Incorrect. Pastors have been arrested. Church-goers have been fined.
Not McDonalds or the bank, though.
Federal judges are starting to rule against it.
Godless-winning? Godless-whining?
Well, that’s true. You are ok to go out and get a haircut because you just told us you never had the virus. Certainly can’t argue with that! The problem is everybody else. I’m not sure we can trust them like we do you.
I shall write the governor demanding he amends his guidelines as soon as you submit an electronic pinkie-swear affirming you are COVID-free.
Priests offering drive thru confession are being arrested? That’ll need a cite.
My restaurant cannot have guests inside for service. My church cannot have guests inside for service. Why are you arguing that churches should get preferential treatment, as all of the pastors I’ve seen being arrested/fined have attempted to hold services in person?
Because the First Amendment specifically protects the right to religious expression and I couldn’t find a “right to eat in a restaurant” enshrined anywhere.
That being said, finding one Trump appointed judge ruling (partially) against a part of a shelter in place order isn’t very persuasive either.
There have been, and will continue to be, a ton of lawsuits challenging the shelter in place regulations. I have no doubt rulings will come on both sides, especially as state courts interpret state laws (like their RFRAs). I, personally, am waiting for Hobby Lobby to use freedom of religion to try and keep their stores open. But, until then, businesses will continue to sue wanting to be considered “essential”, churches will continue to sue to be allowed to hold services (either in public or in cars), and people will continue to sue because they are special flowers and the virus is a hoax. This is America, land of the lawsuits. God forbid we recognize a temporary restriction on large public gatherings is just that, temporary. And that sacrificing a temporary bit of my “rights” in order to save the lives of others is an admirable action.
Legacy Church v. Kunkel is one of the more recent federal cases involving a megachurch seeking a Temporary Restraining Order to stop enforcement of New Mexico’s shelter in place rules and order preventing “mass gatherings” for Easter Services. The Court ruled that Smith is controlling, the Order was facially neutral and generally applicable, and that the Order was a proper exercise of the State’s police power.
Despite the fact that the Court refused to grant a TRO, it did have some issues with the states’ actions. The majority was concerned both by the late removal of a religious gathering exception (done the night before Easter) and the ability/procedure used to determine what is “essential” and what is “non-essential”. But, in the end: "Here, Secretary Kunkel may distinguish between certain classes of activity, grouping religious gatherings in with a host of secular conduct, to achieve what she determines is a balance between maintaining community needs and protecting public health. Secretary Kunkel does not pursue this aim “only against conduct with a religious motivation.”
That right to religious expression does not require allowing a large group to gather in a confined space and turn it into a massive petri dish. There have always been limits on that right for public safety. This isn’t a freedom of religion issue (for the most part), it’s a freedom of assembly. Millions of Americans have had no disruption to their religious services, except they’re now online or over the radio.
True, but it does protect the right to peaceably assemble. The lockdowns certainly interfere with that right, whether in a restaurant or elsewhere.
Some religious services can be conducted equally well in person or via videoconferencing, but not all: It varies by religion. Catholics, for instance, can’t have Mass online, because the Eucharist (which involves sharing food) is a fundamental, essential part of the service.
Sharing a communal space with fellow believers is certainly part of religious freedom. Could you imagine any of these shelter in place laws surviving a legal challenge without the pandemic?
Absolutely. And, by and large, a majority of these shelter in place laws should be upheld as a proper exercise of a state’s police power to protect the health of its citizens.
It’s both.
That “except” part matters.
Do you really believe a law that forbid gatherings of more than 50 people, absent the exercise of public safety, would survive a 1st Amendment religious freedom claim? I’d be shocked if any court would hold that that kind of law wouldn’t run afoul of both religious freedom and freedom of assembly.
But at this moment, group assemblies aren’t peaceful, they are at high risk spreading disease.
You have the right of Freedom of Religion, that doesnt mean you have the right to perform- for example- human sacrifice.
Religious expression can be overruled by mundane laws, altho it is true that if the mundane laws do not have a public safety background they can be bent. So, in general, altho you might have to remove hats to get your Drivers licence or passport picture taken, if wearing a head covering is part of your religion, you can leave it on. However, since for public safety reason, the Police need to see your face, you dont have the right to wear a mask. Headscarf- yes. Niqab- no. (in general, each state has it’s own rulings)
*The U.S. State Department, for example, gives explicit guidelines for U.S. passport photographs:
Can hats or religious headgear be worn for the photo? Do not wear a hat or head covering that obscures the hair or hairline, unless worn daily for a religious purpose. Your full face must be visible, and the head covering must not cast any shadows on your face.
