Supreme Court strikes another pandemic-related restriction on religious services

[DonViejo]

Source: Washington Post



By Robert Barnes
April 10, 2021 at 8:55 a.m. EDT

In another late-night ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday blocked another California coronavirus restriction on religious gatherings, saying the state’s limits on home-based Bible-study and prayer sessions violated constitutional rights.

The 5-to-4 order on an emergency petition illustrates how a new majority on the court — with Justice Amy Coney Barrett playing a decisive role — is now in control when the court considers if pandemic-related restrictions cross the line to endanger religious rights.

Constitutional protections are implicated any time a state treats “any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise,” the majority wrote. “It is no answer that a state treats some comparable secular businesses or other activities as poorly as or even less favorably than the religious exercise at issue.”

In this case, the majority said, gatherings of more than three households were banned at prayer meetings in homes even though California permits “hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-california-coronavirus-church/2021/04/10/182faec2-99e8-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819_story.html

[Thomas Hurt]

1. Let them test God.

[Warpy]

15. Exactly

This disease is just a trial run. The next one is likely to be devastating, on the order of smallpox with a 30% death rate or worse,

The faithful will meet their maker a lot sooner than they'd planned. They will try to take the rest of us with them.

[roamer65]

27. Mother Nature has her ways of leveling the playing field.

[Raven123]

2. Some day a health care provider will decline to treat these folks using the same religious objection

[Sibelius Fan]

3. Once again, make believe triumphs over science.

[bluestarone]

4. Hell, let these yahoos pray to their GOD! (even though he already gave them his answer)

The MASK DUMMIES, The MASK!

[bucolic_frolic]

5. How about when they try to treat secular activity less favorably than religious belief?

Like in abortions. Does that apply? Where is the right wing fascist SCOTUS on that one?

So you think we have a legal wedge in there? Flip the argument back on them. They established the principle here.

[NCjack]

6. Avoid RW Christians to avoid contagious diseases.

[roamer65]

25. Right wing fundamentalism is a mental disease.

They should be sent to deprogramming facilities....seriously.

IT’S A CULT.

[ananda]

7. Death over religious restriction. A word of advice:

Avoid ALL Republicans and rightwing so-called xtians.

The QOP really is a death cult, fullblown and worse
than any other threat to our lives or national security.

[Mickju]

8. Hideous!

[seta1950]

9. Here we go again

The bigots on the Supreme Court trampled states rights.

[elleng]

10. This sounds rational to me, but need to read decision.

'gatherings of more than three households were banned at prayer meetings in homes even though California permits “hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.”'

[bluestarone]

11. I see it the same way.

IF all these places are open then yea. Seems like an ok decision.

[elleng]

14. Good. Will follow up.

[FBaggins]

12. The dissent is also rational - and not at all like many of the posts here

It appears unanimous that the state cannot treat secular gatherings differently from religious gatherings. It's just a question of where to make the comparison. The majority looks at the examples that you cited where more than three families could gather... while the dissent points out that the state restricts all gatherings in homes that include more than three households (religious or secular).

[FBaggins]

13. And smacks down the 9th circuit pretty aggressively while doing so.

This is the fifth time the Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise. See Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2020); South Bay, 592 U. S. ___; Gish v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2021); Gateway City, 592 U. S. ___. It is unsurprising that such litigants are entitled to relief.

[Elessar Zappa]

21. Hope you don't agree with this bullshit ruling.

[FBaggins]

22. Which part?

I don't know enough about the policy involved to evaluate. But as I said... the dissent seems reasonable.

The underlying rationale of the majority (that CA can't treat religious activities worse than comparable secular activities) doesn't seem that controversial.

[Raven]

16. Fine. I'm done worrying about these people.

[PSPS]

17. And so religion gets to continue its destructive force on humanity.

[LiberalLovinLug]

18. Amy Coney Barrett just sent more true believers to heaven

The right to assemble, during a pandemic, now with wildly contagious new variants, in order to prop up each others beliefs of fairy tales, is more important than the health and quite literally the life and death of those assemblers.

Got it

[torius]

19. Businesses in Calif. have a mask mandate

Last edited Sat Apr 10, 2021, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

and social distancing and capacity rules. The capacity rules are determined by virus numbers in the county. Restrictions may or may not be lifted in June. Homes do not have these mandates, so how can the Court say it's equivalent? Hooey.

[BigmanPigman]

20. Reason #1,000,001 to balance the courts.

[Democrats_win]

23. Disappointing

Religion should be working to save its members and the community from this disease. They shouldn't be running to the courts over such a trivial slight. They are acting badly.

Is the court's ruling correct? It comes down to a judgement: are hair salons more important than the practice of religion? Should they be treated the same. Clearly a doctor's office visit is more important but that's not at issue here. Sadly a stacked Supreme court cannot be trusted anymore. Like "religion," they no longer have the good judgement to exist! For the court, it's been that way for a while. There is no doubt that these so-called "religions" are not following God anymore.

[roamer65]

26. 🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠

Would you like to meet your maker, RW fundies? I can assist you with that endeavor!

Hugs and kisses,

Your friendly SARS virus.

[myohmy2]

28. pack that sucker...

...