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]

#101

Post by wl » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

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.

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

#102

Post by nsajko » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:02 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?

I think the argument is just about unfair discrimination.

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

#103

Post by ineedasername » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #90

ineedasername wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that is very on point. Secular businesses are something different in gathering type than Church services. And when it comes to gatherings where there would be similar close contact inside with often static groups of people, the Supreme Court majority properly made that comparison: "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performanc…

But less severe restrictions apply to other things deemed "essential" or that require physical attendance. And that's the crux of the issue. The government can't declare churches "non-essential" and close them.

Clearly the government can declare them non-essential, and the highest body that arbitrates such claims has rules that California's implementation of the determination was equitable & constitutional. It is defacto legal, allowed, constitutional.

It seems what you take issue with is the definition of "essential". That's fine: but even if California is allowing businesses that are not truly essential to remain open, that doesn't change whether or not Churches are essential. A mistake by California in one are does not require that it apply the mistake elsewhere. And again: every type of gathering style similar to what would be experiences in churches has also be put on hold. Are you aware of any business that has a similar exposure profile as churches, and is not necessary for normal everyday survival (food etc.) that has been allowed to remain open? (Though even if you are, again such a mistake by California does not require it to double down on that mistake with other such gatherings.)

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

#104

Post by pnw_hazor » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #59

aspenmayer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s arguable that churches conduct essentially business per se, but they do provide a venue to conduct Constitutionally-protected activity.

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 restrict religious practices more than some commercial activities I think we have a problem.

I feel the emergency stay should be left in place because the state is not equipped to measure the amount of irreparable harm that may be caused by interfering in an otherwise legal religious practice.

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

#105

Post by nsajko » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:05 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…

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 :)

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

#106

Post by megavolcano » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Founding Fathers would weep of what has become of America.

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

#107

Post by AdrianB1 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

nsajko wrote: post #105

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…

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.

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

#108

Post by dvt » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:12 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…

> 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 just so happens that most crimes also violate ethical principles.

[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#Har...

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

#109

Post by briffle » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:12 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?

During the shutdown, police in my area had severe staffing issues, and flat out said they would only come out for the most serious crime. At the same time, huge numbers of people were released from prison.

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

#110

Post by Retric » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:14 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…

You’re missing the core limitation on the constitution, it’s extremely short limiting precision. Freedom of speech is not about standing on a street corner with a megaphone, it’s about the content of the message. Where that line is between message and method is complicated, but that’s the core issue being decided in free speech issues.

In terms of this, if a religion had a specific requirement for exactly 101 people to preform a ceremony then they have a real case. However, region is not a blank check to allow arbitrary gatherings of any size especially if there are any options.