Tony Spell has church in spite of the ban

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Posted by Connie Bernard. Yes, I know Spell isn’t UPC.

I’m thrilled that Brother Bernard’s wife endorses his opinion of the constitution. I have known that this is how he interprets it.

He is wrong. Him studying the constitution doesn’t make him right. Almost all legal cases have attorneys arguing both sides of the case. All attorneys have studied, and passed the bar. Almost all cases have one attorney that is ruled against by either a judge or jury. In other words, that attorney was wrong. Brother Bernard is the attorney that is wrong.


I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Brother Spell has an attorney, that has studied constitutional law, that believes he is on sound legal footing. It’s called an opinion.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m thrilled that Brother Bernard’s wife endorses his opinion of the constitution. I have known that this is how he interprets it.

He is wrong. Him studying the constitution doesn’t make him right. Almost all legal cases have attorneys arguing both sides of the case. All attorneys have studied, and passed the bar. Almost all cases have one attorney that is ruled against by either a judge or jury. In other words, that attorney was wrong. Brother Bernard is the attorney that is wrong.


I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Brother Spell has an attorney, that has studied constitutional law, that believes he is on sound legal footing. It’s called an opinion.

And I just read your opinion.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And I just read your opinion.

Yes you did. My point is that someone having a legal opinion is not much different than having an opinion on the weather. Even if it goes to the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate in our country. There are normally two opinions written, the majority opinion, and the dissenting opinion (providing the opinion is not unanimous).

Do you know of Trey Gowdy?

Here’s his opinion on religious liberty, in general.

https://youtu.be/DmpoYb-hA1s

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Yes you did. My point is that someone having a legal opinion is not much different than having an opinion on the weather. Even if it goes to the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate in our country. There are normally two opinions written, the majority opinion, and the dissenting opinion (providing the opinion is not unanimous).

Do you know of Trey Gowdy?

Here’s his opinion on religious liberty, in general.

https://youtu.be/DmpoYb-hA1s

Yes, I know Trey Gowdy. He was the premier lawmaker who couldn’t get an indictment for Hillary who beat the devil out of her computers after she bleached them.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, I know Trey Gowdy. He was the premier lawmaker who couldn’t get an indictment for Hillary who beat the devil out of her computers after she bleached them.

It probably was not quite like you make it sound. I believe he was investigating her. It probably wasn’t his decision to indict. As the saying goes, “you can indict a ham sandwich”. Brother Spell has, if I understand correctly, been indicted. He has not been convicted. There is a difference. I don’t believe even Trey Gowdy could get a conviction on this indictment. I’m pretty sure, he would never attempt to.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m thrilled that Brother Bernard’s wife endorses his opinion of the constitution. I have known that this is how he interprets it.

He is wrong. Him studying the constitution doesn’t make him right. Almost all legal cases have attorneys arguing both sides of the case. All attorneys have studied, and passed the bar. Almost all cases have one attorney that is ruled against by either a judge or jury. In other words, that attorney was wrong. Brother Bernard is the attorney that is wrong.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Brother Spell has an attorney, that has studied constitutional law, that believes he is on sound legal footing. It’s called an opinion.

Besides your opinion that he's wrong, do you have a source Case?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

Besides your opinion that he's wrong, do you have a source Case?

No I do not.

Did Brother Bernard quote case history?

My guess would be that there is no case history, as far as it going to the Supreme Court. That may change. My opinion is that it will never get that far. It is pretty obvious to me.

In my opinion.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

No I do not.

Did Brother Bernard quote case history?

My guess would be that there is no case history, as far as it going to the Supreme Court. That may change. My opinion is that it will never get that far. It is pretty obvious to me.

In my opinion.

No, he cited what he learned from Constitutional law. I asked because I'm interested in whether there is or not.

""As a matter of US constitutional law (which I studied in law school), the government does have the right to enact measures for health and safety. Thus, churches must follow building, fire, and health codes. Governments routinely shut down meetings, including church services, that violate these safety regulations. It can't discriminate against churches, and it must use the least restrictive means possible.""

Is any of this false or incorrect?

Has it ever been challenged? I haven't found any challenges yet. If these measures remain in effect or continue to be extended again and again, there may be some more churches who begin to defy and challenge these state executive orders.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

No, he cited what he learned from Constitutional law. I asked because I'm interested in whether there is or not.

""As a matter of US constitutional law (which I studied in law school), the government does have the right to enact measures for health and safety. Thus, churches must follow building, fire, and health codes. Governments routinely shut down meetings, including church services, that violate these safety regulations. It can't discriminate against churches, and it must use the least restrictive means possible.""

Is any of this false or incorrect?

Has it ever been challenged? I haven't found any challenges yet. If these measures remain in effect or continue to be extended again and again, there may be some more churches who begin to defy and challenge these state executive orders.

Did you watch the video?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m thrilled that Brother Bernard’s wife endorses his opinion of the constitution. I have known that this is how he interprets it.

He is wrong. Him studying the constitution doesn’t make him right. Almost all legal cases have attorneys arguing both sides of the case. All attorneys have studied, and passed the bar. Almost all cases have one attorney that is ruled against by either a judge or jury. In other words, that attorney was wrong. Brother Bernard is the attorney that is wrong.


I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Brother Spell has an attorney, that has studied constitutional law, that believes he is on sound legal footing. It’s called an opinion.

Well, it’s pretty obvious that Brother Spell has found some attorneys, or perhaps been found by some attorneys, that believe Brother Bernard is wrong, according to the video that nDavid posted.

Amazing how judges and attorneys can read the same law, and arrive at different conclusions. It reminds me of here on AFF how people can read the same Bible and come up with different opinions.