• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"A California Church Was Still Meeting, So the Landlord Changed the Locks"

Skwim

Veteran Member
.


"When your pastor insists on hold in-person church services in the midst of a pandemic, and when government mandates against large gatherings are avoided by church members, what can the community do to protect public health?

Take a tip from the landlord of a church in central California: He changed the locks so they couldn’t meet.

Members of the Cross Culture Christian Center in Lodi showed up for service on Sunday, only to find they couldn’t get inside the building. Their landlord, part of the Bethel Open Bible Church, blocked them a week after the San Joaquin County Health Department told the church it had to shut down. Lodi police officers even gave them a cease and desist order.


“I’m not thrilled in general with the restriction on religious liberties,” said Jeremy Duncan, the pastor’s brother. “Especially during what is Christian’s most holy week.”

His brother, Pastor Jon Duncan, had continued to hold in-person services despite the coronavirus outbreak.

“We’re going to meet as often as we can meet, and we do believe that this right is protected by the 1st Amendment and should be considered essential,” Duncan said in an interview with Fox 40 last week.

Remember: All of these churches could easily live-stream their services. Many pastors across the country are delivering sermons via Zoom or Facebook. It’s not ideal, but it works."
source

So, a restriction on religious liberties as claimed, or not?
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
1-5e8b6b1d5c5de__700.jpg
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Normally, changing the locks of an occupying tenant is
an extremely legally risky thing to do, with severe
financial consequences. But in this case, I'd do it.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
.


"When your pastor insists on hold in-person church services in the midst of a pandemic, and when government mandates against large gatherings are avoided by church members, what can the community do to protect public health?

Take a tip from the landlord of a church in central California: He changed the locks so they couldn’t meet.

Members of the Cross Culture Christian Center in Lodi showed up for service on Sunday, only to find they couldn’t get inside the building. Their landlord, part of the Bethel Open Bible Church, blocked them a week after the San Joaquin County Health Department told the church it had to shut down. Lodi police officers even gave them a cease and desist order.


“I’m not thrilled in general with the restriction on religious liberties,” said Jeremy Duncan, the pastor’s brother. “Especially during what is Christian’s most holy week.”

His brother, Pastor Jon Duncan, had continued to hold in-person services despite the coronavirus outbreak.

“We’re going to meet as often as we can meet, and we do believe that this right is protected by the 1st Amendment and should be considered essential,” Duncan said in an interview with Fox 40 last week.

Remember: All of these churches could easily live-stream their services. Many pastors across the country are delivering sermons via Zoom or Facebook. It’s not ideal, but it works."
source
So, a restriction on religious liberties as claimed, or not?
According to the First Amendment, if religious groups can continue to meet in large groups -- then so can any other large group for whatever reason it chooses. The Amendment speaks of the establishment and practice of religion, but also speaks of the right of assembly.

Therefore, those pastors who make their absurd claim are making, by extension, that the government has zero right to try to protect anyone at all in the event of a pandemic.

You know, I have the strongest possible feeling that the Framers (who knew zero about viruses) could not have had any such thing in mind.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Normally, changing the locks of an occupying tenant is
an extremely legally risky thing to do, with severe
financial consequences. But in this case, I'd do it.
To elaborate....
The public health aspect overwhelms the tenant's right to use the property.
They run the risk of increasing the infection rate, thereby endangering others.
I suspect that a judge would very likely be sympathetic to rekeying.
I might even avoid having to pay damages.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You know, I have the strongest possible feeling that the Framers (who knew zero about viruses) could not have had any such thing in mind.

Even though they didn't know about viruses or bacteria, they most certainly knew about epidemics and pandemics. The Black Death had outbreaks in the early 1700's, smallpox was still a big concern, measles was a major *killer*, and many bacterial diseases we can simply cure today were the causes of epidemics prior to the last century.

And yes, the concept of quarantine was known and accepted as a way to fight such outbreaks, even though the reason was not known.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I suspect that a judge would very likely be sympathetic to rekeying.
One would think that using a building for unlawful purposes would carry some weight, even in The People's Democratic Republic of California.

There might be more Democratic people than Republican people, but not that many more.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
One would think that using a building for unlawful purposes would carry some weight, even in The People's Democratic Republic of California.
You're generally correct.
But all hinges on which judge one gets at a trial.
One can never be certain of the outcome.

As one of my lawyers (what a shame that it must be plural)
told me, if you have an open & shut case with all the evidence
& law on your side, most of the time you will win.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
And all you need to do is listen to those preachers...and you'll know it's all about protecting their benefice.
Actually, I listen to doctors and it seems like it is about them protecting THEIR benefice, and the drug companies as the help each other ;)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Sadly (for you) I think you might actually be serious. :tearsofjoy:

That's the going statement by the multitudes :D

WOWSER!

According to research from The Economist Intelligence Unit as described by Deloitte, while global annual health spending reached $7.077 trillion dollars in 2015, this metric should balloon to $8.734 trillion dollars by 2020.

The medical profession MUST be in it for the money ;) just listen to them.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Actually, I listen to doctors and it seems like it is about them protecting THEIR benefice, and the drug companies as the help each other ;)
FYI, even though I'd change the locks,
I wouldn't enjoy it. I wouldn't want to
stop anyone from their churchgoing.
But this damn pandemic....hate it.
 
Top