What's the point then? 

My point was that Hawaii has the lowest rates in the nation with some of the strictest rules and high mask usage.   The point is Hawaii is doing it correct, and is effective, even at lowing flu rates.

if that was your point, you should have stated it

florida is open, and their rates are lower than most of the country
and their population is much older than the rest of the country

if that was your point, you should have stated it

florida is open, and their rates are lower than most of the country
and their population is much older than the rest of the country

And, in Winter especially, FL receives a massive number of visitors from other states -- many are Northern states like New York ("Snowbirds").

That brings the infection into the state.

Hawaii is an island state (OG).  We have the means to control visitors coming in and requiring quarantine/isolation.  Explain how any other state (FL) has that ability.  They can't close their borders and expect to screen all visitors and returning residents.

if that was your point, you should have stated it

florida is open, and their rates are lower than most of the country
and their population is much older than the rest of the country

It's not like other states mandate mask and have just as high covid #s...

The unholy SCOTUS uber SAFETY CULT (Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor) fails (3-6) to uphold the ban on indoor church services in California. MURDER!!! MURDERERS!!!

Where else have we heard SAFETY CULTIISTS screeching "people will die" unless our rights are cancelled? Hint: Moms demand it. Etc.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/05/scotus-california-worship-bans-466466

Supreme Court lifts California worship bans prompted by coronavirus

The ruling issued just before 11 p.m. ET Friday produced four separate statements by the justices.

The decision(s): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf

The unholy SCOTUS uber SAFETY CULT (Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor) fails (3-6) to uphold the ban on indoor church services in California. MURDER!!! MURDERERS!!!

Where else have we heard SAFETY CULTIISTS screeching "people will die" unless our rights are cancelled? Hint: Moms demand it. Etc.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/05/scotus-california-worship-bans-466466

Supreme Court lifts California worship bans prompted by coronavirus

The ruling issued just before 11 p.m. ET Friday produced four separate statements by the justices.

The decision(s): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf

I guess they don't agree that church attendees' rights end where the right to not get infected begins for others.

So much for THAT little nugget, now that it's been decided against IN A COURT OF LAW!   

I guess they don't agree that church attendees' rights end where the right to not get infected begins for others.

So much for THAT little nugget, now that it's been decided against IN A COURT OF LAW!   

but he/she/it belives in freedom!

but he/she/it belives in freedom!

He seems to belive in the wisdom of the courts more.

I guess they don't agree that church attendees' rights end where the right to not get infected begins for others.

So much for THAT little nugget, now that it's been decided against IN A COURT OF LAW!   

If you read what the rulings were it wasn't unanimous,  doesn't  apply to all states and is limited in scope.  California went too far I guess.  But the courts did decide so I guess in that specific case the right to worship trumps the right not to infect.  Though they specifically mentioned the church having many safety measures intact. Which I agree with.   

.

..

If you read what the rulings were it wasn't unanimous,  doesn't  apply to all states and is limited in scope.  California went too far I guess.  But the courts did decide so I guess in that specific case the right to worship trumps the right not to infect.  Though they specifically mentioned the church having many safety measures intact. Which I agree with.

Since when do court decisions have to be unanimous?  It might not apply based on the case specifics, because only CA was being this draconian at that time, but it's still a high court precedence that should be used if any other state decides to trample on religious rights.

Was Roe V wade unanimous?  Were any civil rights cases unanimous?  Not being unanimous has never been a test of a Supreme Court's legitimacy, especially when justices started behaving as political activists in certain cases.

So, are you backing off the mantra that my rights end where your right to not get infected begins?  We know the recommended safety measure do not guarantee a risk-free environment.

My credit union asks every customer to remove their masks for a moment to glance at their faces and check them against their picture IDs.  Isn't that against your safety measures beliefs?

Since when do court decisions have to be unanimous?  It might not apply based on the case specifics, because only CA was being this draconian at that time, but it's still a high court precedence that should be used if any other state decides to trample on religious rights.

Was Roe V wade unanimous?  Were any civil rights cases unanimous?  Not being unanimous has never been a test of a Supreme Court's legitimacy, especially when justices started behaving as political activists in certain cases.

So, are you backing off the mantra that my rights end where your right to not get infected begins?  We know the recommended safety measure do not guarantee a risk-free environment.

My credit union asks every customer to remove their masks for a moment to glance at their faces and check them against their picture IDs.  Isn't that against your safety measures beliefs?

Again try read.   Unanimous within the people who voted for it.  They all wrote different opinions on the matter...Does it matter legally?  Not really, but it shows state of thought. 

I am not backing off of that, because church and the right to worship is fine, I am free and have no plans to go to church so I don't have to worry about infection in a "private" avenue.  If they held church on public land that I had to visit for essential life things I would 100% have an issue with that.   The supreme court does not cover anything like that.     

Biden orders CBP to ‘catch and release’ illegal immigrants into US cities without COVID tests

https://thegreggjarrett.com/biden-orders-cbp-to-catch-and-release-illegal-immigrants-into-us-cities-without-covid-tests/

Again try read.   Unanimous within the people who voted for it.  They all wrote different opinions on the matter...Does it matter legally?  Not really, but it shows state of thought. 

I am not backing off of that, because church and the right to worship is fine, I am free and have no plans to go to church so I don't have to worry about infection in a "private" avenue.  If they held church on public land that I had to visit for essential life things I would 100% have an issue with that.   The supreme court does not cover anything like that.   

You really are that stupid.   

Someone goes to church, gets infected.  They then hand you change at the place they work.  BINGO!  You got it, too!

You can't seem to think beyond one dimension. 

Maybe you'll be fine if you just avoid avenues.   

You really are that stupid.   

Someone goes to church, gets infected.  They then hand you change at the place they work.  BINGO!  You got it, too!

You can't seem to think beyond one dimension. 

Maybe you'll be fine if you just avoid avenues.   

Less risks,  If I were to go to church that would be a direct infection.  You can't shield yourself from all the idiots. Also at work they would be required to follow covid guildlines, so less risk to me.   In America the different types of freedom will always clash.  In this case the courts ruled this one situation in that way.  There will always be idiots,  if they want to go to church it can't be helped, now.  Within reason as specified by this case. The courts have ruled and I will respect the ruling.

Less risks,  If I were to go to church that would be a direct infection.  You can't shield yourself from all the idiots. Also at work they would be required to follow covid guildlines, so less risk to me.   In America the different types of freedom will always clash.  In this case the courts ruled this one situation in that way.  There will always be idiots,  if they want to go to church it can't be helped, now.  Within reason as specified by this case. The courts have ruled and I will respect the ruling.

So, getting infected at a chirch-goer's job is not a direct infection?

By your definition ALL infections are indirect except for patient zero.

 

The mask nazis had 3 testimonies for their bill and dozens againts.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The mask nazis had 3 testimonies for their bill and dozens againts.

And the committee passed it 12-1.

I suspect these traitors laugh behind closed doors at the naive/delusional nature of people who submit testimony thinking it could possibly have any influence on the fascist authoritarian statists who couldn't care less how many ordinary citizens oppose their agenda to issue liberty crushing diktats (be they about guns, SAFETY CULT restrictions, small business "regulations", etc., etc., etc.) day after day.

Double masking works!

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/covid-2021-02-10/card/aJXNzIW8OJ5G0R6bQFTm?mod=e2tw