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]

#211

Post by kmonsen » Sun, May 31, 2020, 1:20 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #203

Press2forEN wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world Genuine question since I see this argument online with some regularity. Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? What does the time frame (modern vs not modern) have to do with human rights?

> Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? The forgotten premise of the 2A is that it would prevent tyranny by providing the tools so that the citizenry could demand that the government not form permanent external or internal security services beyond what was necessary for a minimal tripwire and training cadre force that would form the nucleus of an at-need force that would be sized up as situations pres…

Not just standing armies (but true that makes the argument much stronger), but also the militarized police force. A SWAT team is a mini army and the combined states police forces could easy invade many countries today if that was an option.

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

#212

Post by kmonsen » Sun, May 31, 2020, 1:22 AM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #188

kmonsen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The dispensary near me (Bay Area) has been open for non-medical non-pickup purchases for weeks. There's a translucent divider and a folding table in front of the counter to create distance, and the iPad menus are gone, but aside from that it seems like business as usual.

Really? Not the ones close to me, but I did not go out of my way to check recently. That does not seem to be essential businesses in my book, or more so than churches assuming proper social distancing rules.

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

#213

Post by paulryanrogers » Sun, May 31, 2020, 1:25 AM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #154

zaroth wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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

Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.

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

#214

Post by _8j50 » Sun, May 31, 2020, 1:48 AM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #195

_8j50 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not implement social distancing rules and require proper ventillation or even outdoor services? Religious orgs are non-profits that can't survive without attendance. Prohibiting the free excercise of religion is a clear violation, especially given that other unprotected gatherings are allowed with less restrictions. To many it's an optional gathering, to others it's a "church vs state" fight, but the right was es…

> you can't be ok with this and then have a problem with sharia law and honor killings. I am, and I do. This is an egregiously hyperbolic argument. Perhaps you, personally, are unable to make the distinction, but most people are perfectly able to distinguish between a temporary restriction to stop a virus spreading and literal murder. Your argument is logically equivalent to saying “if you support building codes that…

I am aware of the comparison and you're misunderstanding.

Fire exits don't prohibit free excercise of religion.

The government's authority to say "actual murder" as you put it (by the way, is capital punishment murder? Because honor killings are capital punishment under a different law.) is wrong is legitimate only because they honor the rights of the governed, a critical and primary right being the right to assemble, freedom of religion and equal application of the law,especially to a group explicitly protected.

> I am, and I do.

Of course you do, because you perhaps forget many wars were fought over this subject. It's not optional. If you believe that way then do you also believe neo-nazis should be shot on sight for displaying a swastika? But burning a swastika is illegal? Of course not, you allow both because both are protected. But I can tell you, the day they ban burning swastikas would be the day people line up to shoot neo-nazis. I make the hyperbolic comparisons for a reason. The extremes start small. Let us not take peace and freedom for granted.

I am not saying Church services should be allowed. I am saying when you do ease restrictions, do it equally! Bases on building capacity and ventillation among other factors not "Churches". If that's ok then let's do the same by saying "black people can only assemble at 25% capacity because of covid death rate in the black community". There is a reason this basic rights exist. You treat them as suggestions and act surprised when the country is falling apart.

If responsibilities are not optional, rights are not optional.

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

#215

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:02 AM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #171

wl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's an interesting constitutional issue there... which is that the right to bear arms is not the right to buy ammunition. That is made all the more challenging for an originalist, because metalic cartridges with percussion caps were not invented for almost a hundred years after the Bill of Rights. If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged? Is it merely that you as a…

[deleted]

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

#216

Post by pnw_hazor » Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #186

pnw_hazor wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

If the governments were smart, they would not pick and choose specific activities and industries to allow and disallow, but instead simply prohibited closely packed or indoor gatherings (by whatever measurement of "closely-packed" makes epidemiological sense) and left it at that. That way, if a church wanted to stay in service they could simply figure out how to comply, like by doing it outside and 2 meters between p…

Agreed. They could have made a blanket rule that set a base standard that applied to all business or orgs, including churches, and then stricter targeted rules for particular non-religious organizations if they needed to.

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

#217

Post by pnw_hazor » Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #160

pnw_hazor wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the point of the 1st Amd., you do not need to justify your otherwise legal religious practice to the government. This is because one person's grave sin that leads to eternal damnation may be another person's minor inconvenience.

The importance or merit of a particular otherwise legal religious practice is not determinable by a US government. For example, the US government is not in the business of interpreting the bible and telling Christians how to practice their religion. The government only goes as far as determining if a person's belief system is a religion (broadly interpreted), and if the religious practice in question is otherwise legal (to exclude obvious overreaches such as child marriage, and such).

Plaintiffs do not need to prove a restriction of a religious practice causes irreparable harm because there is no way to prove it, they just declare it.

E.g., Prisons have to honor the religious dietary restrictions of inmates. The government can't say it is not important, here eat your ham sandwich like everyone else.

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

#218

Post by jeffdavis » Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #204

jeffdavis wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I happen to agree that, in this case, the order respects the freedom of religion; I also appreciate the dissent. I'd be disturbed if there was no hint of dissent when something pretty clearly goes against the text of the Constitution. We should all have a bit of hesitation as this unprecedented stuff is happening, and make sure it's not permanent. Let's remember that this is all not normal, so hopefully we c…

> when something pretty clearly goes against the text of the Constitution Did Congress make a respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? These rules may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional but there’s nothing pretty clear about the incorporation doctrine.

A fair point. But a similar argument could be made about speech and the press. It's at least a little scary.

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

#219

Post by Lammy » Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:37 AM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #212

Lammy wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dispensary near me (Bay Area) has been open for non-medical non-pickup purchases for weeks. There's a translucent divider and a folding table in front of the counter to create distance, and the iPad menus are gone, but aside from that it seems like business as usual.

Really? Not the ones close to me, but I did not go out of my way to check recently. That does not seem to be essential businesses in my book, or more so than churches assuming proper social distancing rules.

To be fair my sample size is only two (2) establishments :)

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

#220

Post by pnw_hazor » Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:47 AM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #213

pnw_hazor wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.

A US government does not get to tell people how to practice religion beyond making a determination whether the belief system is a religion. And, making a determination if a particular practice is legal (to exclude harms like you mention).

That is why I have been careful to describe protected religious practices using the term 'otherwise lawful religious practice'.

The plaintiffs clearly practice a religion. Going to church is clearly a legal religious practice. Thus, the government needs to prove that shorter lines at grocery stores are more important than longer lines or less capacity at churches. The government can't prove that because it can't interpret (or weigh) the importance of going to church.