In this case, it is acceptable for the hair to be covered for religious reasons, as long as the full face is visible. Under no circumstances are face veils (niqab) allowed to be worn in U.S. passport photos.*
So, even if your religion insists that a niqab be worn, you have to remove it for a US passport. (Note, this is true even in Saudi Arabia!)
All rights have limitations, especially for public safety. The 1st ad has several recognized limitations. Death threats, online harassment, spreading nude pictures without permission, kiddy porn, etc, all are limitations on the 1st Ad.
The Pope disagrees with you on this. He has a online mass, and
*With increasing numbers of people confined at home with no access to Mass or confession, pastors everywhere, Pope Francis included, have turned to some little-known, or at least little-used, concepts and practices, including “spiritual communion,” indulgences and general absolution…Spiritual communion was also emphasized by St. John Paul II in his last encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and Pope Francis has recently urged quarantined viewers tuning into his daily Masses to make an act of spiritual communion.
Though he doesn’t do it every time, the pope has frequently recited aloud a prayer for those watching at home that says, “My Jesus, I believe you are truly present in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I love you above all things, and I desire you in my soul. Because right now I cannot receive you sacramentally, at least come spiritually into my heart. As you have already come, I embrace you and unite myself to you. Don’t not allow that I am ever separated from you.”*
Sure, but I was responding to Hamlet, who seemed to be saying that there was no constitutional protection for people gathering together in public to eat at a restaurant, compared to the protection for worshippers to attend religious services. To the extent you’re going to the restaurant to eat with friends or family, that potentially is covered by the 1st Amendment’s constitutional protection for peaceable assembly, it seems to me. I would say that the First provides protection in both cases. Whether that protection has been reasonably limited by the current pandemic laws is another question.
This:
Followed by this:
Is you completely missing the point. Is anyone arguing that churches should all be shut down forevermore? Or are people (like yours truly) saying that churches don’t get a special exemption to the current situation?
I think we’re talking past each other. You said: “This isn’t a freedom of religion issue (for the most part), it’s a freedom of assembly.” I took that to mean that you thought the shelter in place orders don’t implicate the freedom of religion, which is clearly wrong. I corrected that. Gathering together in the same space is a huge part of many religions, and would clearly be part of a determination if a government regulation were to intrude upon it.
For the most part, we agree. The free exercise clause should not allow churches to ignore neutral regulations during this pandemic. You seem to misunderstand that simply recognizing a right exists (for religious people to gather together being protected) means that right cannot be infringed upon. Courts can (have, and will continue to) find that freedom of religious expression includes gathering together in worship.
Oh, I absolutely agree that the right for congregations and such to gather exists. My position has been specifically that such a right does not give special privilege over restrictions on large gatherings in the current situation. Yes, it’s a right. No, that right does not confer an ability to ignore emergency declarations.
DrDeth, the very speech you quoted from the Pope agrees with me, where he says “Because right now I cannot receive you sacramentally,…”. Broadcasts of services may be the best we can do right now, but they’re not the Mass.
Except all the religious expression that HAS been banned in the US (cite). Cross-burning is still okay (cite). But feeding Tasmanian albinos to Baal is probably out except in Dallas. “It has long been held that the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent the government from requiring the doing of some act or forbidding the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question.” (cite)
One’s right to assemble ends at closed facilities or my property line (don’t trespass), a police line or proclaimed illegal gathering, occupancy limits in rooms and elevators, etc. The US Library of Congress reports: (link)
Dopers claiming to be attorneys in the US should know this.
As I cited above, “narrowly tailored” restrictions are appropriate.
What are the spiritual consequences of failing to receive communion on any specific day? Or is that off-topic?
Pointing out that rights are not absolute does absolutely nothing to disprove that those rights exist and have been recognized by courts. Both Northern Piper and I were absolutely correct in what we said. You coming along and stating obvious truisms that any 8th grader should know and trying to disparage us makes you come off poorly. Plus, I believe Northern Piper is Canadian.
Another blind truism, and unrelated to my point. My point was that the right to religious freedom includes a right to communal gathering. A law that encroaches on that right could violate both clauses. But thanks for another truism.
But, I’ll play along. Do you think a law prohibiting gatherings of more than 50 people on Sundays would pass constitutional muster under those two clauses?