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]

#41

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

Meekro wrote: post #33

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…

Whether there is a pandemic or not isn't given great weight by either side. Both sides implicitly agree that California isn't allowed to go out of its way to penalize churches, but they disagree on whether it has done that. Robert's order says that "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances." He concludes that California is not singl…

You don’t need much in the way of reasoning, or any really, to deny an emergency stay order. The presumption is and should be very much against.

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

#42

Post by Ididntdothis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

compsciphd wrote: post #2

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

It would be nice if churches were a moderating voice but they often do the opposite.

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

#43

Post by js2 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

compsciphd wrote: post #2

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

Judaism is fundamentally a religion of laws, but virtually any of those laws may be broken in order to save a life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

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

#44

Post by fastball » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #27

The key part of the dissent is what is a comparable “business” to a church service. I think it is sports arrangement, or perhaps political arrangement, and the Supreme Court justices believe It is a supermarket and manufacturing. I’m not sure how we could find common ground or understand each other. I do believe the governor could have made the case better by stating restrictions (6 feet personal space, no sharing dr…

The dissent explicitly lists:

> "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. "

I think saying religion is equivalent to sports is pretty strange. People clearly place way more importance overall on religion than they do on sports, even in a country that's pretty crazy about sport.

I would definitely argue that church is more important than pretty much everything in the latter half of the dissent's list.

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

#45

Post by 082349872349872 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

Ididntdothis wrote: post #42

compsciphd wrote: post #2

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

It would be nice if churches were a moderating voice but they often do the opposite.

From what I saw of Italy, the Pope was perfectly cool with waiting to congregate.

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

#46

Post by LudwigNagasena » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #17

Two thoughts on apolitical, pragmatic grounds: This is a good ruling regardless of the importance of religious beliefs one might have. Churches are still subject to baseline rules like building codes, food safety (if they have a kitchen), have to pay their phone bill or else lose phone services,and the like. This represents an appropriate segregation of responsibility and allows parishioners to participate without ha…

The ruling wasn’t about whether churches should abide by restrictions. And it is ridiculous to frame it that way. A case like this probably would never make it to the Supreme Court. The question was whether it is discriminatory to open some non-essential businesses but keep churches closed.

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

#47

Post by dang » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

Ididntdothis wrote: post #42

compsciphd wrote: post #2

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

It would be nice if churches were a moderating voice but they often do the opposite.

Please don't step into religious flamewar on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#48

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #44

kmonsen wrote: post #27

The key part of the dissent is what is a comparable “business” to a church service. I think it is sports arrangement, or perhaps political arrangement, and the Supreme Court justices believe It is a supermarket and manufacturing. I’m not sure how we could find common ground or understand each other. I do believe the governor could have made the case better by stating restrictions (6 feet personal space, no sharing dr…

The dissent explicitly lists: > "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. " I think saying religion is equivalent to sports is pretty strange. People clearly place way more importance overall on religion than they do on sports, even in a country that's pretty crazy about sport. I would de…

The question isn't one of importance, but of the danger to individuals from partaking in the activity. Yes, speaking constitutionally, shopping malls are less important than churches. But that doesn't matter if a church service is a religious concerts and concerts (religious or secular) aren't allowed.

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

#49

Post by aspenmayer » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #46

gumby wrote: post #17

Two thoughts on apolitical, pragmatic grounds: This is a good ruling regardless of the importance of religious beliefs one might have. Churches are still subject to baseline rules like building codes, food safety (if they have a kitchen), have to pay their phone bill or else lose phone services,and the like. This represents an appropriate segregation of responsibility and allows parishioners to participate without ha…

The ruling wasn’t about whether churches should abide by restrictions. And it is ridiculous to frame it that way. A case like this probably would never make it to the Supreme Court. The question was whether it is discriminatory to open some non-essential businesses but keep churches closed.

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

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

#50

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #44

kmonsen wrote: post #27

The key part of the dissent is what is a comparable “business” to a church service. I think it is sports arrangement, or perhaps political arrangement, and the Supreme Court justices believe It is a supermarket and manufacturing. I’m not sure how we could find common ground or understand each other. I do believe the governor could have made the case better by stating restrictions (6 feet personal space, no sharing dr…

The dissent explicitly lists: > "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. " I think saying religion is equivalent to sports is pretty strange. People clearly place way more importance overall on religion than they do on sports, even in a country that's pretty crazy about sport. I would de…

That list is not really accurate, shopping malls, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries are still closed I believe.

Pet grooming is open, and to some extent I agree with you (although I have used one). In my opinion the difference is that social distancing is trivial. We left the pet in the trunk and they picked her up from there and delivered her back there. No human interaction.

I find this fascinating in that there is no legal argument on either side (even in the supreme court!), but it is an argument about what church services are comparable to. I think this should go into law and would sort of be fine with any reasonable outcome (lower than supermarkets, but potentially equal with manufacturing), but if I got to decide it would be like a sport arrangement.