Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 267 posts

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

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

jeffdavis wrote: post #162
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…

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…

> I'd be disturbed if there was no hint of dissent when something pretty clearly goes against the text of the Constitution.

Incorporation isn't clearly in the text of th Constitution, and this is State not Federal action. Even if incorporation were clear in the text, it's not at all clear that failing to exempt religious gatherings from a broader general prohibition would be clearly against the text. It's true that even incidental impacts to important rights from facially-neutral acts are given strict scrutiny under case law, but that application is itself not an unambiguous application of the text and it's far from clear that this would conflict with that precedent.

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

#222

Post by perl4ever »

jeffdavis wrote: post #180
kurthr wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged?" Your idea has been deemed dangerous by the internet police, and your ISP connection will be cancelled. Don't worry, you are still free to write a letter to your local newspaper, so your rights have not been infringed. Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit. Demanding cell tower records…

"Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit"

It seems to me that very frequently, people declare something to be completely different just because it uses new technology. And then people argue if it really is different or not. There's never an airtight proof of who is right.

A saying that I think I may have first seen on HN is something about quantity having a quality all its own. E.g. maybe at some point from a musket to a rifle to a machine gun to a bazooka to a nuke, there is a line to be drawn.

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

#223

Post by mr_spothawk »

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,…

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

stay home, stay safe.

the mask is for their protection, put it on while you're working

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

#224

Post by perl4ever »

_8j50 wrote: post #214
alasdair_ wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What's wrong with Sharia law? As far as I know it's generally accepted in the US and presumably in other civilized countries that parties who agree to decide their disputes in alternative settings such as religious courts are allowed to do so. It's not something done by members of one religion only either. Jewish and Christian sects do it/have done it historically.

I'm definitely against anyone being able to give up their rights to escalate to the regular court system, but as far as I know that only exists in secular arbitration which has a specific law addressing that.

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

#225

Post by pnw_hazor »

kmonsen wrote: post #176
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.

They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.

The issue is that the government is putting more restrictions on the church than it does grocery stores.

If California put the same restrictions on grocery stores, as it did churches they would be more consistent with US law. Otherwise, the government has to prove that the difference in restrictions is so important it outweighs the religious concerns raised by the plaintiffs. (This is a high bar to reach in the US.)

The SCOTUS is being lazy by letting CA characterize a church similarly to a commercial movie theater. That is nonsense. A person can miss a movie without risking eternal damnation, but this may not be true for some church services for some Christians.

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

#226

Post by yters »

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…

I would say an armed militia can still resist any industrialized nation. The US has lost numerous modern wars against minimally armed guerilla fighters. Pretty interesting such means of resistance has been so constantly successful.

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

#227

Post by yters »

kmonsen wrote: post #197
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?

Several reason: - Civilians today do not have the means to stand up to a modern state. For a minor example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege , note the outcome was never in any doubt just how much casualties the feds wanted to inflict - Weapons today have much larger damage potential - We live in a world that violence and weapons are not part of the way it used to be, for the better. I don't think we are r…

Taliban didn't do too badly in afghanistan. We've never defeated them despite over a decade of the world's most advanced military. Sure, they've had help from iran and such, but still their armaments are mostly inferior to what the average US citizen can buy with the right license and enough money.

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

#228

Post by yters »

perl4ever wrote: post #224
_8j50 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's wrong with Sharia law? As far as I know it's generally accepted in the US and presumably in other civilized countries that parties who agree to decide their disputes in alternative settings such as religious courts are allowed to do so. It's not something done by members of one religion only either. Jewish and Christian sects do it/have done it historically. I'm definitely against anyone being able to give up…

If an unmarried daughter has sex, the father can kill her. I think that shouldn't be allowed.

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

#230

Post by Gibbon1 »

yters wrote: post #227
kmonsen wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several reason: - Civilians today do not have the means to stand up to a modern state. For a minor example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege , note the outcome was never in any doubt just how much casualties the feds wanted to inflict - Weapons today have much larger damage potential - We live in a world that violence and weapons are not part of the way it used to be, for the better. I don't think we are r…

Taliban didn't do too badly in afghanistan. We've never defeated them despite over a decade of the world's most advanced military. Sure, they've had help from iran and such, but still their armaments are mostly inferior to what the average US citizen can buy with the right license and enough money.

Taliban doesn't get help from Iran. They get help from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Post reply on HN