LogFAQs > #939945709

To justify its discriminatory treatment of religious worship services, California must show that its rules are justified by a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 531532. California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID19 and protecting the health of its citizens. But restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom. Roberts v. Neace, 958 F. 3d 409, 414 (CA6 2020) (per curiam). What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification. The Church has agreed to abide by the States rules that apply to comparable secular businesses. That raises important questions: Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?

The Church and its congregants simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses. California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices. The State cannot assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings. Ibid. California has ample options that would allow it to combat the spread of COVID19 without discriminating against religion. The State could insist that the congregants adhere to social-distancing and other health requirements and leave it at thatjust as the Governor has done for comparable secular activities. Id., at 415. Or alternatively, the State could impose reasonable occupancy caps across the board. But absent a compelling justification (which the State has not offered), the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship. The State also has substantial room to draw lines, especially in an emergency. But as relevant here, the Constitution imposes one key restriction on that line-drawing: The State may not discriminate against religion. In sum, Californias 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment. See Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers). The Church would suffer irreparable harm from not being able to hold services on Pentecost Sunday in a way that comparable secular businesses and persons can conduct their activities. I would therefore grant the Churchs request for a temporary injunction. I respectfully dissent.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/court-declines-to-lift-restrictions-on-crowds-at-church-services/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/19

That's some of what kavenough wrote. I don't agree...

Like lol, because seeing someone in a grocery store lasts seconds compared in a church
---

Pitter-patter, let's get at 'er