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]

#91

Post by tomnipotent » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

steve_g wrote: post #62

irrational wrote: post #5

I’m religious and attend(ed) church weekly. I think this is great news. These idiots who are still trying to gather for church are so incredibly selfish.

I don't think it's fair to say that people who make a different assessment of risks and/or have different risk tolerance than you are "incredibly selfish". Lockdown, social distancing, mask-wearing, and other related changes in behavior are all about trade-offs in the face of uncertainty. Maybe you're right - but maybe you're wrong.

> different assessment of risks and/or have different risk tolerance

I could care less about their personal assessment of risk, what I care about is that they go on to put other people at risk through these shenanigans. Someone willing to go to a crowded church during a pandemic intersects highly with people willing to go into other public spaces during a pandemic. I don't want to be put at risk because of their stupidity. They're not just making decisions that effect themselves.

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

#92

Post by nsajko » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

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…

> ... the Supreme Court is using the term "church" in their writing ...

This seems to be an established practice, though, as in "wall of separation between church and state", or "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.". I believe the "church" is used independently from religion, but I hope somebody can confirm that...

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

#93

Post by perl4ever » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #59

aspenmayer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I just find it weird that nobody is bringing up Matthew 6:5. I can hardly imagine any example of "praying to be seen by men" purer than the politicization of opening churches right now. I have this feeling like, surely the cognitive dissonance will hit any minute now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5

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

#94

Post by gnicholas » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #51

joshuamorton wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Malls are allowed to open in California, and they are opening.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article242962581.html

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

#95

Post by pnw_hazor » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:53 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…

The court is letting states decide that religious practice is non-essential or less essential as compared to some selected commercial activities.

I don't think a state or the US should be allowed to make that determination.

Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion.

This is not really something the state can reason about.

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

#96

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

The difference between respecting a right and not can be seen by how much restraint goes into crafting the law. The details can get murky, but often the spirit is plain to see: was a good faith effort made to specialize the law to the problem being solved with minimal interference on any rights?

Here, the California order doesn't ban going to church, it places additional building capacity and total attendance limits.

There are complications though -- the longer these emergency orders drag on, the more skeptical we should be. They should be reviewed frequently, enforced moderately, and lifted promptly along with other similar activities. Surely it would turn into disrespecting the right if ballparks and concerts reopen first.

Another complication is the idea of protests. While limiting the capacity of a church doesn't completely deny religious services; limiting protests strikes more at the heart of the first amendment and our ability to challenge decisions at all.

The closing of gun stores is also problematic. It seems many gun stores in California have been ordered completely closed (not sure about state/county/city status), when other retail establishments remain open. A farmers market near my house is offering pony rides, the Starbucks and the Baskin Robbins are open, as are liquor stores and probably dispensaries. I think there is a real Constitutional issue there, and if it makes it to SCOTUS I would expect an injunction allowing gun stores to remain open.

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

#97

Post by nsajko » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #79

TheBobinator wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> bias in the USA towards the predominant religious institution away from the minority ones

Are you sure that is the case at the federal level? Some states or governors may sometimes do something like you suggest, but I think at least the Supreme Court is more reasonable. Some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...

> In God, Yahweh, Allah, Buddah, et al we Trust

Some comments, a bit off topic:

* "In God We Trust" only became the US motto in 1956, presumably because of the "Red Scare"

* Allah = Christian God = Yahweh, so your proposed motto sounds stupid. (Though I think I read somewhere of a theory that the Torah is actually an aggregate work, so that different parts actually speak about different gods, or something like that...)

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

#98

Post by gnicholas » Sat, May 30, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

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 fire marshal rules take into account the size of each building and the number of exits. Newsom’s rules subject small churches and large churches to the same 100-person cap, regardless of building size.

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

#99

Post by lowdose » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #96

The difference between respecting a right and not can be seen by how much restraint goes into crafting the law. The details can get murky, but often the spirit is plain to see: was a good faith effort made to specialize the law to the problem being solved with minimal interference on any rights? Here, the California order doesn't ban going to church, it places additional building capacity and total attendance limits.…

Are you advocating gun stores have to remain open for the right of the people to own a gun?

Why would anybody need a gun right now while their biggest life treat is a virus?

Please lord more riots with more people having guns would be a plead from Anders Breivik. Does that guy have internet these days?

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

#100

Post by AdrianB1 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

I am not a lawyer, just an IT guy trying to use logic: the rights in the US Constitution and amendments don't exist. They are not worth the paper they are printed on, because reasoning like this can kill each and every one with the death of a thousand cuts: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation" (source: Wikipedia article Free_Exercise_Clause).

That reasoning tells that a law (the "criminal law") beats the Constitution by putting restrictions on a Constitutional right. First, it means the law should be considered unconstitutional by any decent logic, but SCOTUS decisions tells it is not. Enough cuts, rights are dead - free speech is the one that mostly exists, second amendment is heavily stripped in most states, fourth and fifth are regularly voided, probably a good lawyer can give examples for all.

What I am telling is that if people consider some rights should be limited, the Constitution should be amended, not ignored. Two wrongs don't make a right, if something in the Constitution is wrong (the rights are too absolute) then raping the Constitution does not make it right.

Please explain me where I am wrong in terms that use logic, especially for someone like me that is a complete foreigner (I live in Europe) and not familiar with these apparent wrongdoings. I am not saying anything in support or against this decision, I am saying this decision does not make sense in the context of the US Constitution text.