Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#51

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #48

fastball wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dissent explicitly lists: > "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. " I think saying religion is equivalent to sports is pretty strange. People clearly place way more importance overall on religion than they do on sports, even in a country that's pretty crazy about sport. I would de…

The question isn't one of importance, but of the danger to individuals from partaking in the activity. Yes, speaking constitutionally, shopping malls are less important than churches. But that doesn't matter if a church service is a religious concerts and concerts (religious or secular) aren't allowed.

Just note that shopping malls are closed in California so that is not a reasonable argument. But for example Tesla manufacturing is reopened, is that a comparable activity? I think this whole case is clearly subjective and should not be of course. It would be useful to have a general rule what a church is comparable to.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#52

Post by gumby » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #46

gumby wrote: post #17

Two thoughts on apolitical, pragmatic grounds: This is a good ruling regardless of the importance of religious beliefs one might have. Churches are still subject to baseline rules like building codes, food safety (if they have a kitchen), have to pay their phone bill or else lose phone services,and the like. This represents an appropriate segregation of responsibility and allows parishioners to participate without ha…

The ruling wasn’t about whether churches should abide by restrictions. And it is ridiculous to frame it that way. A case like this probably would never make it to the Supreme Court. The question was whether it is discriminatory to open some non-essential businesses but keep churches closed.

I disagree.

In CA (this case was about a california rule) certain non-essential businesses are opened under heavy restrictions which include contact and congregation rules. Churches are not given an exception to those rules, which still bar similar things like concerts.

And cases like that most definitely have and do reach the Supreme Court: consider hobby lobby or this year’s rulings on teachers at religious schools.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#53

Post by gumby » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:07 PM UTC

aspenmayer wrote: post #49

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruling wasn’t about whether churches should abide by restrictions. And it is ridiculous to frame it that way. A case like this probably would never make it to the Supreme Court. The question was whether it is discriminatory to open some non-essential businesses but keep churches closed.

It’s arguable that churches conduct essentially business per se, but they do provide a venue to conduct Constitutionally-protected activity.

They take in revenues and provide services — is that not the very definition of a business? A food bank does the same and is a business.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#54

Post by flyingcroissant » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

generalpass wrote: post #36

flyingcroissant wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash.

> It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash. They were both wearing helmets.

I did not say that wearing a helmet guaranteed that no motorcycle rider would ever be injured.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#55

Post by fmajid » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #29

dvt wrote: post #8

Just to be clear, as it seems not many people actually read the ruling, this is not an injunction on gatherings, but a ruling on the restrictions imposed (e.g. only 25% capacity, maximum of 100, etc.).

The rules that were challenged were the 25% capacity and no more than 100 people rules that newsom issued recently, after public outcry that the original rules (no church until phase 3) were inappropriate. The church in question seems to have focused on the 25% capacity portion of the new rules.

How are those rules different from the Fire Marshall rules on maximum occupancy?

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#56

Post by onetimemanytime » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #9

The only thing that should be surprising about this ruling is the dissent. They can’t cite any applicable case law because there isn’t any. Up until now the Court has always treated the states’ (note states and not federal) police power in a pandemic to be near plenary. This is in line with English common law that developed under the shadow of the repeated waves of Bubonic Plague. Maybe that should change in light of…

First, I think it's stupid to go to church (and the likes these times). That's my opinion considering the risk, and god should accept your prayers from home. Or "he" should get rid of the virus. That said, the dissent is not without merit: are all businesses limited to 25% occupancy or 100 or less people? If you risk getting /spreading the virus in a religious setting, you risk the same at malls or whatever.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#57

Post by wildmusings » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

It is really going to be a farce when the same jurisdictions that so zealously enforced the lockdown against churches, the same governors that threatened and said vitriolic things about small anti-lockdown protests, now refuse to enforce those same rules against the people organizing and involved in these mass protests.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#58

Post by wnoise » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #24

bradleyjg wrote: post #9

The only thing that should be surprising about this ruling is the dissent. They can’t cite any applicable case law because there isn’t any. Up until now the Court has always treated the states’ (note states and not federal) police power in a pandemic to be near plenary. This is in line with English common law that developed under the shadow of the repeated waves of Bubonic Plague. Maybe that should change in light of…

I too am dissapointed that this ruling was not unanimous, but the majority opinion is not much better. Both opinions seem to agree on the law generally, in that restrictions on places of worship must be no more onerous than restrictions on "comparable" secular activities. The dispute is what qualifies as comporable. The majority feels that services are comparable to "theatrical performances, where large groups of peo…

Well, yes, because the right answer is so obvious they felt no need to make citations.

Usually they "take judicial notice"; but for some obvious things even invoking those words is skipped, because the fact doesn't even rise to the level of scrutiny.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#59

Post by ryandrake » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

aspenmayer wrote: post #49

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruling wasn’t about whether churches should abide by restrictions. And it is ridiculous to frame it that way. A case like this probably would never make it to the Supreme Court. The question was whether it is discriminatory to open some non-essential businesses but keep churches closed.

It’s arguable that churches conduct essentially business per se, but they do provide a venue to conduct Constitutionally-protected activity.

We should be distinguishing between "essential" activities and "constitutionally-protected" activities. They are different axes with only some overlap. Not everything that is constitutionally-protected is essential, and not everything that is essential is constitutionally protected. For example, the right to food is not guaranteed by the constitution but we can probably agree that stores providing food to the public are essential, because without food we die.

While freedom to believe in a religion is constitutionally protected, I think it can be strongly argued that congregating shoulder-to-shoulder in a confined space while shouting and singing is not an essential activity and should be restricted during a deadly global pandemic. Freedom of speech is protected too, but we don't see libraries in a rush to open up.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#60

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:15 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #41

Meekro wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether there is a pandemic or not isn't given great weight by either side. Both sides implicitly agree that California isn't allowed to go out of its way to penalize churches, but they disagree on whether it has done that. Robert's order says that "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances." He concludes that California is not singl…

You don’t need much in the way of reasoning, or any really, to deny an emergency stay order. The presumption is and should be very much against.

That is another good observation that was hard to understand at first to someone very familiar with law (like myself). It would be a very strong action for the supreme court to take action here. The dissent doesn't really say why it would be irreparable damage to keep churches closed a little bit longer.