was responsible for the filing the lawsuit in this case. I am not 100% sure if the 6th Circuit ruled on the case or the KY governor backed down before the 6th Circuit could rule on the matter because they knew they had overstepped and did not want to risk a negative ruling and precedent on the books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

 

I was thinking the same thing.


"I wanna park on MY street!  This is unconstitutional!"

 

While parking restrictions are fair game on property you don't own and even property you do own, snow emergencies are restrictions on public movement and gathering. Indeed they are temporary, but somebody's going to have to show me where the time limit is in the Constitution.

Edited by GCrites80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...