I said non-essential, didn’t I? 
You answered it all right here.
If a pandemic is not sufficient then one has to wonder what is.
Also, what does “require” really mean here?
Well, if we could just find two Christians this whole pandemic thing would be over with God’s intervention . . . just like all those other times.
Also, WOOSH.
Liquor stores come in under
- grocery stores including all food and beverage stores. Seriously
This article says :
We asked the Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office why liquor stores are essential. They said food and beverage stores are essential businesses, and liquor stores fall into that category.
And it was all over the news when the executive order came out.
Because the US Bill of Rights say so.
What “require” means is that if you miss Mass without good reason, it’s one of the sins you’re supposed to list when you next receive the sacrament of reconciliation. It doesn’t mean anyone is taking attendance and asking for your reason and excommunicating you if it’s not good enough, Whether your reason is sufficient is a matter of conscience.
But not a single one of those quotes said " If a pandemic is not sufficient then one has to wonder what is." If they had, I wouldn’t have had any argument with that. They instead denied that there was a obligation to be excused from.
Curious that the US Bill of Rights has more say in what Catholic beliefs are than the Pope.
Well, I am not familiar with NY liquor stores. Around here, they sell also soft drinks and snaks, but not much in the way of real food. So, I can see the point- if liquor stores can operate, why not churches? Mind you, it should actually be neither, but I see the point being made. Grocery stores are one thing, a liquor store is another.
It’s a factor which the court system has to take into account when it’s making its decisions.
The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. So one of the first things a court needs to do is determine whether something a religious organization is doing is based on its beliefs or is just something it’s doing as a secular organization.
In NY too, with ‘not much’ being the sticking point. So, instead of finely splitting the hair of what is and what isn’t a grocery store they went the easy way . . . 'cause we’re in the middle of a fucking pandemic.
So one bishop said no, other bishops said yes to closures.
Are you just stuck with the one you got?
And as a member of their congregation are you subject to the priest or bishop’s whims on this? What if you disagree? What happens to your soul then if you don’t go to church because you don’t want to risk your elderly parents but the bishop says you must? What happens to your soul if you go anyway and infect your elderly parents?
And while this is interesting is remains that the Supreme Court decision means keeping churches open puts me at risk. I’d think the government closing churches is, ipso facto, a permissible reason the church must accept. You have no choice. You can’t attend. The doors are chained shut no matter how devout you are.
Doubtless they will start Zoom meetings but your soul should be intact and, if you think you must, you can confess it when the church opens again and do whatever penance they see fit to dole out.
Tl;Dr: Not going to church is a minor inconvenience for some but a death sentence for others if left open till the pandemic passes.
Sure, i can see that, but if left it open for SCOTUS to rule.
If they had only allowed essential businesses , then there’d be less of a case.
And in fact NY admitted they screwed up and changed the regs, but only after the case was filed.
Do you think they would give the Church of Satan the same consideration? (they are a real thing BTW)
The suit was filed by a Jewish Temple and a Catholic diocese, so yeah. It thus applies to all religous gatherings.
Altho to be realistic, the CoS couldn’t manage to gather enuf worshipers to go over the limit on their best day. 
In theory, the courts should provide the same constitutional coverage to all religions.
In practice, as I noted in a previous post, conservatives on the court tend to pick and choose which religions they feel are entitled to differing levels of protection. And I feel the Church of Satan would not get the same level of first amendment protection that the Catholic Church does.
We can go with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pastafarians have had some (limited) success at legal recognition. Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Well, they just did.
The case ruled for all churches.
Now, if the case had been brought by the CoS and the Jedi, would it have gotten the same attention?
Probably not, but then, could they even has made the complaint about the limit on number of worshipers?
Nevermind.
If you can get a church of the FSM that has that many worshipers, it would come under the ruling.
But just one person, sitting alone in the basement, covered by sauce, is legal anyways, doesnt come under the large gathering issue.
Nope, the governor allowed all houses of worship to open. Certain areas where the number of cases were spiking were designated as “red zones” with “orange zones” surrounding them and “yellow zones” surrounding them. Those zones have more restrictions than the rest of the state. There were other red/orange/yellow zones outside of DiMarzio’s jurisdiction and those bishops did not appear to join this lawsuit. This lawsuit isn’t about keeping houses of worship open - they are open and have been since the end of June.( in NYC- the rest of the state may have been earlier) It’s about limits on number of people allowed to attend.
You are stuck with the bishop you’ve got - but even if a bishop did not grant a dispensation, it’s not a matter of “the bishop says you must” . It’s still a matter of your own conscience - and if you believe in God, you will also believe that he knows you didn’t attend because you feared getting sick , not because you felt like sleeping in so no need to worry about your soul.