To be fair, they had to make the case their was religious discrimination, because 1A does not give one the right to harm others, which is the case Cuomo's team was making
The argument Cuomo was making was that they would be harming others by spreading Covid. People can downvote me for the previous comment, but getting into an argument in front of the Supreme Court about the dangers of Covid is not a position you want to be in, Each side can bring opposing legal "experts" to testify.
The clear path to win was proving discrimination. there is no countering argument to that, and even the dissenting opinion was forced to agree. they just wanted to stall and not rule on the validity of the case.
The only point I'm making is that people have freewill. If a person wants to live inside their house for the rest of their life and have meals slid under the door, that's fine. The flipside is that everyone else has the right to take their chances and live outside that room. Government has no right to say anything.
It's the same argument that vaxxers make against anti-vaxxers. They want you to take a vaccine even though they are safe because they took the vaccine.
Just look at all the other faggotty cucks in the black eye club. It only takes a punch in the face to scare these pussies into submission. Probably some tender butt loving too.
If God willing Trump gets his second term, Roberts needs to GO. Whatever it is that "they" have on him, release it publicly (BOTH sides know what it is/have proof, I'm sure) -ruin the man-so he is forced to step down, and his seat filled by a Trump nominee.
To be fair, they had to make the case their was religious discrimination, because 1A does not give one the right to harm others, which is the case Cuomo's team was making
If that's the case the usurpers could use that argument against the 2nd, right?
They could, which is why the plaintiffs argued it was unequal treatment since stores were allowed to stay open
correct
Who would they be harming?
The argument Cuomo was making was that they would be harming others by spreading Covid. People can downvote me for the previous comment, but getting into an argument in front of the Supreme Court about the dangers of Covid is not a position you want to be in, Each side can bring opposing legal "experts" to testify.
The clear path to win was proving discrimination. there is no countering argument to that, and even the dissenting opinion was forced to agree. they just wanted to stall and not rule on the validity of the case.
The only point I'm making is that people have freewill. If a person wants to live inside their house for the rest of their life and have meals slid under the door, that's fine. The flipside is that everyone else has the right to take their chances and live outside that room. Government has no right to say anything.
It's the same argument that vaxxers make against anti-vaxxers. They want you to take a vaccine even though they are safe because they took the vaccine.
Cool story bro. Don’t link that faggot site.
Just look at all the other faggotty cucks in the black eye club. It only takes a punch in the face to scare these pussies into submission. Probably some tender butt loving too.
If God willing Trump gets his second term, Roberts needs to GO. Whatever it is that "they" have on him, release it publicly (BOTH sides know what it is/have proof, I'm sure) -ruin the man-so he is forced to step down, and his seat filled by a Trump nominee.
Roberts needs to go