Current Events > Supreme Court allows restrictions on attendance at church services amid COVID-19

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-allows-restrictions-on-attendance-at-church-services-amid-coronavirus/

A divided Supreme Court on Friday refused to block California restrictions that limit attendance at church services. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberals in allowing the restrictions, which impose a 25% occupancy cap or 100-person maximum, to stay in place.

Roberts emphasized the urgent and evolving nature of the coronavirus pandemic gives officials great leeway to protect citizens a task unelected judges are ill equipped to handle.

"Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary, which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people," Roberts wrote in a separate concurrence.

---

Surprising

---

I was having some hope that actual legal scholars would fall back on that rather than party line when determining responses to a global pandemic.

Silly me.
---

a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I was having some hope that actual legal scholars would fall back on that rather than party line when determining responses to a global pandemic.

Silly me.

roberts sided with the democrats, that's all we can ask for these days.

---

Of all the places people DONT need to be going during a pandemic a church just about tops the entire list

berlyman101 posted...

roberts sided with the democrats, that's all we can ask for these days.

He seems like a wild card

---

Kavanaugh's dissent was such pure partisan drivel that it was disgusting. For a bunch of purported originalists they sure do seem to act like they have never read the thing when it suits their goals.

realnifty1 posted...

Kavanaugh's dissent was such pure partisan drivel that it was disgusting. For a bunch of purported originalists they sure do seem to act like they have never read the thing when it suits their goals.

Kavanaugh really does seem dirty. I don't know about Alito but Thomas is clearly scum as well.

---

Fuckin WHY....WHY DO YOU NEED TO GO TO CHURCH. Just pray at home for awhile. Jesus will understand. Do these people not understand that the only reason pastors are pushing for this is because its harder for them to get money from you? They could get Cashapp but all the elderly who they steal from every week don't know how to operate that.

---

realnifty1 posted...

Kavanaugh's dissent was such pure partisan drivel that it was disgusting. For a bunch of purported originalists they sure do seem to act like they have never read the thing when it suits their goals.

What did he say in his dissent?

Doom_Art posted...

a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one

---

VipaGTS posted...

Fuckin WHY....WHY DO YOU NEED TO GO TO CHURCH.

What a stupid question.

---

VipaGTS posted...

Just pray at home for awhile. Jesus will understand

this 100%. even if there's safety protocols it is reliant on occupancy limits on what is allowed in the county/state level.

too many people. so much risk of infection.
since they're crowded in one building for an hour to 2 hours every sunday.
---

The country is burning from protests and this is what they do?

---

Hello_Hello_Hey posted...

The country is burning from protests and this is what they do?

thats not how the supreme court works or what ti does xD

---

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
---

emblem boy posted...

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

it's more like minutes :( depending on the grocery amount.
seconds maybe if it's just something like a drink or a small purchase.
---

And it seems weird that he's comparing the church to retail spaces. It's not as if the state hasn't also limited the size of similar, non-religious gatherings like plays, concerts and sporting events.

kingdrake2 posted...

emblem boy posted...

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

it's more like minutes :( depending on the grocery amount.
seconds maybe if it's just something like a drink or a small purchase.

I don't spend minutes walking down the same isle with the same person. Unless you're talking about waiting in line?
---

Are churches that are doing in-person services still passing around collection plates?

---

CableZL posted...

Are churches that are doing in-person services still passing around collection plates?

https://youtu.be/_n5E7feJHw0

onedarksoul posted...

What a stupid question.

what's stupid about it?

---