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]

#131

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

toast0 wrote: post #117

lowdose wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Are you advocating gun stores have to remain open for the right of the people to own a gun? How am I supposed to bear arms if I can't obtain arms? I think it's fairly reasonable to close gun shops if all other stores are closed, but there's no reason not to allow gun shops to open under the same terms as other shops. Maybe pickup / curbside only, maybe strict simultaneous customer limits, whatever. > Why would anyb…

I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable.

After a bit of googling I see that gun stores are indeed allowed to provide for curbside pickup and are open: http://reedsindoorrange.com/

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

#132

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #101

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.…

The gun store issue in California is even worse because of the gun laws. You cannot lawfully acquire ammunition anywhere except at a gun store. You cannot lawfully acquire or transfer a firearm to another person except at a gun store. Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. And if you have a place to shoot right now, your ammunition supply is probably a little perilous.

Curbside pickup ammo and guns is allowed, see for example http://reedsindoorrange.com/

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

#133

Post by gamblor956 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #107

nsajko wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider a hypothetical religion that has worship which consists of something criminal (i.e. adherents kill for their god or something). I don't know the legal justification, but their freedom of religion would surely be trumped by my right to life, if an adherent tried to murder me :)

You completely failed to understand my comment: if the Constitutional freedom of religion is too broad why do you accept the Constitution to be ignored with such decisions instead of fixing the problem, the Constitutional text? In your example it is clear the problem is the Constitution text being too broad/generic. SCOTUS is not there to rewrite or cut the text, people voting can do that.

The language of the First Amendment is not as broad as you make it out to be. You are arguing a straw man that doesn't exist.

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

#134

Post by AdrianB1 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:47 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #129

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.

False: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". "Free exercise" = "free practice" for the layman.

For free speech, the protection should be for speech, there is no free action so your comment is not clear on what it points at.

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

#135

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #131

toast0 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you advocating gun stores have to remain open for the right of the people to own a gun? How am I supposed to bear arms if I can't obtain arms? I think it's fairly reasonable to close gun shops if all other stores are closed, but there's no reason not to allow gun shops to open under the same terms as other shops. Maybe pickup / curbside only, maybe strict simultaneous customer limits, whatever. > Why would anyb…

I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable. After a bit of googling I see that gun stores are indeed allowed to provide for curbside pickup and are open: http://reedsindoorrange.com/

It appears San Jose took a strong stance at least at one point:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-san-jose-...

Not sure the current status, but I'm sure a lot of lawsuits happened.

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

#136

Post by AdrianB1 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

dvt wrote: post #108

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…

> That reasoning tells that a law (the "criminal law") beats the Constitution by putting restrictions on a Constitutional right. There's a lot to parse in your post, but I would strongly suggest reading J.S. Mill's On Liberty [1]. In it, Mill describes (what is now known) as the Harm Principle[2]. This (or something like this), and not necessarily criminal law, is essentially what the Constitution is beholden to. It…

Do I need to read a book of over 220 pages to solve a simple logic problem? This is the problem:

1. Constitution gives a right: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

2. A law restricts the right

3. A law cannot disobey the Constitution.

4. Everyone thinks this is fine, including SCOTUS.

You don't have to be Vulcan to see logic is broken.

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

#137

Post by pnw_hazor » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #119

pnw_hazor wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If Covid-19 rules restrict religious practices more than some commercial activities I think we have a problem. Oh come on. It's OK to pick and choose which activities are more important than a health rule -- a doctor or a plumber clearly should be permitted to perform some necessary activities or life would be at greater risk. And the law parses apart the cases: you can get respiratory care or chemotherapy but not…

The problem arises because the government is not supposed to judge the merit, efficacy, or importance/value of a otherwise lawful religious practice.

The government needs a neutral independent reason that withstands strict scrutiny to regulate religion. For example, building fire codes can apply to religious buildings. But many zoning ordinances have to exempt religious buildings.

Here the government is saying some commercial activities, like grocery stores are more important than going to church.

The SCOTUS order is side-stepping the issue by trying to categorize religious practice as similar to going to see a movie.

It would be interesting to see how the court would have ruled on an appeal of a fully developed case. Here, since they are evaluating an emergency stay order, rather than a fully developed case, I think they were comfortable cutting some corners.

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

#138

Post by AdrianB1 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #133

AdrianB1 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely failed to understand my comment: if the Constitutional freedom of religion is too broad why do you accept the Constitution to be ignored with such decisions instead of fixing the problem, the Constitutional text? In your example it is clear the problem is the Constitution text being too broad/generic. SCOTUS is not there to rewrite or cut the text, people voting can do that.

The language of the First Amendment is not as broad as you make it out to be. You are arguing a straw man that doesn't exist.

I quoted the text already a few times; it is broad enough to include free practice. Do you disagree?

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

#139

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #135

kmonsen wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable. After a bit of googling I see that gun stores are indeed allowed to provide for curbside pickup and are open: http://reedsindoorrange.com/

It appears San Jose took a strong stance at least at one point: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-san-jose-... Not sure the current status, but I'm sure a lot of lawsuits happened.

They wanted to stay fully open, not curbside delivery.

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

#140

Post by AdrianB1 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

nsajko wrote: post #112

AdrianB1 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely failed to understand my comment: if the Constitutional freedom of religion is too broad why do you accept the Constitution to be ignored with such decisions instead of fixing the problem, the Constitutional text? In your example it is clear the problem is the Constitution text being too broad/generic. SCOTUS is not there to rewrite or cut the text, people voting can do that.

I think a constitution is meant to be broadly worded so it would not have to be changed often, though. Are you proposing to make the constitution just a regular old law?

I am not looking for a solution for a problem that is not mine. I am looking to understand how people see the Constitution is ignored (not sure what is the right term) and feel fine about that. My line of thought is that everything in the Constitution can be ignored in the same way, so it is completely worthless and no right does really exist because it can be revoked by a law or government statute at any point. People loosing rights is a matter of principle, I could not care less about churches in California, I am not affected in any way.