# Supreme Court upholds California's Covid-19 Restrictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2020, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741 "2020-05-30T17:18:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/21 "2020-05-31T07:32:10Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > It’s interesting to see the “special rights” version of religious freedom gain prominence on the right. The more they perceive themselves to have lost on constructing a wider society in their image (whether that perception is correct is a different question), the more they seek a special separate status for themselves, almost like a sovereign native tribe. Religion has a special status in the First Amendment. Always has. > [@Gorsnak](#): > > Religion-neutral health and safety restrictions have always been validly imposed by legislators on religious groups. A church must meet fire codes, and not exceed its rated capacity. If in disrepair, it is subject to being condemned, in which case its congregation is restricted from attending church in that building. And right now in California, churches must follow the same rules as comparable secular establishments such as theatres. This does not restrict the practice of religion. No one is prevented from worshiping. Nor are there any Christian requirements to meet in large groups - indeed if anything the opposite: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” > > Honestly, you’d think after 17 centuries of total political domination of Western political life Christians would get off their persecution hobby-horse. Sure, churches can be held to generally applicable laws such as fire codes. But to completely forbid worship in a church setting puts a stake through the heart of the First Amendment. To your second point, it is not the job of courts to decide what is required of a religious faith. If I believe I have to congregate or to eat fish on Fridays should a court say no I don’t and no I don’t? We may have dominated for 17 centuries, but since the 1960s the Court has excluded us from public life and John Roberts has decided that a state can forbid congregation in church. Read the last part of that last sentence. That’s from a Justice appointed by a Republican president. Roberts is just a wormy little asshole who changed his vote on Obamacare because he read newspaper articles being mean to him. So much so that Senators write amicus briefs to troll him hoping to change his vote. He has no business being a Supreme Court Justice. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/22 "2020-05-31T07:51:59Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > [ul] > [li]Exactly how does one recognize a solid conservative justice?[/li] > [li]What makes them better at their job than a “solid liberal” justice?[/li] > [li]Do you really not think the government has a compelling interest here?[/li][/ul] 1. Dem presidents do a hell of a job at finding solid liberal justices. 2. They interpret the Constitution the right way. 3. The “compelling interest” test is misplaced here. That is a judicially created test to survive strict scrutiny which has exclusively been used as an exception to things like racial classifications or things which strike at the periphery of a right. A compelling interest is never, and I repeat never, a justification for denying the core of a guaranteed right. No matter how compelling the government interest, you cannot ban criticism of the President or the purchase of religious books. It doesn’t matter how compelling that interest is. The decision against that law has been made previously in the Constitution. It is not subject to any balancing test. Likewise, attendance at church is at the core of the First Amendment. The framers made that decision. It is not subject to law, debate, or infringement except by amendment to the Constitution. Any government always claims a compelling interest in violating your rights. That’s what governments do. That’s why we put limitations on them. It’s terribly inconvenient for police to have to wait outside your house for a search warrant when they just KNOW that you have bad stuff in your house. You could say that their knowledge compels them to go inside. But the Constitution says they have to get a warrant. A compelling interest cannot serve as a suspension of rights. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/23 "2020-05-31T08:17:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Kennedy, Souter, Roberts, O’Connor. It shows that Dem Presidents can appoint solid liberals, but GOP Presidents cannot appoint solid conservatives. Trump is good so far on this. I hope he gets to appoint three more for this reason even if he is a blowhard asshole. > > I know my stance is unpopular on this board, but it is not a reasonable restriction on religion when you eviscerate the core of the right. And it is a frightening concept for judges to declare what is and what is not an essential thing for religion. > > Yes, if I can go to Lowes and pick out a new kitchen or buy a truckload of treated lumber for a new deck, but the state tells me I cannot attend church, they have made a deliberate choice that inhibits the free exercise of religion. So you’re taking the position that your religion trumps the safety and health of people around you? Great - you go to a packed religious celebration, pick up the virus, then go about your business while spreading the virus and making other people sick. There are documented instances of illness and death stemming from religious gatherings during this time of covid. What gives you and yours the right to play Russian roulette with the health of other people? No one is stopping you from talking to your god(s). You can pray all you want in your home, or out under the sky. God is not locked in a building or box. Religion is not being singled out here - ALL gatherings are under restriction. For public safety. What gives your religion the right to jeopardize other people? Is that “Christian” of you? I am so sick of people whining about their religion being curtailed when this pandemic is _killing_ people. Are you now practicing human sacrifice by lottery? Is that OK with your god? Does that what your holy book tells you to do? Come up with a way to practice your religion that won’t injure or kill other people. