Chicago's lesbian mayor, Lori Lightfoot, launched a police raid on Sunday on a predominately black church for holding services in defiance of her coronavirus shutdown orders • /s/BiblicalSubmission

submitted by calmbluejay from saidit.net

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 16 insightful - 4 fun16 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 4 fun -  (104 children)

So? You don't get special exceptions to illness or disease because of your beliefs. Worse, you still hurt others. Your recourse is in the law, not in breaking that law and disrespecting or possibly killing your fellow citizenry.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 26 insightful - 3 fun26 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 3 fun -  (93 children)

You don't get special exceptions to illness or disease because of your beliefs.

Constitutionally protected rights cannot be made illegal. Freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, and freedom protest are protected.

It is illegal to infringe on these rights. She is an enemy of freedom.

She is an elected official. She should be arrested immediately, and tried for treason.

If people are afraid of getting the flu then they can stay home.

Edit: Please watch this 2 min video and form your own opinion of Lightfoot.

Chicago Mayor Lightfoot What Did She Say???

I would never in a million years have guessed the words that come out of her mouth in the last 20 seconds.

It is a truth bomb that should be an immediate call to arms.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (92 children)

Rights are not absolute things like magical incantations. The courts have throughout the country repeatedly backed up that the states have the authority to inhibit or alter your rights in all kinds of conditions, such as arrest, and in the event of a pandemic. Successive supreme court rulings over the past 100 years repeatedly affirm the ability for states to declare quarantines, as well as close and regulate businesses, and these include places of worship so long as it is not explicitly a prohibition on only places of worship or specific ones.

In other words, no, your rights are not magically immutable just because you don't care about other people. This is because, unlike children, normal adults understand their actions can infringe on the rights of others. Such as their right to liberty and happiness. Can't be very happy if a bunch of tantrum throwing toddlers in adult bodies are spreading around a disease, now can you?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 19 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 4 fun -  (16 children)

Rights are not absolute things like magical incantations.

Yes they are. They are inherent and inalienable.

Criminal courts have interfered and attempted to sabotage there's rights.

Making laws does not change the inalienable nature of human rights.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

You are factually wrong.

"States may also take more drastic measures, such as requiring citizens to be tested or vaccinated, even against their will. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a state law requiring everyone to be vaccinated against smallpox. Henning Jacobson refused vaccination and was convicted. The court upheld the law and Jacobson’s conviction.

“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”"

In any event, rights are things granted by people. They do not exist in a vacuum. What rights one ought to have is a matter for debate, not some law in nature. You don't have the right to get other people sick, nor the right to ignore constitutionally valid emergencies.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 15 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

You are factually wrong.

He was never vaccinated.

He payed a $5 fine. Checkmate.

It would seem obvious to me that you're true purpose is to come here to shill for big pharma.

Even so. The courts were criminal in forcing him to pay a fine.

The US is obligated to follow the Geneva convention treaty.

Forced vaccinations are considered human experimentation.

Forced vaccinations are illegal under the Geneva convention and international law.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

....???? And there are fines and possible jail time for violating emergency orders.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

And they are still unconstitutional, and illegal.

Emergency orders are not laws.

There are many criminals in positions of power in the US.
Lori Lightfoot is a treasonous criminal.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Not an argument.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

I accept your surrender.

It would appear you have finally run out of scripted pharma rebuttals.

[–]Dragonerne 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

In any event, rights are things granted by people.

ROFL. How old are you?
You have positive and negative rights. Positive rights are granted while negative rights can only be taken from you. Positive right is "universal healthcare" or "public education". Negative rights are free speech, freedom of assembly etc. You're born with negative rights and you do not infringe on anyone, while positive rights are granted to you and upheld by forcing others to deliver a service to you that they may or may not want to give you.
Negative rights are not up for debate. You're born with them. Society can decide to strip you of your negative rights but it can only do so if it has the power to do so by force.
If the citizens are willing and able to cause heavy damage to protect their rights, then it's too expensive for society to strip its citizens of their born rights.

