141–150 of 267 posts
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.
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.
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.
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/
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 models of guns are acceptable, or what kind of grip or stock a rifle can have?
Third: rifles. Not many killings happen with rifles. They are lower than knives, and behind even fists/feet[1], even in states with very permissive rifle laws. What do you think about removing pretty much all restrictions on rifles (and accessories, including suppressors[2]), and instead restricting pistols more heavily?
[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
[2] For most rifles, a normal suppressor just reduces the sound from "instant permanent hearing damage" to "louder than a jackhammer and you still probably want hearing protection".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just find it weird that nobody is bringing up Matthew 6:5. I can hardly imagine any example of "praying to be seen by men" purer than the politicization of opening churches right now. I have this feeling like, surely the cognitive dissonance will hit any minute now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5
You are forgetting Matthew 18, 19-20: "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." There is also the idea of Communion, which is a religious gathering instituted by Jesus himself, in Luke 22. Paul also exhorts believers not to "forsake the assembling of themselves" in…
Trying to convince me is definitely not worth your effort. To act like you care what I think is an indictment itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just find it weird that nobody is bringing up Matthew 6:5. I can hardly imagine any example of "praying to be seen by men" purer than the politicization of opening churches right now. I have this feeling like, surely the cognitive dissonance will hit any minute now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5
It's not really the Supreme Court's job to interpret a religion's sacred texts and tell the adherents that they're doing it wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
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.
Curbside pickup ammo and guns is allowed, see for example http://reedsindoorrange.com/
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…
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.
From the dissent:
"As a general matter, the “government may not use religion as a basis of classification for the imposition of duties, penalties, privileges or benefits.""
"What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification. The Church has agreed to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses. That raises important questions: “Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?”"
"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"