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]

#241

Post by yters » Sun, May 31, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

_8j50 wrote: post #239

yters wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's your opinion, a right is retained despite majority opinions. Constitutional rights specifically outline legitimate relationship between government and governed where violating that constraint breaks the contract allowing the government to make and enforce laws.

My understanding is people have rights that trump whatever religion they are born into, i.e. the fundamental rights listed in the declaration of independence.

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

#242

Post by gamblor956 » Sun, May 31, 2020, 5:53 AM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #138

gamblor956 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language of the First Amendment is not as broad as you make it out to be. You are arguing a straw man that doesn't exist.

I quoted the text already a few times; it is broad enough to include free practice. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

Free Exercise has never meant "do whatever you want" because that would have rendered all other laws moot.

The Reynolds case has a good discussion of what was going on in the heads of the BOR convention. In a nutshell, religion was viewed as "beliefs" not "actions." (There is a letter from Jefferson on this point.) So the free exercise of religion was understood to mean the freedom to believe whatever you wanted to believe, not whatever you wanted to do.

Modern First Amendment law is actually broader than the BOR...religious practice is considered subject to First Amendment protections, but like speech, is subject to extremely limited restrictions.

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

#243

Post by IncRnd » Sun, May 31, 2020, 6:09 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…

The Amendments do not grant rights but protect them.

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

#244

Post by IncRnd » Sun, May 31, 2020, 6:10 AM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #182

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…

Bear arms is usually understood as being read with keep, as in in keep-and-bear arms.

It means to carry firearms, whether you keep them or not. Both rights are being codified in keep-and-bear.

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

#245

Post by gamblor956 » Sun, May 31, 2020, 6:38 AM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #194

kmonsen wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making strong statements about things you need to read up more on. The congress and others can put limits on religious practice in many ways. The most relevant example here is that building and fire codes apply for churches.

I quote a text, I am not making statements. What is wrong with that?

In a nutshell: religion back then strictly meant beliefs but not actions. (Thomas Jefferson has a letter discussing this with one of the members of the BOR convention.)

Since then, religion has come to take on the layman's meaning including both beliefs and actions, and courts have given religious practices First Amendment protections similar to speech. (In this sense, it is similar to the dichotomy between the blanket protection on the content of speech but the allowance for restrictions on the actions that speech may effectuate.)

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

#246

Post by irrational » Sun, May 31, 2020, 7:16 AM UTC

totony wrote: post #152

irrational wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People shouldn't have to stay home since it is hard?! Walking thousands of miles in the winter is hard. Fleeing an invading army is hard. Living through a famine is hard. Staying at home is not hard. And if it is, learning how to do hard things is a skill that everyone should develop.

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

#247

Post by kmonsen » Sun, May 31, 2020, 7:17 AM UTC

aspenmayer wrote: post #236

kmonsen wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, a religious text is not relevant in us court case, even if about a religious case. Secondly, Christianity as practiced today is very different and not something Jesus would have understood at all so in many ways the Bible and Jesus is not key to understanding American Christianity.

To say Jesus wouldn't understand modern Christianity is presupposing the Trinity is false, isn’t it? Otherwise, Jesus is part of the tripartite godhead and is aware of everything the Tetragrammaton and the Holy Spirit are aware of, which is more than the totality of existence of space-time. Not to make this a religious discussion, just striving for a steelman interpretation of the religious logical stance.

I’m not making an argument about Jesus but about his supposed followers. Anyway, the main point is that US law and the Bible are not connected. It’s still legal to eat shrimp and pork, and usury became legal when that was convenient.

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

#248

Post by masonic » Sun, May 31, 2020, 7:38 AM UTC

billme wrote: post #202

Rebelgecko wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days... The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against. Maybe before you go around calling names it would be beneficial to do some research of your own? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that your knowledge of CA firearms…

>> “banned all loans to non-relatives” False; see PC § 27885: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... . —— To give some idea of how complex firearm law is in California, take a peak at the 141 page document below (current as of 2019) covering “just” the state’s penal code: https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download

  False; see PC § 27885:

PC § 27885 (a) The person loaning the firearm is at all times within the presence of the person being loaned the firearm.

I think most people's definition of "loan" isn't limited to the loaner having to be right there for the duration. That's like a library "loaning" a book but forbidding you from taking it out of the librarian's view. In practical terms, it bans loans.

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

#249

Post by masonic » Sun, May 31, 2020, 7:41 AM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #132

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.

Curbside pickup ammo and guns is allowed, see for example http://reedsindoorrange.com/

  and guns

Not according to your stated example. Quoting:

"Ammunition and accessories only No firearm registrations."

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

#250

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 31, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #114

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.

The background-check-for-ammo law is a constitutional disaster. There was recently an injunction against the AG enforcing it, but the ninth stayed the lower court's order. I read the decision granting the injunction, and wow. The ID requirements are even higher than for buying a gun -- you need certain kinds of ID that proves that you are a citizen (passports can take a long time to get, and some people have complica…

[deleted]