There are occupancy regulations limiting the number of people inside a building. There are also regulations which would condemn an unsafe structure. These don’t get ignored just because the business happens to be a religion.
They’re Protestants. It’s right there in the name.
Our local Lowes used to have home improvement classes. You could go in, and depending on the subject you could learn about plumbing or drywall or landscaping and the like.
Those classes are now shut down.
My local church still operates as a food bank. If you need counseling from clergy, you can get that either in person or by phone.
So, yes, both of them you can still go in and get essential services, and in both of them, mass gathering have been banned.
You analogy only bolsters the point that all people are having to make sacrifices for public safety, and what you want is special consideration for the church to not have to.
You are pointing out limits on rights at the edges. No, you can’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. It doesn’t follow from that that you can pass laws forbidding criticism of the President.
And likewise, you can pass laws against virgin sacrifice and that does impinge on some far out religions, but it doesn’t follow that you can therefore ban in person church services.
In Heller, Scalia responded to Breyer’s “interest balancing” dissent:
Likewise, the freedom to attend church, even in a pandemic, has been given to us and should be unassailable by current politicians. Otherwise they are “no constitutional guarantee at all” if the government can decide that it is simply too dangerous to allow it now.
Exactly.
When the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 for California in this case, I read the dissent and found some of his general points about equal treatment quite reasonable, but it also seems to me that those points didn’t really apply to this particular case. I think the same thing about the Supreme Court dissent; it makes some good general points about how these cases should be decided, but then neglects to actually confront the specific reality of how the California rules work.
And UltraVires, in his most recent post, shows that he clearly doesn’t even understand the “generally applicable” standard articulated in Employment Division v. Smith, nor the limits of that standard. The “interest balancing” argument from Heller is almost completely irrelevant here.
Do you seriously not see the contradictory nature of these two thoughts, both articulated by you within seconds of each other? In the first, you acknowledge there are perfectly constitutional limits on enumerated rights, and, in the very next comment, you seem to assert that the freedom to attend church cannot, in any way, be limited. Is that truly your position?
The idea is NOT to go to Lowes and pick out a new kitchen or buy a truckload of treated lumber for a new deck, but instead to do needed home repairs such as unplugging the toilets, fixing a leaking pipe, etc.
Which is why home repair and grocery stores and such are open, so you can shop for *necessities *during the crisis.
You can attend online church services, but you cant get your toilet fixed online.
He apparently doesn’t understand the difference between banning in-person church services as a matter of general policy, and restricting in-person church services as part of a broader effort to contain an infectious disease, and in a manner that applies equally to churches and other places where similar types of gatherings occur.
The **Pope **disagrees. he has said during the covid crisis to attend on line services, etc.
There are lots of things UltraVires doesn’t understand. Too many to list, really.
If you demand the right to congregate in the face of a pandemic, then I demand the right to sue your church and you personally out of existence if a single person not of that church gets Covid because you were a moron.
Exactly wrong, and exactly the reason SCOTUS gave to outlawing Kiddy porn.
It is not contradictory at all. There are limits at the periphery of Constitutional rights, but not at the core of them.
Just like Heller. We can argue about assault weapons or concealed carry or guns in schools, but when you are at the core of the right (in Heller handguns in the home, here church attendance) we don’t balance interests. That decision has already been made.
You cannot just decide that jury trials release too many guilty defendants and apply some balancing test (the governments interest in locking up guilty people versus a defendant’s right to a jury trial) and then come down on the side of the government. We already decided you get a jury trial just like we already decided that you have the right to go to church.
I think what gets me the most about all of this is the apparent obliviousness to what we might call the “negative externalities” of the choice to expose yourself to danger.
If coronavirus were something like, say, secondhand smoke, where the only people in danger are the people who actually gather in the room where people are smoking, then I’d be perfectly happy to allow individuals to make their own decisions about it. You happy to risk your own safety for the sake of eating in a restaurant, or going to church, or whatever? No problem.
But that’s not how the virus works. Every person who gets exposed is then a vector for possible transmission to all sorts of people who never went to the church meeting, or the restaurant. You’re not just taking a risk for yourself; you’re expressing a willingness to risk other people who have made no such choice.
Now, we obviously need to try and get society working again, so opening up slowly and trying our best to exercise precautions is a good idea. But it seems that some people’s basic position is: I’m happy to take the risk for myself, so you should let me put everyone else at risk as well.
Where do you see a right to have kiddy porn in the Constitution that is being suspended?
Again, I don’t know what this fallacy is called that keeps being argued. It goes something like because I cannot do something extreme then it follows that I cannot do something basic. Because I cannot stand in your living room with a bullhorn shouting “Vote Trump” that means that you can make it illegal for me to tell my friend to vote for Trump.
But that goes both ways. We all live in a society. So as much as you would like everyone hermetically sealed in a bubble, you have to understand that people go out in public. What you are asking for is complete control over everyone so that you feel safe.
I understand your argument that we all should hunker down and fight this pandemic your way, but I think you can see that the selfishness argument points equally in both directions.
An it is extra dubious when we are talking about something with a 1% mortality rate. A poster upthread mentioned a 99% mortality rate which would be a different topic as it would be something that the founders never expected nor has been experienced in human history. This is garden variety stuff that they did experience.
What we are talking about is a law that keeps you (the general you) from exercising your Constitutional right to free exercise of religion because I (the general I) fear that you might contract the virus, and that we might cross paths, and that you might infect me and that I might be that 1 in 100 who die. Those are a lot of mights even for interest balancing. To hear some of you guys talk, it would be like you would fall over dead from driving past a church.
So you would be okay with government restricting in person church services in such a case?
If so, then this isn’t a difference in principle, it’s just the details. You draw the line at x, and we (and SCOTUS, and the rest of government) draw the line at y.
We can move along, folks. There’s no actual disagreement here, except for at what level it would be appropriate to restrict in person church gatherings. No disagreement on principle, only in degree.
The first amendment gives me an absolute right to speech, does it not? How do you justify limiting the ways I can express myself?
The fallacy that you are looking for is that of a false analogy, as that is what you have made here.
No one cares what you do in church, as long as you don’t do what you are not allowed to do elsewhere, which is to gather into groups larger than X*
I cannot have my friends over to a party if there will be more than X people. I cannot go to school or work, if there will be more than X people gathered. I cannot go to bars or restaurants, if there will be more than X people.
You can go to church, you can have services, you just cannot have more than X people in any one place at a time.
If your church had black mold growing in its pews, would you say that the local health department would not be allowed to require you to fix it before you could resume having services?
*X is chaging and different for different jurisdictions.
No, we’re talking about keeping people safe. You do not have a need to go to a specific place to worship. You can do so in your own home, or with others via internet. The right to worship isn’t being infringed. No one says you can’t practice your religion. The 1st Amendment doesn’t specify that you have to go to some designated location to be able to worship, and neither does the Bible. You can practice your religion in your own home.
The right to a free press. The Court specifically said that there was a compelling interest in protecting children, thus kiddy porn could be outlawed.
That’s enough, Silenus. Warning issued. Do not insult other posters.