The Supremes say you can't limit Church attendance

[TUMe]

It's really pretty simple, the First Amendment says

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

That includes free exercise of religion and freedom of assembly. We see many politicians who want to limit assembly but plan big trips for themselves. What ever happened to leading by example?

 

[HuffyCane]

If the Democrats want to say that their public policy includes paramilitary police breaking down the doors of synagogues while prohibiting police from deporting convicted child molesters, I’m all for it, until they actually reach the threshold or open the jail house door.

 

[shon46]

ACB

It's really pretty simple, the First Amendment says

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

That includes free exercise of religion and freedom of assembly. We see many politicians who want to limit assembly but plan big trips for themselves. What ever happened to leading by example?

ACB! What a rock star🎸

 

[aTUfan]

Only Republicans won't wear a mask.

 

[watu04]

Even chief justice Roberts could not find the discrimination that led to this decision. How should churches and religious groups participate in public safety?

I guess one could frame this as a left-right issue if one claims public health is a left issue and religion as belongs solely to the right. Trump tried to do that, but are we stuck with it?

 

[HuffyCane]

It’s common sense. The order says no more than 10 people regardless of size.

They knew or should have known that a gathering of certain orthodox Jewish services requires at least eleven people present.

There’s a cathedral that’s closed and across the street ten people can stand shoulder to shoulder inside a liquor store the size of a NYC efficiency apartment.

So it’s both facially and functionally discriminatory.

The constitution isn’t a salad bar. You can’t pick and choose when it applies or abridge the free exercise while you permit abortion clinics, pot stores, and hat outlets to operate.

Should we abridge the Fifth Amendment for the people accused of criminal violations of the order?

 

[astonmartin708]

If Mitch McConnell hadn’t stolen a seat this would have gone the other way.

 

[TUMe]

There is a new Representative from Colorado who found that Thanksgiving meals were limit to 10 but funerals were limited to 30. She was going to hold a funeral for the Turkey, then got the idea of a funeral for a pig and one for the duck and have 90. It must be true it was on the internet click-bait stack.

 

[watu04]

So it’s both facially and functionally discriminatory.

As I read it Roberts had two issues:
1) He didn't see the same factual situation that you describe.
2) Cuomo had already backed off the underlying issue by reducing the restrictions, so Roberts saw no need to rule now unless they were reinstated.

Anyway my question was different.

We face (hopefully) a relatively short term issue with Covid and the current spread is completely out of control unless we move to more severe restrictions to address it.. Does the First Amendment give religious groups a lower requirement to contribute to public health than other groups?

I have Kosher Jewish friends in New York who are more supportive of Cuomo than the complainants, so I'm not ready to assume that the Jewish group suing is representative of a larger community's concern.

 

[TUMe]

The First Amendment includes the free exercise of religion and the freedom of assembly. You may remember that the first item is not a big issue personnally for me but I do nevertheless support it. But what is a big issue for me is violating Amendments. Let's chip away at them. The Second Amendment is a constant target. Some people don't like the Fifth Amendment. If we must limit the exercise of religion then it should be done with a law detailling what must be done to do that. Not the CDC or the governor of X state saying one thing and another governor using another standard. It's been almost a year and we still don't know what the rules are.

The reason the Supreme Court answered one way or another is that somebody had to. Blame Trump for kicking it to the 50 governors. As an aside the Oklahoma governor kicked Masks to the cities. My city finally voted this week to require masks starting Monday. Broken Arrow voted no. A person driving on the Interstate through Tulsa County can't expect the same rules county wide.

 

[astonmartin708]

The problem wasn’t that the laws governing church attendance in the short term were too punative but that the laws for the general public were not restrictive enough

 

[HuffyCane]

As I read it Roberts had two issues:
1) He didn't see the same factual situation that you describe.
2) Cuomo had already backed off the underlying issue by reducing the restrictions, so Roberts saw no need to rule now unless they were reinstated.

Anyway my question was different.

We face (hopefully) a relatively short term issue with Covid and the current spread is completely out of control unless we move to more severe restrictions to address it.. Does the First Amendment give religious groups a lower requirement to contribute to public health than other groups?

