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]

#81

Post by LudwigNagasena » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #52

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.

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…

I edited my comment to say "some non-essential businesses" to avoid implication that all non-essential businesses were opened which I didn't intend.

>Churches are not given an exception to those rules, which still bar similar things like concerts.

This was the decision of the Supreme Court. The Pentecostal Church and the dissenting judges think differently.

>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.

These are cases on nuanced applications of the law. The idea that churches have to follow building codes, labor laws and health laws is a settled matter.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #78

cma wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by ineedasername » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #80

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 wor…

I'm not sure that is very on point. Secular businesses are something different in gathering type than Church services. And when it comes to gatherings where there would be similar close contact inside with often static groups of people, the Supreme Court majority properly made that comparison: "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances."

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

#84

Post by thephyber » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

whoopdedo wrote: post #65

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…

As a legal bystander, I often feel the Supreme Court writes dissenting opinions for future-proofing the law. Regardless of whether they think the opposing argument is good or not, they don't want to lock a different generation into having to obey present day opinions that would be unsuitable for the country as it will be then. The dissenting opinion can be cited as justification for changing the precedent, allowing t…

Perhaps, but it doesn't take a minority opinion to do so. When Muhammed Ali (formerly Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.) was charged with draft dodging, the SOCTUS ruled[1] 8-0 in favor of him, but specifically tailored the ruling to only him and not other draft dodgers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States#Opinion_...

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

#85

Post by calinux » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

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.).

There was more to the case than just CA issue. The even bigger point was the Illinois Governor and especially the Chicago mayor effectively banning all church gatherings for a year or more until a vaccine is developed. The case was brought by some churches that when reopened they went fully above what CDC and the law required for Walmarts, Targets etc as safety measures keeping 2 feet distance, masks, sanitizer.. And in the end this was based on the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law in respecting religious an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof...

If retail stores and restaurants can reopen, why are their doors staying closed especially given the measures taken to prevent any transmission?

You can follow up on the article below.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/5/10/21253844/...

There is so much more to the story.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1021460120197827...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1021460494447183...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1021462636128723...

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

#86

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

The ruling has not been issued. This is about an injunction before the ruling.

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

#87

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

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…

Cannabis dispensaries are currently closed except for medical patients (I know, but if a doctor has written a prescription it is hard for the government to say no), and then only for curbside pickup. See here for example: https://www.airfieldsupplyco.com/mmj-recommendations

So churches clearly have more access these days which makes that argument silly.

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

#88

Post by thephyber » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

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…

> I think saying religion is equivalent to sports is pretty strange.

Attending "church" is functionally different from "religion". The performance aspect of church is much closer to actors participating in a common theater. The other aspects of religion can be performed outside of church and usually without gathering physically in a communal room.

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

#89

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #78

cma wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The were part is the key here, currently churches have more opportunity to be open (at least in bay area), so that part does not make sense.

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

#90

Post by treis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #83

treis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wor…

I'm not sure that is very on point. Secular businesses are something different in gathering type than Church services. And when it comes to gatherings where there would be similar close contact inside with often static groups of people, the Supreme Court majority properly made that comparison: "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performanc…

But less severe restrictions apply to other things deemed "essential" or that require physical attendance. And that's the crux of the issue. The government can't declare churches "non-essential" and close them.