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]

#121

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #93

ryandrake wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

First of all, a religious text is not relevant in us court case, even if about a religious case.

Secondly, Christianity as practiced today is very different and not something Jesus would have understood at all so in many ways the Bible and Jesus is not key to understanding American Christianity.

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

#122

Post by Lammy » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #89

Lammy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If one type of church can be open then why not the other? I acknowledge the risk and wouldn't attend either, but the double standard seems apparent to me.

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

#123

Post by toast0 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:23 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…

How much caselaw would there be on comparison of churches to other venues where people gather?

What sort of disputes in the past would have revolved around the similarities or differences? Perhaps disputes about zoning or occupancy permits? You don't see a whole lot of that kind of dispute rising through the courts to make a lot of case law.

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

#124

Post by irrational » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:24 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.

Someone could go to a church meeting in one state and get the virus and then give it to someone else who gives it to someone else who gives it to me. x1000. That is selfish. They aren’t giving a single thought for the potential ramifications of their actions on people they’ve never met. Acting in such a way that potentially many people could die, when all you would have had to do was stay home, is the very definition of selfishness.

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

#125

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #104

ryandrake wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As we know, rights are not absolute. US law has developed such that commercial activities, including commercial speech can be subject to more limitations than non-commercial activities. Also, US law has also generally held that political and religious activities are the most protected. This doesn't mean that anything goes, it is just that the government needs a really good reason to interfere. If Covid-19 rules restr…

Should it not be the side they want the stay that had to prove irreparable harm? I see no evidence for this in the dissenting opinion.

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

#126

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #81

gumby wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

Also hobby lobby was not granted a stay as far as I’m aware, they had to wait for the final ruling.

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

#127

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:26 PM UTC

lowdose wrote: post #99

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?

You actually want the gun stores to remain open. Why? Because closing them just feeds into the hoarding mentality that causes people to buy irrational numbers of guns when they are available. If someone feels like they can walk into a gun store any time they want and buy a gun with no hassle, they won't be in any rush. And for certain kinds of people, there's a big element of "the government doesn't want me to have this thing... here's a pile of cash, I'll take 12 and stick it to 'em".

Since you asked, the right to keep and bear arms includes the ability of ellegible people to buy them, along with ammunition, and make use of practice/training facilities.

Part of having a right means you don't need to explain it to anyone else. You can exercise your right, and if someone is curious why you did what you did (past tense), then you can choose to explain it to them. Nobody gets to ask "why" as a condition of exercising a right; otherwise it's not a right, it's a privilege.

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

#128

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

gnicholas wrote: post #98

fmajid wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fire rules take into account many factors to ensure the health & safety of the people in the building. A hard cap on attendance (it's 25% or 100, whichever is smaller, by the way) during a pandemic is another example of accounting for factors to protect health & safety.

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

#129

Post by gamblor956 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #100

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 co…

The Constitution protects religious beliefs not religious practices. Restrictions on religious practices was considered acceptable.

Similarly, the content of speech is protected, but the action performed by that speech (for examine, incitement) is not.

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

#130

Post by toast0 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #93

ryandrake wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not really the Supreme Court's job to interpret a religion's sacred texts and tell the adherents that they're doing it wrong.