I have Kosher Jewish friends in New York who are more supportive of Cuomo than the complainants, so I'm not ready to assume that the Jewish group suing is representative of a larger community's concern.

Roberts with game theory. He knows the facts are bad and he knows he can’t dispute the law or it’s application, so he draws a factual distinction to try to evade answering the question. As for the delay in decision, what a crock. Gorsuch calls that out. They changed the classification After cert was granted neither side disputes that the problem is going to get worse in the near term. Read Gorsuch’s concurrence. He calls that BS out first. Roberts is trying to have it both ways. Claim he’s for religious liberty but not how this question is currently presented. His fence sitting act to try to make both sides happy while making himself the swing vote and therefore the power broker is getting old.

 

[HuffyCane]

The problem wasn’t that the laws governing church attendance in the short term were too punative but that the laws for the general public were not restrictive enough

No the problem is they wrote the law to purposely exclude all women from certain Orthodox Jewish church services until such a time as the government decides it’s ok.

The problem is that New York doesn’t consider religious exercise essential even though it’s the foundation of this country.

The problem is they told Catholic bishops you can’t put 11 people in cathedrals that seat 2500 but the local McDonalds across the street is packing them in.

The problem is Americans probably wouldn’t have much trouble with short term church closures if businesses with constitutional protections like gun stores, marijuana dispensaries, and abortion factories weren’t open. They feel their faith is a less valuable constitutional right than the penumbra rights even though its expressly protected and protected first.

Read the Gorsuch opinion. It’s the opinion of much of America, whether they go to church any more or not.

 

[URedskin54]

 

[HuffyCane]

Nails it. NAILS IT.

Im a member of the Court. I read dozens of these for work. I don’t recall a better written opinion, despite its informal almost jocular style at times.

 

[watu04]

"No the problem is they wrote the law to purposely exclude all women from certain Orthodox Jewish church services until such a time as the government decides it’s ok."

I find this unpersuasive. In my personal experience Catholic masses go on a lot longer than the time one spends n a MacDonalds. It is a fair, non prejudicial distinction. Time spent together is key to being infected.

I am still focused on whether the root idea is that religious assembly is exempt from public health concerns. Apparently the arguments are that they are not, and the standard used was unfair. Is that what turned it?

 

[shon46]

All mute points soon since the first batch of Trumps will be distributed next week. It will take time to fully reach everyone but this politically motivated stranglehold will end soon.......one way or another!

 

[astonmartin708]

No the problem is they wrote the law to purposely exclude all women from certain Orthodox Jewish church services until such a time as the government decides it’s ok.

The problem is that New York doesn’t consider religious exercise essential even though it’s the foundation of this country.

The problem is they told Catholic bishops you can’t put 11 people in cathedrals that seat 2500 but the local McDonalds across the street is packing them in.

The problem is Americans probably wouldn’t have much trouble with short term church closures if businesses with constitutional protections like gun stores, marijuana dispensaries, and abortion factories weren’t open. They feel their faith is a less valuable constitutional right than the penumbra rights even though its expressly protected and protected first.

Read the Gorsuch opinion. It’s the opinion of much of America, whether they go to church any more or not.

No one wrote a law specifically to target Orthodox Jews. It might have effected Orthodox Jews by happenstance, but it wasn’t written to target them. Allowing massive church services is just dumb in this health environment. Leave it to religious fanatics to ignore science once again.

When the rights of the few are put in front of the physical safety of the many that’s simply wrong. I agree with the SCOTUS majority that churches should not be held to a higher standard than other institutions in terms of how many they are able to allow in, but they should be held to SOME KIND of standard and if they need 100 people to practice a ceremony how they usually would, well tough noogies for them.

I would also say they should be held to the same kinds of preventative standards that other places are held to in terms of mandated social distancing, mask wearing, and common sense restrictions on things like communal choirs that have been found to spread viruses at greater rates than normal speech. These churches should be fined for not following such mandates. If it was just the people on the church who their own behavior was effecting I wouldn’t care, but when their refusal to adhere to societal necessities for public health effects the people around them in terms of their ability to maintain their LIFE, then one of the most fundamental constitutional rights of those people in their community is being infringed upon.

Life is the most chief of inalianable rights and endangering someone else’s life because you (temporarily) can’t practice your religion in the exact way you like is selfish and wrong.