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/24 "2020-05-31T08:27:42Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Judges do have the business of telling legislators, governors, and epidemiologists that they cannot trample upon constitutional rights. I do believe five judges just stated that these regulations do NOT trample upon those constitutional rights. So sorry your side lost on the legal argument, but you really did just have your day in court. > [@](#): > > The question of whether people can attend church is not up for democratic decision making and certainly not up to decrees by fiat from governors or unelected bureaucrats. It was a right that was secured to us by the deaths in the Revolutionary War and enshrined in the Constitution. Funny - George Washington was actually an advocate of quarantine for infectious illness. And you can still attend church… my area has seen religious services on the internet, in open fields with people at a distance from each other, and in other manners that don’t put other people at risk. Assuming you’re Christian, your messiah Jesus held the Sermon on the Mount outside - what’s stopping you from emulating him? I’ve read the Bible, both Old and New Testament, I can’t ever recall where it says you MUST be in a particular building in order to worship God even if that’s your habit. > [@](#): > > The drafters of the Constitution knew about pandemics and did not insert an “unless there is a pandemic” exception to the First Amendment. Maybe, due to extensive experience with epidemics in their own lives they didn’t feel it necessary to inject some common sense about not using your religion to endanger and kill other people. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/25 "2020-05-31T08:36:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yes, if I can go to Lowes and pick out a new kitchen or buy a truckload of treated lumber for a new deck, but the state tells me I cannot attend church, they have made a deliberate choice that inhibits the free exercise of religion. A good start! I can only wish of times where true logic prevails and all churches and other wastes of religious properties are turned into schools, hospitals or even parking lots. A good parking space gives you all the fulfillment you’ll need for a productive day. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/26 "2020-05-31T08:38:37Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Sure, churches can be held to generally applicable laws such as fire codes. But to completely forbid worship in a church setting puts a stake through the heart of the First Amendment. > [@UltraVires](#): > > A compelling interest is never, and I repeat never, a justification for denying the core of a guaranteed right. No matter how compelling the government interest, you cannot ban criticism of the President or the purchase of religious books. It doesn’t matter how compelling that interest is. The decision against that law has been made previously in the Constitution. It is not subject to any balancing test. > > Likewise, attendance at church is at the core of the First Amendment. The framers made that decision. It is not subject to law, debate, or infringement except by amendment to the Constitution. I guess I’m having difficulty reconciling these two positions, and perhaps it would be helpful to others if you could clarify. If “attendance at church” is core and no compelling interest is allowed in restricting that, then why do you allow for fire codes? Isn’t “not dying in a fire” just another compelling interest? Why are you allowing for a “MAX OCCUPANCY 100” restriction but not a “25% or 100, whichever is lower” restriction, which is specifically the restriction in this Supreme Court case? I mean, those seem to be the same type of restriction, differing only in degree. But differing in degree doesn’t seem compatible with your “compelling interest is never, and I repeat never, a justification” point. So why is it acceptable if you’re that 101st person in pre-pandemic times to be disallowed from entry because of the fire code, but not acceptable if you’re that 26th person in pandemic times to be disallowed? ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/27 "2020-05-31T08:39:35Z")
It’s not a suspension of rights to say “you can worship, but not here.” ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/28 "2020-05-31T08:40:27Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I do believe five judges just stated that these regulations do NOT trample upon those constitutional rights. So sorry your side lost on the legal argument, but you really did just have your day in court. I would put a different take on it: IMHO, the Court is NOT interpreting the Constitution correctly, but…the virus doesn’t read the Constitution. You can’t say “Constitution, Constitution!” when there’s an asymptomatic, contagious and deadly virus afoot. The virus doesn’t care for the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/29 "2020-05-31T08:40:43Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Religion has a special status in the First Amendment. Always has. So does the right to assemble outside of religion but that’s been restricted, too, under this epidemic. How come you’re not howling about that? NO right is unlimited. We don’t allow religions that practice human sacrifice, either. We don’t allow Muslims and Mormons to marry multiple wives but you’re not up in arms about that. Millions of religious people have continued to worship while modifying their customs