The only response to tyrannical abuse of power is to take away the power from those abusing it or cause as much damage as possible to society.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If they're "not up for debate" please point me to the apparent holy tome you base this claim on. If society can choose not to recognize these, where do they begin to be recognized in the first place? It's almost as if you have to argue they exist and, by argument, also find caveats in where the so-called "negative" rights infringe on someone else. You are free to speak, you're just not free to speak in such a manner that transmits a pandemic.

[–]Dragonerne 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You are free to speak, you're just not free to speak in such a manner that transmits a pandemic.

I am free to speak. I was born free to speak.
If you want to infringe on my right, then be prepared that I defend myself.
To "You're not allowed to speak"
I can only answer: Ask my gun.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Look, you want to give away your rights, you do that soy boy. You lie down and let corporations decide everything for you. Its your right to do that. Just understand, that like the ground under my feet, you are beneath me.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The threat of force is the only authority GovCorp has.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Great response. +3

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

[–]Dragonerne 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

She is violating their rights. This church can always retaliate and take away her rights too. This is what 2A is for.

[–]FediNetizen 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Yeah, that's the way to approach this. Pastor has to limit himself to webcasts for a while? Lets just start murdering people.

[–]Dragonerne 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Yes exactly. Don't tread on our rights if you want to live.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

"I can't get other people sick so I'll shoot people trying to stop me"

[–]jamesK_3rd 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

She has allowed other methods of assembly, including multiple and numerous "protests", large mass gatherings for George Floyyd, antifa rallies, and some LGBT parades just to name a few.

She's singling out religious groups and individuals, but she allows the now dominant religion, atheism and it's followers to worship and celebrate.

Any smart group would take them to court on the above grounds as she's had several news conferences where she stated that protests and parades were ok on 1st amendment grounds.

Lastly, who released you from reddit. Take that group think herd mentality back over there so you can be with the other moral relativists and religious atheists. Please get back to your grindr account, they miss you.

Toodles

[–]Dragonerne 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. It's really terrifying when talking to a person how suddenly the language, the arguments etc. turn into reddit hivemind. You know exactly what is going to be said and the words that's going to be used. It's like the person you're talking to suddenly has been possessed by a demon that has taken control of the body and the thoughts. Very scary actually.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She's a hypocrite. I happen to agree. Your point is?

[–]Dragonerne 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I can go where I please. If you want to infringe on my rights, you better have enough force to prevent me from defending myself. For your own safety.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Lol this is some /r/IAmVeryBadass shit.

[–]Chipit 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

This is some very cringe redditor shit.

Do you have any actual arguments to make other than personal insults?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

My vote is on troll or soon to be in prison. Hopefully he stays away from people in some shack out in the woods, rather than shoots someone innocent because "muh rights".

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not an argument.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As healthy individuals, I find it hard to see how anti-mask/anti-lockdown protestors are spreading disease. I haven't met a single sick person or healed person throughout this entire season. You are so scared we might be sick, when we aren't. It's really sad.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Nope. Your rights are being modified. You can still assemble, just not in person nor viral transmission range. As Fedinetizen pointed out, this is what streaming and computers are for. If you lack a computer, there still exist party lines and broadcasting that can accomplish the same thing. Not being able to do what you want when you want is not an "infringement" on the constitution, you could never do that without subverting somebody else's rights.

[–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

She has allowed other methods of assembly, including multiple and numerous "protests", large mass gatherings for George Floyd, Pantyfa rallies, and some LGBT parades just to name a few, you obese lunkhead

[–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Your rights are being modified.

As are hers and whoever else feels like "modifying" our rights.

Not being able to do what you want when you want is not an "infringement" on the constitution, you could never do that without subverting somebody else's rights.

Exactly. Great. It seems we're in agreement then.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

As are hers and whoever else feels like "modifying" our rights.

"What is the supreme court?"

[–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Ask my gun.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

If you actually lived by this internet tough guy act you'd either be in prison or shot by now. Forgive me if I don't believe you aren't a troll.

