"The Supreme Court placed religious freedom before pandemic precautions Wednesday night, temporarily blocking recent rules in New York that severely restricted gatherings at houses of worship in areas hit hardest by COVID-19.
The court’s new, more conservative majority ruled 5-4 that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s limits on churches, synagogues and other houses of worship to 10 or 25 worshipers in hard-hit regions appeared to violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
“Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the court’s unsigned majority opinion said. “The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”
My view is the opposite, that fighting Covid is more important. And with the internet, radio, TV, etc there are plenty of alternative methods for people to practice religion.
X/X/2023 - The Supreme Court heard a court case today from a cannibal that claims the laws regarding murder do not apply when he is exercising his religious beliefs in accordance with the first amendment.
Which is kind of what I’m getting at. Reasonable people know that there are ways to worship that do not involve crowds that encourage the spread of the virus, yet these people believe that they absolutely must meet in large groups in order for their worship to be effective. They have no reason to believe this other than it’s their religion. How does this make it any different from someone who claims he needs to eat raw human flesh as part of his religion, when both are not conducive to a healthy society and simple substitutions that are readily available should suffice?
It’s not just taking longer than you thought, it is going in the wrong direction.
On the other hand, they have a point: Everybody knows Godott exists, the BOOK says so. But who among you can prove that viruses exist? (/desperation)
I wonder if the word theocracy should not be better spelled theocrazy.
Technically, since it’s (theoretically) possible to procure human flesh without murder or any other crime, he can just practice his religion that way. Case dismissed.
Almost as alarming is the total disregard for stare decises (sp?) – as far as I can tell, essentially the same state rules were upheld just a few months ago. How can a state operate when there is zero finality in court decisions. Just keep trying until it works!
Also, I haven’t read the case much at all, but from some of the dissenting opinions, it seems clear that the majority was stretching for the answer they wanted – the majority claimed that churches were treated more harshly than liquor stores, but no one goes to liquor stores for an hour, sitting next to each other and singing. The comparison was just wrong. The dissent said that churches were treated more leniently than similar secular venues, which I’m inclined to believe, considering other situations where people stay for an hour together (movie theaters, live, indoor concerts) are all closed.
Moving this to Politics and Elections. Yes, it’s about the virus, but it’s also about politics, and this seems like a better home. I’ll also ask the proper mods for these forums to review, in case they want it elsewhere, but it’s US Thanksgiving, and people may be busy with other stuff.
The point was not that the constitution says that religion trumps public health and safety. The point was that religious gatherings were singled out for indiscriminate restrictions, while a different and more situationally-aware restriction was applied to non-religious gathering places. If Cuomo had limited attendance at houses of worship based on capacity in the same way as in other buildings, then this wouldn’t be a Constitutional issue. But he limited churches and synagogues to 10 people maximum whether the building holds 50 or 5000.
That is correct. Situationally-aware restrictions were applied to gathering places. As noted by descenting opinion, spread is directly proportional to length of exposure. The longer people remain in one place, the higher the risk of exposure and viral load. Which businesses or gathering places got preferential dispensation compared to houses of worship? The chart shown seems to be more restrictive of businesses and recreational activities than houses of worship.
It doesn’t, I hadn’t looked at the chart yet. I agree, Worship seems to be getting more lax restrictions. Probably should have made it the exact same as “mass gathering” or something though for legal cover.
And in the zone where churches and synagogues are limited to 10 people maximum regardless of capacity, restaurants are limited to take-out and delivery regardless of capacity and all other gatherings are prohibited. Where houses of worship are limited to the lesser of 25 people or 33% of capacity, restaurants are not permitted to have indoor dining and residential and non-residential gatherings are limited to 10 people. In the yellow zone, houses of worship are restricted to 50% capacity with no maximum number, so a house of worship with a capacity of 1000 can have 500 people while an event space with the same capacity of 1000 can only have 25 people.
Religious gatherings were singled out alright- to have fewer restrictions, not more.
I eagerly await the cries from the right about 5 unelected officials overturning the will of the people and imposing their own views about how to handle a pandemic rather than defer to the experts. I’m sure, any moment now, the cries of “judicial activism!” will become deafening from them.
