I agree but, for a court, they are distinctly vague on what constitutes a legitimate religion and what isn’t in their eyes. It very much runs along the lines of, “I know it when I see it” for them.
Something I am especially dubious of with this current court.
Cite?
Sure:
Although it has attempted to create standards to differentiate religious beliefs and actions from similar nonreligious beliefs, the Supreme Court has never articulated a formal definition for religion. SOURCE
If you think otherwise then back-atcha…
Cite?
In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit
more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential”
may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of
“essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture
facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose
services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities. See New
York State, Empire State Development, Guidance for Determining Whether a Business Enterprise is Subject to a
Workforce Reduction Under Recent Executive Orders,
Guidance on Executive Order 202.6 | Empire State Development. The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone.
While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.
These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the
hearing in the District Court, a health department official
testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally
have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.”
App. to Application in No. 20A87, Exh. D, p. 83. Yet a
nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and
schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, id.,
Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100,
but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s
churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records…At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no
capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists,
and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage
companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are
all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it
may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick
up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the
afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who
knew public health would so perfectly align with secular
convenience?
So, all the ruling said was- the churches were being treated more harshly that other places where people might gather, many of which would not normally be considered essential.
A church is not a bike shop. Trying to equate the two is highly disingenuous when the issue is people gathering in groups where they spread disease.
There is the ruling under question. Where in it does it attempt or even care what "constitutes a legitimate religion "?
In fact, the ruling isnt about what constitutes a legitimate religion in any way shape or form. It is that Churches are being treated more harshly that other places where people might gather. And it is the State of NY that defined churches for this purpose in their law, not SCOTUS.
People may gather inside for
extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No
apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject
to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they
stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps
more besides. The only explanation for treating religious
places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank
about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and
tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises
are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First
Amendment forbids
Because people gathering at churches (or whatever places of worship) is a whole different thing than people gathering in bike shops.
A distinction you seem to not understand. It’s like saying Madison Square Garden and the hot dog vendor outside are equivalent because people congregate at both.
No, it is not. So why is the bike shop free from limitations, while the church has onerous ones?
This ruling is actually very right. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “religious freedom more important than fighting covid” . It is entirely and completely about Churches being discriminated against while most other places of public gathering are not.
Now, if the law had said- you cant gather together in more than X number- then the churches wouldnt have a case, as evidenced by other suits. The churches here arent asking for special treatment, they are asking for the same treatment as a liquor store or bicycle shop.
If you take a look at South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom:
Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on
places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar
or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular
gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings,
spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large
groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.
So, CA rulings were Constitutional, as it treated Churches like similar businesses and gatherings, instead of discriminating specially against just them.
So, lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances are the same as liquor stores and bicycle shops?
The more you know…
In a bike shop you rarely have more than a few people in at a time and can maintain social distancing.
In a chuch you have a LOT more people (usually…some churches are small). Congregants are seated together. I don’t even know what they do about communion and shared cups (I am 100% willing to bet they have considered this and taken precautions). I have been in many services where you hold hands with the person next to you (which I thought was cool but not something I am keen on during a pandemic).
In the end it is simple math. You have more opportunity to spread the virus with the more people you have in close contact.
We know this. It’s not rocket science.
If the churches were all abiding by rules to be careful and the state backed off and was all fine about it then why did they feel the need to go to the Supreme Court? What were they after that they didn’t already have?
Can you see your house from up there?
Except that in a bike shop or a hardware store or a liquor store or any other retail establishment there certainly could be crowding, since there are no limits on them. You are just taking a bike shop since yes, rarely are they crowded. But I saw one in SJ when they had a rally start there, and it was packed, including it’s back lot.
The point in the suit was- churches are limited while retail and other business are not. That is exactly why South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom was ruled OK- since it treated churches just like any other comparable secular gatherings. In other words Newsom wrote his order to not discriminate vs churches, but to treat them exactly like any other comparable secular gatherings. Cuomo singled out churches- which is why his order was discriminatory.
SCOTUS was right, NY was wrong. It was a bad order on the part of NY. CA managed to do the same thing- and pass Constitutional muster- as Newsom’s order didnt discriminate.
As you said=In the end it is simple math. And the CA order was based upon simple math, while NY order singled out Churches for more restrictive rules.
If it was based upon simple math, the case would have lost.
I still don’t see the big deal. They do not have the health risks of large indoor gatherings. In fact, when everyone wears masks, they’re the same risk as grocery shopping.
Anecdotal but here in Chicago (where I live) absolutely every store in my hood has a firm mask requirement and maximum number of people allowed in the store at one time (which is usually like three for a normal 7-11 kind of store) and stickers on the floor indicating six foot distancing near the register.
I don’t know how careful every store is to adhere to this stuff but, for the most part, everyone seems to be going with it. I live in a high population density area too (among the highest in Chicago).
Churches do not work like that though. It is never only six people allowed in at once. Quite the opposite. And therein lies the problem.
Pretending a church is akin to a liquor store or bike shop is disingenuous in the extreme. It is not wrong to single them out. Not because they are religious, but because the way they operate is particularly prone to spreading a deadly disease. It’s not their fault, it’s just how it works.
And maybe, just maybe, as an organization that claims they are dedicated to good they should do some good here.
I know this’ll sound crazy but I’m thinking that might be when a bicycle shop becomes, wait for it… a sporting event.
Again, shops, whether they’re bicycle, grocery, liquor, clothing are low risk as judged by the experts. Everyone wearing masks, people in and out of the store (opening the door, by the way), short term stay. No singing. No shaking hands. No passing the basket. No communion. No sitting next to people. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The judges were either ignorant or knowingly conflating the very different situations. This is something that was said by several people at the beginning of the thread. I don’t understand why it’s a discussion again.
What are you talking about "only six people allowed in at once"? That is the whole point of the suit- that in retail business "At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no
capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.”
See- Businesses= No capacity restrictions at all.
Churches= strict capacity restrictions no more than ten people.
If the law had been- every place is limited to so many people allowed in at once, the suit would have failed, as South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom showed.
But it wasnt. It was NO capacity on businesses, strict on churches and only churches.
Are you saying it was business as usual everywhere in New York except for churches?
Read the case.
I asked you.
What do you think?