[–]Dragonerne 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The founding fathers made sure we had guns for people like you. Forgive me for not giving a fuck about your "debate". Infringe on my rights and be prepared that I do the same to you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You don't even understand what protesting is if you think people can protest by broadcasting shit and following party lines. Real protests get shit done because they made a massive public outcry. IN PUBLIC. You are focusing on the wrong things here.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Can't be very happy if a bunch of tantrum throwing toddlers in adult bodies are spreading around a disease, now can you?

Are you the kind of person who is frightened of the flu.

You probably believe people are in mortal danger if they don't wear masks.

If people are scared of the flu in the middle of summer, then they have the right to lock themselves away from society and live their lives in seclusion.

They do not have the right to steal other people's inalienable rights.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Nope. Insulting me is not a response nor an argument. You're dragging down the pyramid of debate by not actually having one. Obey the site rules. As for the "right", well, yes, emergency powers exist exactly to do that. Pandemics are often under the category of emergency powers. So you're factually wrong.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

In other words, no, your rights are not magically immutable just because you don't care about other people. This is because, unlike children, normal adults understand their actions can infringe on the rights of others. Such as their right to liberty and happiness. Can't be very happy if a bunch of tantrum throwing toddlers in adult bodies are spreading around a disease, now can you?

What was that you were saying about insulting people as a substitute for argument?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Except I made an argument while characterizing the lack of argument from the other side. Ad hominems are in lieu of argument. Fact is, your "rights" are not magic.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, you are calling people who disagree with you children who throw tantrums.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, just the ones who refuse to obey the law and then whine about it when there are consequences for not respecting the rights of others. You know, like toddlers. Literally what children do. If they don't get their way, they throw a tantrum. The argument is that your rights are not magic, nor immutable, because they're things recognized by other people. The state, and the majority of people, do not recognize anybody's right to harm other people wantonly just because they feel like it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The argument is that your rights are not magic, nor immutable, because they're things recognized by other people.

Constitutional rights are immutable. Period.

They are not recognized by other people.

Rights are inalienable.

Rights are given to each individual by God.

If people our the state have to "grant" then, then they are not rights. Privileges are granted.

Rights are inherent, and inseparable. Denying any individual their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS is a crime.

The state, and the majority of people, do not recognize anybody's right to harm other people wantonly just because they feel like it.

People going to church does not infringe on the safety of others.

The Constitution does not grant rights to safety.

There are no right to safety, or right to security.

There are no guarantees in life.

Government traitors are attempting to imprison the world with the pretense of keeping others safe.

It's a fraud.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You really seem to be confused. Just because we have rights doesn't mean we can harm other people. Just because there is an an emergency, doesnt mean we can "modify" our rights. Just because our govcorp says its ok, doesn't make it ok. I am healthy. Who am I harming as a healthy individual, leaving my house without a mask on? NO ONE.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The covid flu pandemic is nominally serious.

More people died of the flu in 2017.

Emergency orders are not laws.

The mayor has no right to supercede the Constitution for any reason. Ever.

She betrayed her oath to defend the constitutional rights of her constituents.

She is a traitor.

She deserves prison for the crimes against the citizens of Chicago.

You are factually wrong.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Emergency powers are both granted by the constitution as well as reinforced by the 10th amendment granting the states any powers not enumerated therein. In other words, pandemic related clauses in various states, under emergency powers granted by their own constitutions and supported by the federal constitution. And the supreme court over the past 100+ years backs me up on this.

So you know the law better than over a century of judges, lawyers, politicians, etc? Or are you just going "NUH UH"?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you know the law better than over a century of judges, lawyers, politicians, etc?

I know that any law that violates the constitutionally protected rights of Americans and visitors to the US is illegal. Unequivocally.

There is no law that supercedes the US Constitution.

I know that courts and lawyers engage in criminal activity to violate these protected rights.

I know Lightfoot took an oath and broke her oath.

