why dont you read the case. I am not sitting on the Supreme court.
Is your dissent from the ruling based on your dislike of religion, not the legal ramifications?
We can all see the dodge for what it is.
And my dislike for religion is well documented on this board but I have also supported it as a right and one I will defend and have defended on this board. I do not have to like something to defend it.
I’m not 100% sure that bike shops, supermarkets, banks, barbershops , etc. are actually free from limitations or whether they just don’t appear in those tables or that the limitations are a byproduct of other requirements (such as allowing 6 feet for social distancing) or aren’t a set number based on capacity, but rather depend on the number of employees working. Because what I have seen is all those places either limiting the number of customers allowed in at a time, or requiring appointments when they didn’t before , and not allowing people inside until their appointment time. And if the barbershops/beauty salons are required to close the waiting area (as they are) , then that limits how many people are in the establishment even without an actual “limit” - if only two stylists are working, that means only two customers are allowed, even if the waiting area could accommodate another ten. I suppose it’s possible that the lines outside the bike shops/warehouse stores are strictly due to the stores’ own wishes - but I kind of don’t think so. I suspect that there is some other regulation causing the lines- perhaps the bike shop is allowed to have one or two customers inside for each employee so that thirty people aren’t waiting in the store for one or two employees to help them. Or the store is required to limit customers to a number that allows 6 foot distancing , but each store has to determine that based on their own layout rather than strictly as a percentage of capacity.
Employment Division v Smith is a classic example. I don’t see how you can reconcile the decision with this case with any foundation other than Scalia feeling the Native American Church wasn’t a real religion that deserved first amendment protection.
I will say that Scalia didn’t read the room on this one. He apparently didn’t think other more conventional religions would come to the support of the Native American Church, which is what happened.
How does the decision put you personally at risk?
Are you really asking how, as more people getting infected, it is a risk to other people?
Or how is it that the decision opens up religious ceremonies where lots of people gather which is a great pathway for infection?
Everyone from the CDC to Pritzker and Lightfoot are telling you to stay HOME. How are you going to be exposed at a Catholic Church that you don’t attend?
From the dec: "At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no
capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.”
What does that dec have to do with this one? This dec didnt mention anything to do with what is and what isnt a religion.
and if you read the wiki on that case: Of particular importance was the fact that the Oregon law was not directed at the Native Americans’ religious practice specifically; thus, it was deemed constitutional when applied to all citizens:[2]
> It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]…to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended… To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is “compelling”–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, “to become a law unto himself,”–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true “compelling interest” requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.
I dont see anything in that dec about Scalia thinking it wasnt a real religion.
Stay home- unless going to a business, in which case, according to NY, it’s perfectly Ok, no matter how many people cram into the business.
I’m staying home.
But as many have said in this thread, more than once, it is their duty to attend church services.
That’s the problem (or rather one of them).
Gee, 10 years of being an Eucharistic minister, taking Communion to homes and hospitals sure had me fooled.
This is where overt government regulation comes in.
Every fucker needs to find a loophole.
A bike shop is not the same as a church. It just isn’t.
But people like you insist they be equated. They are the SAME you declare! Therefore they must ALL be treated EQUALLY!
But they aren’t the same thing. Not even close. But now we need MORE laws because someone is complaining about bullshit and then…they complain about too many regulations.
You are the problem. Not the solution.
Yes, and I have the colander to prove it.
I didn’t read the Wikipedia article. I read the decision.
Scalia acknowledged that religions are entitled to first amendment protection. And he said the Native American Church is not entitled to that protection. I don’t see how you can avoid the conclusion that Scalia was saying the Native American Church was not a real religion in his eyes.
You keep bringing up “bike shops”. It was all businesses. None had any restrictions. Crowds of people are crowds of people.
Really, it was pretty simple for Gov Newsom to write a executive order that treated Churches like similar entities and thus it passed muster. NY simply blew it. It was a badly written law.
Now, remind us what ‘similar entities’ actually meant in that EO and explain how that’s different from what the Governor did in NY.
Here is the text: show me where he said that.
Here is his summary :Because respondents’ ingestion of peyote was prohibited under Oregon law, and because that prohibition is constitutional, Oregon may, consistent with the Free Exercise Clause, deny respondents unemployment compensation when their dismissal results from use of the drug. The decision of the Oregon Supreme Court is accordingly reversed.
and note this: Because respondents’ ingestion of peyote was prohibited under Oregon law, and because that prohibition is constitutional, Oregon may, consistent with the Free Exercise Clause, deny respondents unemployment compensation when their dismissal results from use of the drug. The decision of the Oregon Supreme Court is accordingly reversed.
So, while yes religions are entitled to first amendment protection they are only so far as their practices do not violate laws the pertain to all. A religion who had human sacrifice as it’s canon would still be forbidden from murder.
You are simply wrong.
Ask SCOTUS or read the two cases, or read the quotes and cites I have already given.
Name any business that works like a church.
More to the point:
What is your point?