 

[HuffyCane]

You’ve never served in government, so you no idea how and why decision are made. I doubt you live in NY and admit above a lack of fundamental understanding of the diversity of the Jewish community.

The Governor has a long standing beef with several Orthodox Jewish sects, on this issue and others.

At least one of those sects requires 10 men to be present to conduct services.

If you prevent services of more than 10 in that sect, then you prohibit the attendance of all women.

When THE PARTY OF SCIENCE has no written administrative record of why the limit is ten, and there’s no rational scientific basis for a hard count of ten regardless of space, the restrictions conflict with CDC guidelines, and the lawyers attempt to withdraw the lawsuit even though they know the virus is going to get worse and admit it, it’s pretty clear to anybody with working brain cells that the Governor or his staff set out to settle some scores or acted with prejudice.

What happened here is wrong and it should be righted. Whether the courts decision benefits public health or not really isn’t the issue. They aren’t in any better position to decide this problem then a wrongly motivated executive and admit that. I read the opinion to say this isn’t right. Get it right. If that means smaller crowds, fine. But there had better be a better reason and better rules based on actual science than childish score settling or who benefits from an individual politician’s coalition.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

Life is the most chief of inalianable rights and endangering someone else’s life because you (temporarily) can’t practice your religion in the exact way you like is selfish and wrong.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that you are pro-choice on the issue of abortion. If that is so, do you not see the irony of your quote above?

Honestly, it’s hard for me to understand how anyone in this thread is arguing against what Huffy is saying. This seems absolutely clear-cut to me and that the SCOTUS made the right decision. And to address some objections above, my understanding is that this ruling does not mean that religious groups are exempt from “public health” orders, but that they cannot be discriminated against in regard to opening, capacity, etc compared to other types of businesses, gatherings, etc.

 

[HuffyCane]

"No the problem is they wrote the law to purposely exclude all women from certain Orthodox Jewish church services until such a time as the government decides it’s ok."

I find this unpersuasive. In my personal experience Catholic masses go on a lot longer than the time one spends n a MacDonalds. It is a fair, non prejudicial distinction. Time spent together is key to being infected.

I am still focused on whether the root idea is that religious assembly is exempt from public health concerns. Apparently the arguments are that they are not, and the standard used was unfair. Is that what turned it?

All they decided is that the current order appears to be unfair, really unfair, so that it can’t be enforced until the lower court actually decides the merits of the legality of the order. Something the government of NY all but concedes after their late changes to how the order will be enforced to try to render the case moot and inappropriate for the court to decide.

The Court says restrictions on religion must be neutral and this order isn’t neutral as long as you can go into a Best Buy the size of your church with 200 people but you can’t go into a church with 11, especially when there’s no administrative record where the executive considers that there have been outbreaks in churches with eleven or more in them.

Because the order is not neutral and deals with a fundamental right, indeed the most fundamental right in our democracy in the view of the founders, then it is subject to what lawyers call strict scrutiny. The court says, in advance of what the lower court might decided hahaha, that it fails the test because it is too broad. There’s no proof the rule is needed because no proof that churches, unlike steakhouses, infect people more readily if there’s 11 and not 10 people present. There is no evidence that these synagogues and churches have contributed to outbreaks, and other, less restrictive rules could have been employed instead – such as basing the maximum attendance on the size of the facility. The plaintiffs are entitled to relief, because unlike some religious sects, live streaming or audio isn’t a substitute for in person worship or celebration. (This is particularly true of Catholics, a huge minority in NY). So they will be suffering harm while the case is decided, so NY can’t enforce the rules for now ... unless they change them and get court permission.

 

[astonmartin708]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that you are pro-choice on the issue of abortion. If that is so, do you not see the irony of your quote above?

Honestly, it’s hard for me to understand how anyone in this thread is arguing against what Huffy is saying. This seems absolutely clear-cut to me and that the SCOTUS made the right decision. And to address some objections above, my understanding is that this ruling does not mean that religious groups are exempt from “public health” orders, but that they cannot be discriminated against in regard to opening, capacity, etc compared to other types of businesses, gatherings, etc.