to accommodate the need to not make people sick or dead. Why does your sect get an exception? > [@UltraVires](#): > > Sure, churches can be held to generally applicable laws such as fire codes. But to completely forbid worship in a church setting puts a stake through the heart of the First Amendment. As already noted - plenty of churches (and synagogues, and mosques, and others) have managed to both worship and protect their congregations and the general public. Why is yours incapable of doing the same? Is your church the people or the building? > [@UltraVires](#): > > To your second point, it is not the job of courts to decide what is required of a religious faith. If I believe I have to congregate or to eat fish on Fridays should a court say no I don’t and no I don’t? Find a way to congregate in a manner that doesn’t put others at risk. A lot of other people have managed this, why can’t you? > [@UltraVires](#): > > We may have dominated for 17 centuries, but since the 1960s the Court has excluded us from public life and John Roberts has decided that a state can forbid congregation in church. In other words, from the 1960’s your group has been curtailed from imposing your religion on everyone else in public. You do understand that from the very beginning there were people other than Christians in the United States, yes? Not everyone is a Christian, or a particular type of Christian, and from the viewpoint of those who are not the majority here we have been pretty happy about the Court restraining the majority from trampling OUR rights and OUR freedom to worship as we choose (or not, as the case may be) and NOT be required to give lip service to your sect in public while we’re told to keep ours at home. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Roberts is just a wormy little asshole who changed his vote on Obamacare because he read newspaper articles being mean to him. So much so that Senators write amicus briefs to troll him hoping to change his vote. He has no business being a Supreme Court Justice. You don’t like his decision(s) so you think he’s a bad guy. OK. You know, that’s not how this is supposed to work, right? You don’t like a SCotUS decision you go back and change the law or amend the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/30 "2020-05-31T08:57:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 1. Dem presidents do a hell of a job at finding solid liberal justices. > > 2. They interpret the Constitution the right way. > > 3. The “compelling interest” test is misplaced here. That is a judicially created test to survive strict scrutiny which has exclusively been used as an exception to things like racial classifications or things which strike at the periphery of a right. > > No matter how compelling the government interest, you cannot ban criticism of the President or the purchase of religious books. It doesn’t matter how compelling that interest is. The decision against that law has been made previously in the Constitution. It is not subject to any balancing test. You didn’t answer the first one and I have idea what the response to the second question is supposed to mean, so I guess I’ll just stick to the third one. Hell, I’ll even scratch the [compelling interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner) [argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Lutheran_Church_of_Columbia,_Inc._v._Comer) to [avoid pages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Esp%C3%ADrita_Beneficente_Uni%C3%A3o_do_Vegetal) long hijacks. So, we’ll just stick to whether the court was right or not. Wasn’t Big Tony the one who referenced Reynolds v United States when he wrote: > [@Big Tony and the Supremes](#): > > “Laws,” we said,“are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Also, Newsom’s rules weren’t an attack on religious freedom, they were an attack on in-person gatherings. Straight from the decision: > [@Diana Ross and the Supremes](#): > > 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. They have since even eased up the rules specifically for churches, so we’ll see what the church has to say about that. My guess is that they won’t be satisfied. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/31 "2020-05-31T09:08:03Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I would put a different take on it: IMHO, the Court is NOT interpreting the Constitution correctly, but…the virus doesn’t read the Constitution. > > You can’t say “Constitution, Constitution!” when there’s an asymptomatic, contagious and deadly virus afoot. The virus doesn’t care for the First Amendment. While I disagree with **UltraVires** on outcome of this case and I realize that you are trying to back up his disagreement with the constitutionality of the opinion, you are dead wrong here and I’m pretty sure **UltraVires** and myself would both agree (but he’s free to state otherwise, obviously) as to why you are wrong. Yes, you absolutely can and should say “Constitution, Constitution!” even when there’s a nasty and deadly virus afoot. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/32 "2020-05-31T10:23:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 1. Dem presidents do a hell of a job at finding solid liberal justices. > > 2. They interpret the Constitution the right way. > > 3. The “compelling interest” test is misplaced here. That is a judicially created test to survive strict scrutiny which has exclusively been used as an exception to things like racial classifications or things which strike at the periphery of a right. > > A compelling interest is never, and I repeat never, a justification for denying the core of a guaranteed right. No matter how compelling the government interest, you cannot ban criticism of the President or the purchase of religious books. It doesn’t matter how compelling that interest is. The decision against that law has been made previously in the Constitution. It is not subject