Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Oct 9, 2011.
So if the restrictions were applied evenly churches and religious buildings couldn’t avoid them?
It's ******* terrible.
Generally, this is putting religious services in the "essential" category so when, not if, we turn worse they'll be able to operate without restriction. I thought even the allowance of gatherings of 10 people was bad!
I don't know if you've seen Orthodox services, but they're packed.
EDIT: For confirmation, Orthodox wedding in NYC, thousands of people.
The article did say the following, which mentions the non-essential category:
And in orange zones, while synagogues and churches are capped at 25 people, “even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.”
So it does seem the other option would be to put number caps on all businesses so that religious buildings are bound by it.
Right, this is calling the government's hand in a poker game -- you can't differentiate essential business from religious services, which is patently insane.
If we're going to try curtailing methods for the pandemic in certain zones -- i.e. everyone should stay at home, but grocery stores and food delivery and pharmacies are okay -- then allowing religious services to be uncapped and have people go there (every day, three times a day in Orthodox communities) is pure insanity.
Is the article wrong on non-essential businesses having no cap?
Your wording seems to imply that churches are businesses. They are not.
Restrictions on religious gatherings are narrowly tailored and serve a compelling government interest, I don't understand how these restrictions didn't survive strict scrutiny. To say they're unlike restrictions on so-called essential businesses is to miss the point: churches are not regulated by the government the way businesses are.
Moreover, churches do not house congregants the way businesses handle customers.
If churches put social distancing markers and have customers come in for a few minutes at a time to get their services from an officiant and then leave, then sure, maybe they can stay open. Go in, drop off some cash, get your blessings, and then leave. But churches do not operate that way.
We don't need to read these decisions with our eyes closed and fail to understand that this is judges substituting policy preferences from those of legislatures, which we tend to forget the Constitution only permits when they're conservative policy preferences: otherwise it's legislating from the bench.
Still think jurisdiction-stripping is a bad idea (assuming the Democrats ever get back in complete control in DC)? Don't see any other way around what is clearly legislating from the bench here. They are also on track to be the most conservative-activist court since the 1930's. Lochner's got nothing on this bunch.
EDIT: I wonder if hospitals get crushed they'll stay this decision? They won't go back and overrule it outright, but if public pressure here got high enough...
A bad idea? Yes.
Do we have many other options? No. But I'd like to try other options first.
What other options do we have? If the Court is putting things behind First Amendment or other constitutional walls, how else can break through them other than replacing justices or amending the document?
@blackmyron Thank you for you point about Cuban Americans
I won't deny that my grandparents (who weren't plantation owners and definitely did not have slaves) voted Republican, but my mom is a definite Democrat and was more excited about Bernie than Biden. I'm also of that ancestry and I would never have considered voting for Trump. And as of right now, no other Republican.
I don't even dislike socialism.
Hey there. Religious person here.
Restricting in-person services right now is NOT unconstitutional, mostly because streaming video exists. You're not stopping anyone from worshipping or even e-meeting.
I mean, they're not wrong that it's a constraint on free exercise. The law can't assume or assign equivalence to alternative methods of religious practice. There are almost certainly religious practices that simply cannot happen if they can't be conducted in-person or in groups.
The health orders do infringe on religious liberty. They just do so in a way that passes constitutional muster -- they are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Specifically, restricting large gatherings that take place over a period of time in the interests of public health.
There are religious practices that cannot be conducted except with at least a few people involved such as a funeral, baptism etc but you can also easily keep those below 10 people or let’s say in the funeral case you can cremate and wait if you feel like the funeral needs to have a lot of people. We waited like 9 months between when my uncle died and when we actually buried him. Although half of that was because the ground was to frozen to bury him plus we had to wait a few extra months so everyone from the family could come.
Care to answer my question from above? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts here. What else besides changing the makeup of the Court or amending the Constitution can be done?
The SC appear to be saying that the regulations are not "narrowly tailored" because:
"They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services. The District Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread of the disease.
"District Court found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Ibid. Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] ha rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.”
"Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID–19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue. Almost all of the 26 Diocese churches immediately can seat at least 500 people, about 14 can accommodate at least 700, and 2 can seat over 1,000. Similarly, Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills can seat up to 400. It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 people to a 1,000–seat church or 400–seat synagogue would create a more serious health risk than the many other activities that the State allows."
Don't worry, I saw the quotes from the opinion. The court certainly thinks that the restrictions don't pass strict scrutiny -- I'm saying that I disagree, for the reasons I mentioned in my initial post. They're not comparing like to like, and the issue of capacity is entirely specious.
Well, for starters, if a bunch of mosques started appearing in the heartland of America you'd find that the first amendment suddenly isn't that important to the justices.
Fixed your previous post for you -- Jello
I could be wrong about this but in NC, I don’t think any of Gov. Cooper’s restrictions ever applied to houses of worship. We did have a church shut down in Charlotte by the county health director after a revival of sorts resulted in over 100 cases spread out over five counties—and church leadership still did not want to cooperate with the public health director.
What I am observing is houses of worship that actually give a **** about their congregants, and as such are doing Zoom-only or outdoor worship or a combination of both—and houses of worship that insist that God wants you to be in an enclosed space with a lot of people and singing loudly, and if you don’t want to do that, then you apparently don’t love or trust God.
Anecdote in that vein, the coup government which already had one of the worst outbreaks in Bolivia and with a mass native population who are more vulnerable; decided to instead spend funds on having helicopters drop holy waster rather than give medical care.
My parents' church had brief limited in person services and told no one to come if they were at high risk. That only lasted a few weeks and now they are back to only online services... Because they aren't horrible? So yeah, I have been watching their services.
A guy I know posted on Facebook, "God ain't gonna let nothing bad happen to you at church."
Even in the Bible, there are numerous instances of people being killed in their places of worship.
Also what about the countless shootings that have occurred in church. Some people are so delusional
I wouldn't say it is entirely specious. The idea of limiting numbers based upon the capacity of the venue is something that Australian authorities introduced as part of Covid restrictions with good results as it was tied to the concept of social distancing -so in Australia we allow one person per 4 square metres of space in indoor areas, plus one person per 2 square metres of space in outdoor areas. This would allow different numbers of visitors for a particular venue. We also prohibit dancing and mingling within hospitality venues- you have to be seated. The SC seems to be taking issue with the fact that some 'venues' had no restrictions at all whilst the religious venues in question had hard limits, hence there was not a law of general applicability, the regulations in question treated places of worship more harshly than other places (at least on my rather superficial reading).
Churches are magic. Vampires can't even enter them. And neither can covid. God protects everyone inside a church.
Everything but kids from Pedophile Priests. The magic doesn't work on that.
Also like.......my fellow citizens of Pittsburgh would like to have a word with that guy about bad things and places of worship