Lightfoot is a criminal, a traitor, and oath breaker.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They have no authority besides the threat/use of force.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They never insulted you, while you called them a "tantrum throwing toddler"

[–]Dr_Bukkake 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I see what you are saying but rights are in fact absolute things. There’s a difference between privileges and rights, privileges can be taken away and rights can’t.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

In that case the entire constitution is composed of privileges, if I accept your definition of "rights". Because they are taken away, variously, in various contexts, including contexts provided for in the constitution.

[–]Dr_Bukkake 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There has been amendments but no constitutional rights have ever been taken away.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Uh, yes there are. Felony prisoners lose the ability to vote as well as own firearms, for example. Many rights, including the 1st amendment, were prohibited during WW2 for fear of spies (the origin of much censorship that has been slowly dismantled over the last century). In fact emergency powers explicitly allow the government to infringe on these rights in extremes, such as a pandemic, as upheld by the supreme court.

Perhaps instead of claiming this isn't true, you mean to be saying it "shouldn't" be done this way...?

[–]72ndGender 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In fact emergency powers explicitly allow the government to infringe on these rights in extremes, such as a pandemic, as upheld by the supreme court.

I believe you, but could you provide the case law for this one? Not referencing martial law, of course.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some of those changes were unconstitutional. Just because the established powers at the time okayed it doesn't make it ok. There are plenty of scholars who have spoken about the unconstitutional laws and policies enacted all across the western world. We live in a hypocritical nation.

[–]Questionable 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Rights are not absolute things

Actually they are. How did you become this stupid? Whatever, I'm the one expecting common sense out of a piece of candy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Site rules. Pyramid. Learn them.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Site rules, insults are a part of the pyramid, and not outside of it. Therefore they are a legitimate form of debate. With that in mind, not only do debaters not enforce debate rules, as you are attempting to do here, you're a fat idiot that can suck a fat cock. And choke on it. You stupid faggot.

[–]Velocity 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The 'ol infallible courts meme? The same supreme court that ruled blacks could not be American citizens while implying they were inferior. Rulings allowing for the forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people. Rulings for the forced internment of Japanese citizens. Rulings allowing segregation. Rulings permitting child labor....And on and on.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Um, no. Quote where I said my argument rests on the infallibility of the courts? I'd actually have an argument if any single reply I've gotten has obeyed the site rules and, y'know, offered one.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You implied court decisions validated your premise. The Supreme Court has frequently made very bad decisions. You are appealing to authority as a fallacy. Law supercedes legal.

[–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Go hide under your bed, faggot

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    ABlueSkilttle is a big pharma shill who is here to astroturf support for the lockdown, and a vaccine genocide.

    That's the vaccine agenda endgame.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]just_lesbian_things 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

      You're*

      Lol grammar nazi fail

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      And yet the propagandists upvote it as "insightful" anyway. It's embarrassing that these are their champions. Report for dragging down discussion, block, and move on. They don't want a discussion, so hopefully the rules will be enforced.

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Ahahahahahaha. No. It's "Your". "You're" is "You are" and "because of you are beliefs" is... not correct.

      In terms of bias, I agree, it's unacceptable. Everyone involved in such protests of any kind should've been thrown in jail for mandatory isolation and fined appropriately.

      [–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Everyone involved in such protests of any kind should've been thrown in jail for mandatory isolation and fined appropriately.

      Big pharma here to hype the mild influenza of 2020. Your intentions are transparent.

      Trying to keep the fear perception going.

      You won't find brainwashed sheep here.

      Saiddit it's a community of Rams.

      [–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Your recourse is in the law, not in breaking that law and disrespecting or possibly killing your fellow citizenry.

      What does the constitution say about congress making laws that restrict freedom of assembly? Let's see:
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      You can take your laws up your you-know-what and read the 2A if the first amendment wasn't clear enough.

      [–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Go hide under your bed, faggot

      [–]Chipit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      You don't get special exceptions to illness or disease because of your beliefs.

      Yes you do. Gatherings for left-wing causes are permitted.

      [–]monkeytitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      And you support the riots?

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Nope.