There is no irony in my statement, because life does not simply begin when sperm meets egg. The irony to me is that conservatives profess to care about lives only as far as those lives haven’t actually started yet. Once a being actually comes into existence they pretty much say “F.U. Survival of the fittest” and that’s evident by this ruling.

 

[lawpoke87]

So the Governor who ordered covid positive patients be moved to nursing homes is concerned about church gatherings 😂😂

 

[shon46]

There is no irony in my statement, because life does not simply begin when sperm meets egg. The irony to me is that conservatives profess to care about lives only as far as those lives haven’t actually started yet. Once a being actually comes into existence they pretty much say “F.U. Survival of the fittest” and that’s evident by this ruling.

What you are saying is a slap in the face to every religion on earth. Overwhelmingly they all believe in the power of prayer which is strengthened through numbers. Every religion teaches that individual and collective prayer brings healing. You take away the ability to carry this out and you possibly take away the ability for our country to heal. On a personal note, I’m not conservative but I certainly believe in survival of the fitness. Always have and always will. Especially when you talk specifically about a virus that has a 98% survival rate!

 

[HuffyCane]

The very word Catholic means universal group. The foundation of Catholic theology is the idea that the entire community joins together to share the actual flesh and blood of Christ and goes out into the world to share the beauty of the experience. (The word Mass is derived from the verb “to go out”.). Catholics are required to go to mass and partake in the sacraments. If they can’t go to mass, they can’t partake of the sacraments and their faithful exercise is frustrated. It’s pretty simple: you can’t shut down entire religions indefinitely.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

There is no irony in my statement, because life does not simply begin when sperm meets egg.

Then when does it begin?

If it’s not alive, what is it?
If it’s not human, what is it?
If abortion isn’t ending its life, what is it doing?

 

[watu04]

The very word Catholic means universal group. The foundation of Catholic theology is the idea that the entire community joins together to share the actual flesh and blood of Christ and goes out into the world to share the beauty of the experience. (The word Mass is derived from the verb “to go out”.). Catholics are required to go to mass and partake in the sacraments. If they can’t go to mass, they can’t partake of the sacraments and their faithful exercise is frustrated. It’s pretty simple: you can’t shut down entire religions indefinitely.

The Catholic church is more flexible and rational than this would imply especially under this Pope.

This line of argument ends up at a view that churches have no responsibility to obey any health regulation if it conflicts a religious requirement. Is that the position here?

 

[shon46]

The Catholic church is more flexible and rational than this would imply especially under this Pope.

This line of argument ends up at a view that churches have no responsibility to obey any health regulation if it conflicts a religious requirement. Is that the position here?

Does prayer work?

 

[HuffyCane]

The Catholic church is more flexible and rational than this would imply especially under this Pope.

This line of argument ends up at a view that churches have no responsibility to obey any health regulation if it conflicts a religious requirement. Is that the position here?

Nope. Never has been. The position is you can’t effectively close churches while allowing similarly constructed secular buildings to be open to the public. You also can’t have a rule that prohibits raw numbers of church attendees regardless of venue size without some shred of scientific evidence from THE PARTY OF SCIENCE that it’s necessary for long periods of time. Similarly, if you have a public space 50 feet square where people are expected to linger up to an hour, you can’t have a rule that if it’s secular and the government thinks it’s important you can have x people and if it’s religious you can have y people. We can have a debate on whether the government has a role in determining time place and manner for religious services on another day. It’s not today.

 

[HuffyCane]

The Catholic church is more flexible and rational than this would imply especially under this Pope.

This line of argument ends up at a view that churches have no responsibility to obey any health regulation if it conflicts a religious requirement. Is that the position here?

The Church has endured two thousand years of off and on Popes. This one wants to play footsie with the Chi Comms, let them approve priests and religious doctrine and claim there’s no hell. If he cleans out the perverts I’m ok with tolerating his naive and self congratulatory politics. I’m sworn to fealty until death, and this Pope actually gave me a medal, but that doesn’t mean he can change the catechism just because it suits him. We will all be here long after he is gone.