to any balancing test. > > Likewise, attendance at church is at the core of the First Amendment. The framers made that decision. It is not subject to law, debate, or infringement except by amendment to the Constitution. > > Any government always claims a compelling interest in violating your rights. That’s what governments do. That’s why we put limitations on them. It’s terribly inconvenient for police to have to wait outside your house for a search warrant when they just KNOW that you have bad stuff in your house. You could say that their knowledge compels them to go inside. But the Constitution says they have to get a warrant. > > A compelling interest cannot serve as a suspension of rights. The first amendment is not a suicide pact. The way you’re arguing, if there was a pandemic that spread like wildfire in crowds with 99% fatality, the government still couldn’t restrict religious gatherings. That’s batshit insane. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/33 "2020-05-31T10:56:55Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The. I suggest you check out the concept of Holy Days of Obligation in that minor sect, the Roman Catholic Church. Every Catholic is expected to go to Mass on Sunday. Uh, no. That’s not even what you cite says. It names _specific_ Sundays,different in different countries. And then it also indicates that dispensation can be given–you know, like the Pope himself did this last Easter. Furthermore, you ignore centuries of practice where the sick do not attend and have Mass administered by a priest, and are not condemned to Hell. And you ignore the practice where a layperson can administer Mass on their own in emergencies. There are ways around these requirements even without dispensation. Christianity is ultimately about love. So any Christian that holds to their principles will have some way of avoiding doing actions that will kill people. Killing people who don’t want to die is not an action of love. As for freedom religion, well, when your actions will cause death, then that is not an excuse. If it were, we could have religions with human sacrifice. When _everyone_ is restricted from something, that is not an abridgment of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, like all rights, has restrictions. As the saying goes, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/34 "2020-05-31T11:29:57Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Uh, no. That’s not even what you cite says. It names _specific_ Sundays,different in different countries. And then it also indicates that dispensation can be given–you know, like the Pope himself did this last Easter. Right, because his cite is specifically about Holy Days of Obligations, which are different in different countries and not always on Sundays. Catholics have an obligation to attend Mass every Sunday unless excused for a serious reason. And even with this obligation, the Catholic bishops in my area dispensed Catholics from the obligation to attend Mass even before almost everything was shut down. They dispensed Catholics from the obligation even while the churches were still open and Mass was being celebrated ( which actually scared the hell out of me). I don’t think any of that really matters in _some_ ways, but I do think it matters in other ways. What do I mean by that? Regarding the restrictions, there’s a certain group who are arguing that religious services are essential services - it’s kind of hard to argue that when Catholic bishops were giving dispensations, considering that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the few ( and I’m sure the largest) groups that actually requires ( not encourages) attendance every Sunday. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/35 "2020-05-31T12:18:48Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > … > > A compelling interest cannot serve as a suspension of rights. This is clearly, obviously false. The state can restrict attendance in church during normal times to “less than xxx persons”, which restricts church attendance. States can pose restrictions on what types of arms are allowed, restricting your right to bear arms. States can enact obscenity laws, impinging on your free speech rights. States can stop you from inciting riots, impinging on your free speech rights. The Feds can stop you from releasing classified information, impinging on your free speech rights. There are libel and slander laws that restrict speech, impinging on your free speech rights. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/36 "2020-05-31T12:36:00Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > This is clearly, obviously false. > > The state can restrict attendance in church during normal times to “less than xxx persons”, which restricts church attendance. There’s also numerous religious practices around the world that are illegal here. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/37 "2020-05-31T13:31:29Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > I am curious as to which sect requires physical congregating in order to practice that religion. I’m certainly not aware of any, within any of the major religions. Well, Judaism requires the presence of 10 Jewish adults (men, if you are orthodox) for many functions. But it also teaches that saving a life trumps almost all the other rules and obligations. And that God doesn’t require you to do that which is impossible. So we don’t bring animals to sacrifice at the (destroyed) temple, and instead offer prayers in groups. And during the pandemic, those groups may be virtual. As others have said, the Catholic Church also requires physical presence for a bunch of stuff (taking communion, baptism, and confession, for instance) but also has specific exceptions when that’s not a good idea. Here’s a Catholic article about how to continue to practice Catholicism in the midst of pandemic restrictions: > **[State of the sacraments clarified in Chicago](https://www.ncronline.org/news/state-sacraments-clarified-chicago)** > > The Chicago Archdiocese made clear that its guidelines did not pertain to emergency baptism: They did not supersede church law that permits any person to conduct the rite "in cases of urgent necessity, when only those things required for the validity... The current pandemic restrictions are exactly like fire code restrictions. They apply to everyone and every organization, religious or not, and they have been instituted to save lives. I think it’s odd, and political rather than religious, that it’s the Christian groups that DON’T require an intercessor, and that have been clear that God is everywhere and can be worshipped by anyone anyplace, that are kicking up a fuss about the lockdown. