Supreme Court Partly Backs Religious Challenge to California Virus Restrictions
Source: nytimes
The ruling followed a similar one in a case from New York and provided more evidence of a change in the courts direction after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Feb. 6, 2021, 12:34 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON A splintered Supreme Court on late Friday night partly lifted restrictions on religious services in California that had been prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.
The court ruled in cases brought by South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista and Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena. The churches said restrictions imposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, violated the Constitutions protection of the free exercise of religion.
The restrictions set varying limits on attendance at religious services by county, depending on infection rates. With the pandemic raging, in-person worship services were entirely barred in Tier 1, which covers almost all of the state.
In a brief, unsigned opinion, the court blocked that total ban but left in place a 25 percent capacity restriction and a prohibition on singing and chanting. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch said they would have blocked all of the restrictions. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left all of the restrictions in place.
.....................
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/us/supreme-court-california-church-coronavirus.html
No two ways about it. Religion trumps Science.
?quality=90&auto=webp
In a brief, unsigned opinion late Friday night, the Supreme Court left in place a 25 percent capacity restriction and a prohibition on singing and chanting in religious services in California.Credit...Adam Beam/Associated Press
Adam Liptak
AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)constitutionality of lockdowns is not at all clear. Its been sad to see restaurant owners who lost everything because they were required to shutdown. Those families have children to care for. Covid-19 pandemic is temporary, the inequality it amplified will last for many years.
Grokenstein
(5,727 posts)The rest of the world will cordon us off while the antimaskers, antivaxxers and superspreaders keep right on killing themselves and us.
OldBaldy1701E
(5,144 posts)and, that is exactly what the rest of the world should do.
Sucha NastyWoman
(2,749 posts)Youd think the anti-maskers and virus deniers would at least be interested in that aspect.
RainCaster
(10,911 posts)They really want the world to come to an end, don't they?
ananda
(28,873 posts)No question.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,590 posts)I could give a shit whether they choose to join their Maker. It's all the innocent people -- their kids, parents, co-workers, me, etc. -- they can infect as a result of their super-spreader events that annoys me. Freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to spread a highly contagious and fatal virus through the rest of society, any more than the First Amendment gives you the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. Or incite a riot and call it "protected speech," for that matter.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,564 posts)sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Miigwech
(3,741 posts)the one true truth .... Unless they each accept the one true light of God , that we are all equal, every man and woman, every race and every religion ... NOT EVEN THE POPE is pure in his knowledge of GOD, the doctrine of his church declares women to be less then men .... this is empirically not so, in the whole of creation. Until all man's religions can accept women and men as equals and accept all of Gods creatures as equal to humans then there will be no religious salvation for anyone. Organizied religion and these effing evangelical tele preachers, Mega church rip-off preachers are nothing more then going through a corporation to talk to God. Some religious man is needed to contact your creator to cure you, the way to go ... check out this absolutely revolutionary leaflet about it. If you have Amazon Prime you get it for free on books, not sure exactly how that works but this shit blows everything out of the water.
A Pure White Light: The Daughter of God Speaks
by Dionysia Adamson
iluvtennis
(19,868 posts)is not safe to be inside a church building during a pandemic. Do like many churches are doing - parking lot services with the pastor on multiple big screens on the parking lot or Facebook or zoom.
You can be a Christian and believe in science - they aren't mutually exclusive.
bucolic_frolic
(43,257 posts)Funerals are not free. This is an ongoing, repetitive, cookie-cutter BUSINESS, not a non-profit.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Locally (Albuquerque) two 'mega churches' have renamed their church services as 'peaceful protests'
as the state COVID-19 restrictions permit 'peaceful protests'.
melm00se
(4,994 posts)and I would suggest that they remove the Church and substitute:
BLM, Anti-Trump protests, Union picket lines or any other progressive cause that wants to be able to exercise their right of assembly then honestly reflect upon their stance.
And then look into the future and gauge their reaction if the Court referenced this ruling to suppress any of the above.
angrychair
(8,732 posts)Those protest are being done outside and the vast majority of people wearing masks.
In the case of church services they are indoors and 99% of people are not wearing masks.
While few cases have been tied to protest events, literally thousands of cases have been tied to indoor, unmasked, church services.
So these type of events are not similar. While none of them are ideal, at least protesters, by in large, are taking some level of precautions.
turbinetree
(24,710 posts)EndlessWire
(6,561 posts)They shouldn't be allowed to infect themselves and then carry it back to the community. We have rights, too. It's reckless endangerment. And, G-d never said it was okay to harm your fellow humans in this manner.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)These restrictions did not single out churches. They applied across the board. The next step would be for a private owner to challenge the restrictions based on deeply held religious beliefs along the line of Hobby Lobby. It is a slippery slope. Besides, it is arbitrary by setting restrictions that were softer than what the Governor determined was the best. This is overstepping the bounds of what SCOTUS should be doing. It is a terrible decision where no precedence is cited - a sure sign that the decision is badly decided.
angrychair
(8,732 posts)That is what worries me.
OldBaldy1701E
(5,144 posts)to figure out exactly how the restrictions deny anyone their beliefs. Now, if they are saying that they cannot practice their religion without gathering on one place... well, I think I would be questioning why this is a requirement. (Of course it has nothing to do with needing to rook the 'faithful' out of their hard earned money by scare tactics and mob mentality on a regular basis... nothing at all. Of course.)
mdbl
(4,973 posts)Most of my visits to any church has me sitting around a bunch of coughing weezing sick people. This was before the pandemic. Why the hell would anyone want to risk going there until we have achieved a high percentage of immunity? The supreme court should have just rejected this with no comment. Dumbasses.
badboy67
(460 posts)The Court MUST be reformed ... NOW!!
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,362 posts)... is Tom Brady a god, or a devil? We will watch the holy contest.
BYOB. And, bring lots of cash, there will be a collection plate passed by some very big and fierce "ushers".