 

[URedskin54]

There is no irony in my statement, because life does not simply begin when sperm meets egg. The irony to me is that conservatives profess to care about lives only as far as those lives haven’t actually started yet. Once a being actually comes into existence they pretty much say “F.U. Survival of the fittest” and that’s evident by this ruling.

unsurprising that WaXi liked this, but it’s complete horseshiit. Every church I’ve been a part of has been dedicated to doing things year round to help people in need. In many cases they do things specifically to help single mothers. And for every Christian group I’ve ever come into contact with, Catholic or Protestant, serving others a central tenet of their faith. This is a dumb slander that needs to go away.

For the thousandth time I’ll say it: just because someone wants things done differently than you does not mean they don’t care about people or want to make the world a better place. They just have a different idea of how we should get there.

 

[HuffyCane]

unsurprising that WaXi liked this, but it’s complete horseshiit. Every church I’ve been a part of has been dedicated to doing things year round to help people in need. In many cases they do things specifically to help single mothers. And for every Christian group I’ve ever come into contact with, Catholic or Protestant, serving others a central tenet of their faith. This is a dumb slander that needs to go away.

For the thousandth time I’ll say it: just because someone wants things done differently than you does not mean they don’t care about people or want to make the world a better place. They just have a different idea of how we should get there.

Or question the means and risks of trusting others to do that.

 

[URedskin54]

Or question the means and risks of trusting others to do that.

Right. At least within my segment of the Christian world charity should be personal. I don’t think leaving it to the government to transfer(steal) cash impersonally from one person to another has a net positive impact because it ultimately discourages the personal acts of charity. I understand others feel differently and don’t hate them and slander them for it.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The Court says restrictions on religion must be neutral and this order isn’t neutral as long as you can go into a Best Buy the size of your church with 200 people but you can’t go into a church with 11, especially when there’s no administrative record where the executive considers that there have been outbreaks in churches with eleven or more in them.

Part of your argument I believe does not hold up factually. The place within the Catholic sanctuary where 200 people will remain seated for an hour or so, is not bigger than a Best Buy. Comparing the Downtown Catholic Cathedral in Tulsa, where people sit, to a Best Buy. Not addressing whether their should be a limit of 10.

 

[URedskin54]

Part of your argument I believe does not hold up factually. The place within the Catholic sanctuary where 200 people will remain seated for an hour or so, is not bigger than a Best Buy. Comparing the Downtown Catholic Cathedral in Tulsa, where people sit, to a Best Buy. Not addressing whether their should be a limit of 10.

In NYC there aren’t really many big stand-alone stores. There are relatively small department stores at the base of large buildings that see hundreds of people a day. In many cases the churches are bigger.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The Church has endured two thousand years of off and on Popes. This one wants to play footsie with the Chi Comms, let them approve priests and religious doctrine and claim there’s no hell. If he cleans out the perverts I’m ok with tolerating his naive and self congratulatory politics. I’m sworn to fealty until death, and this Pope actually gave me a medal, but that doesn’t mean he can change the catechism just because it suits him. We will all be here long after he is gone.

Are you questioning this Pope's infallibility?

 

[shon46]

Are you questioning this Pope's infallibility?

I will! He is a piece of crap!

 

[Gmoney4WW]

In NYC there aren’t really many big stand-alone stores. There are relatively small department stores at the base of large buildings that see hundreds of people a day. In many cases the churches are bigger.

As I understood it he was comparing like to like. Whether the Best Buy was within the confines of NYC or not, I assumed that he was trying to put forth our communal understanding of a general Best Buy in anywhere USA.
I've been to NYC twice, I understand the way it is laid out.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I will! He is a piece of crap!

You are not Catholic, so your opinion on this issue is not relevant.

 

[HuffyCane]

Part of your argument I believe does not hold up factually. The place within the Catholic sanctuary where 200 people will remain seated for an hour or so, is not bigger than a Best Buy. Comparing the Downtown Catholic Cathedral in Tulsa, where people sit, to a Best Buy. Not addressing whether their should be a limit of 10.

Splitting facts concedes that you know you don’t have an argument. But in any event, The National Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in downtown DC is one of the largest open buildings in the United States. It’s the 10th largest church in the world. It’s the twice the size of a Best Buy. It’s open now, but it was closed before due to similar orders.

St Patrick’s isn’t a small building by any imagination. It seats 3000 people. Please explain how 11 people in there is a public health hazard and 20 in Steak N Shake isn’t.