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/38 "2020-05-31T13:52:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But to completely forbid worship in a church setting puts a stake through the heart of the First Amendment. I’m gonna go out on a limb and conclude that you didn’t actually read the opinion at all. While I am completely unsurprised by that fact coming from you, it might help if I point out a couple sentences from it: “The Order places temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address this extraordinary health emergency. State guidelines currently limit attendance at places of worship to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees.” “In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower.” No one is “completely forbid[ing] worship in a church setting”. That’s just more idiotic rhetoric. And, again, completely unsurprising coming from you. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/39 "2020-05-31T14:50:20Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But, tying it to a requirement is downplaying the right. The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. The guarantee of free exercise isn’t limited to “things my religion says I must do”. It is broader than that and extend to “religious activities I wish to engage in because they are good for my spiritual health.” You don’t have to go to Mass every day, but for some, they do, because that’s their choice, their free exercise. But even the Free Exercise Clause isn’t unlimited. You can’t be a bigamist. You can’t commit perjury. You can’t smoke peyote. As long as the general rule isn’t targeted specifically against religion (like it was in Church of Lukumi Babalu) ala the Smith case, it shouldn’t need to pass strict scrutiny. Since the restrictions aren’t a complete ban on worship, but rather just limits on all public gathering, I think they’re reasonable. There is certainly room for debate about whether the restrictions (is 25% capacity really necessary?) are reasonable (especially as we learn more about the virus, its spread, and how the “reopenings” go). But, for now, I think that debate should be done first by the legislatures and executives, and only negated by the judiciary if they go too far. For example, I think banning drive-in worships or a complete ban on any church worship would be very problematic. But from most of what I’ve read, it seems to me these restrictions are pretty reasonable and generally applicable. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2020, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/40 "2020-05-31T15:18:44Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > It’s interesting to see the “special rights” version of religious freedom gain prominence on the right. The more they perceive themselves to have lost on constructing a wider society in their image (whether that perception is correct is a different question), the more they seek a special separate status for themselves, almost like a sovereign native tribe. Not just on religion but also on other various explicit and inferred rights. Such as the “right” to ignore quarantine restrictions and prevent the enforcement of closure of a place of business by walking around with my firearms on display. No, really – I am hearing too much from the right that seems to claim the constitution means that any law and regulation that is inconvenient or burdensome is “tyranny” that merits the threat of armed rebellion. > [@Gorsnak](#): > > Religion-neutral health and safety restrictions have always been validly imposed by legislators on religious groups. Indeed. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Religion has a special status in the First Amendment. Always has. Only because in the framers’ knowledge and experience the deadliest conflict of sociocultural constructs was the religious kind (and remained so until the rise of the 20th century totalitarianisms), where believers would be ready to kill and die with no qualms. To figure out where that protection starts and stops is the Court’s function, and yes, it should be given careful scrutiny and no, it should NOT be a matter of just “my expert says it’s unsafe, don’t meet”. That’s simplistic. But at the same time, neither can it be a matter of crying _“religion!”_ and then you become untouchable, all the precedents say that’s not what it means. ISTM the evidence leans in the direction that what it takes for congregations to adapt to small group limits and to online services is _the will to do so_, but that by itself does not mean some other congregation MUST believe the same way; and meanwhile I keep hearing arguments on the other side basically reducing it to _“I call ‘religion’! You can’t tell me what to do!”_ which is not a real constitutional argument either. > [@](#): > > But to completely forbid worship in a church setting puts a stake through the heart of the First Amendment. Nobody has done that, as mentioned before, all rights are succeptible to time-place-manner constraints. Just that some must be more closely scrutinized than others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741.md?page=3)