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]

#151

Post by zaroth » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #142

pnw_hazor wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. Growing up in a Christian home I'd say allowing religious services to continue is more likely to cause harm to people. Still, it sounds like you think physical religious gatherings are some kind of human right.

Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate.

The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.

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

#152

Post by totony » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:19 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #124

steve_g wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you are projecting your opinion.

>all you would have had to do was stay home, is the very definition of selfishness.

Staying at home for extended periods is not the easy thing people seem to project. Social gathering are very important to a lot of people. Religious gathering are the same.

Telling people that there is no "risk analysis" here is both dishonest and dangerous.

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

#153

Post by AdrianB1 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:22 PM UTC

thomasmeeks wrote: post #146

AdrianB1 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, you do, but here's a short primer. https://www.dummies.com/education/history/american-history/h... Ultimately if you can't be bothered to read a short book on the subject, you can just live with your confusion on the subject. The world can't be boiled down to sophomoric sequences of logic that ignore the complexities of reality and human behavior.

So there is no logic explanation of the problem. I am fine with that answer, no need for more.

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

#154

Post by pnw_hazor » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #151

paulryanrogers wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. Growing up in a Christian home I'd say allowing religious services to continue is more likely to cause harm to people. Still, it sounds like you think physical religious gatherings are some kind of human right.

Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate. The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.

The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church.

For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store.

On that note, I am going to go shopping.

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

#155

Post by abhorrence » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:27 PM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #95

gizmo686 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Irreparable harm is a fairly flimsy rationale in the context of the shelter in place order. Nearly anything prevent by the order could be construed to cause irreparable harm -- and many are significantly more concrete than suspension of in person religious services, e.g. reduction in non-urgent healthcare.

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

#156

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #143

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/

"I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable." A few genuinely curious questions. First, would you rather there was just no 2nd Amendment at all? I can understand that point of view. Second, let's assume there is a right to bear arms, and that it's not going away. Do you think all of the little half measures are actually helpful? Stuff like how you can buy ammo, or what model…

Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world (I am a retired soldier that has served abroad, and have gone to gun ranges to shoot).

I think currently stronger background checks, strong penalties for selling guns outside of this and bans of large magazines and ways of reloading quickly.

I would support some way of limiting open arms in public places, I do not think they belong in demonstrations or Subway stores and are often used to intimidate.

I'm personally mostly OK with rifles, except automatic rifles with large capacity magazine. If you have a hunting rifle and it can be traced back to you, please have your fun.

The parts I feel strongly about are strict background checks, weapons can be traced back, and should not be used for intimidation in protests. The rest are details and I am sure we can come to an agreement.

In the weapon culture I come from if you point a weapon at someone, loaded or not, your are assumed to be hostile or an idiot that should not have a gun and will be met with extreme force.

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

#157

Post by koenigdavidmj » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:30 PM UTC

nsajko wrote: post #97

thephyber wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

> Allah = Christian God = Yahweh

There is no consensus on this, either among Muslims or Trinitarians.

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

#158

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:30 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #147

kmonsen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wanted to stay fully open, not curbside delivery.

I read the article I linked again and did not see any indication that Bullseye Bishop was given options to stay open. Where did you get that from?

Yeah it is unclear what the rules were/are, but at least now staying open for curbside delivery is an option. This whole thing took us all by surprise so I can understand if there were minor implementation details in the beginning.

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

#159

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #122

kmonsen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cannabis is not in any way a church or recognized as a sincere held religious belief by the supreme court I believe if that is what you mean.

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

#160

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #150

kmonsen wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government can't really measure the harm caused by interfering with otherwise lawful religious practice. You and I can have our opinions but legally it isn't within the power of the government to do so. How could it? What if the interference delays a child's baptism and the child dies during the delay. For some religions this may be an irreparable eternal harm. From the dissent: "As a general matter, the “governm…

"The Church would suffer irreparable harm from not being able to hold services on Pentecost Sunday in a way that comparable secular businesses and persons can conduct their activities"

This is the key to get an emergency stay of the stay at home order until the supreme court can actually handle the case. This is extremely rare. I don't see any evidence here, he is just stating it as a fact when it is clearly not.