Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 267 posts

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

#71

Post by jawns »

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 justices, though they don’t face elections, sometimes describe themselves as politicians

Could you cite examples of them saying that?

Generally, the justices go out of the way to insist that they are not political. See, for instance:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-chiefjustice/u-...

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

#72

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

wildmusings wrote: post #57

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.

It will be, but that’s not super relevant to this case. California didn’t enforce restrictions with any particular zeal and Newsom didn’t get mad about the lockdown protests.

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

#73

Post by cma »

Meekro wrote: post #33
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…

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…

> cannabis dispensaries

I’ve never seen a cannabis dispensary where masses of people crowd together and sing spittle into each other’s faces.

Surely when looking at same treatment, you have to consider the differences in exposure. Plus church can feasibly be done remotely, where cannabis dispensing involves some physical transfer (could be mandated to be delivery though, and no singing and reduced capacity could be mandated for church gatherings).

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

#74

Post by chadlavi »

fastball wrote: post #44
kmonsen wrote: post #27

The key part of the dissent is what is a comparable “business” to a church service. I think it is sports arrangement, or perhaps political arrangement, and the Supreme Court justices believe It is a supermarket and manufacturing. I’m not sure how we could find common ground or understand each other. I do believe the governor could have made the case better by stating restrictions (6 feet personal space, no sharing dr…

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…

It's functionally equivalent to a sporting event in terms of crowds and space usage. A large group of people gather to observe something on a regularly scheduled basis.

It even has more important events that typically draw larger crowds (high holidays/playoffs).

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

#75

Post by joshuamorton »

fmajid wrote: post #55
gnicholas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The church's claim is that since other businesses, such as grocery stores, don't have occupancy limits[0], that enforcing occupancy limits on churches is discriminatory.

The state argues that churches aren't like grocery stores, but like concert halls or theaters, which remain closed and will likely have similar occupancy caps when. The state also goes a bit further and notes that churches include singing, speech, and audience participation that isn't common in other places like grocery stores and theaters, which increase the dangers of spreading respiratory droplets.

The majority essentially agreed that Churches are more like concerts than grocery stores, and that treating them similarly is reasonable in an emergency situation. The minority disagreed.

[0]: I'm unclear on this, the grocery stores I go to do have 1-in-1-out policies and capacity caps. Lines go out the door and are socially distanced.

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

#76

Post by lmkg »

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.

But churches are open, subject to certain restrictions which also apply to secular businesses. The question is which set of restrictions they should be subject to: those for concerts and movie theaters, or those for grocery stores.

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

#77

Post by LudwigNagasena »

lmkg wrote: post #76
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.

But churches are open, subject to certain restrictions which also apply to secular businesses. The question is which set of restrictions they should be subject to: those for concerts and movie theaters, or those for grocery stores.

The churches were opened mid-process as I understand.

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

#78

Post by Lammy »

cma wrote: post #73
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…

> cannabis dispensaries I’ve never seen a cannabis dispensary where masses of people crowd together and sing spittle into each other’s faces. Surely when looking at same treatment, you have to consider the differences in exposure. Plus church can feasibly be done remotely, where cannabis dispensing involves some physical transfer (could be mandated to be delivery though, and no singing and reduced capacity could be m…

There are (or 'were', at the moment) plenty of dispensaries with smoking rooms in the back full of people exhaling their droplets.

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

#79

Post by thephyber »

TheBobinator wrote: post #61
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…

Historically, The states power was plenary is because everyone had first hand observational knowledge of the pandemic; they lost friends, family, acquantences, and so forth. Nobody on the street knew how bad it was at the time until statisticians had time to study records from the time, which to be frank, took decades. We're becoming a technological society; most people recieved life-saving information directly from…

> they are not using language such as "places of worship" or "Religious instutitions"

You mean like if the USA would change "In God we Trust" to "In God, Yahweh, Allah, Buddah, et al we Trust"? There has long been a bias in the USA towards the predominant religious institution away from the minority ones.

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

#80

Post by treis »

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…

>They can’t cite any applicable case law

There's several cases cited in the dissent. Succinctly the argument is:

>“restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom.” Robertsv. Neace, 958 F. 3d 409, 414 (CA6 2020) (per curiam). What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification.

Which seems on point to me.

Post reply on HN