California can't ban indoor worship as Covid precaution, Supreme Court rules
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
California can't ban indoor worship as Covid precaution, Supreme Court rules
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is telling California it can't enforce a ban on indoor church services because of the coronavirus pandemic.
© Provided by NBC News
The high court issued orders late Friday in two cases where churches had sued over coronavirus-related restrictions in the state. The high court said that for now, California can't ban indoor worship in areas where virus cases are surging, but it can cap indoor services at 25 percent of a building's capacity. The justices also declined to stop the state from barring singing and chanting at services.
The court's three liberal justices dissented.
The court's action follows a decision in a case from New York late last year in which the justices split 5-4 in barring the state from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues.
Shortly after, the justices told a federal court to reexamine a similar lawsuit over California's restrictions in light of the ruling.
Tags
Who is online
370 visitors
Indoor worship... the most pointless thing of all time?
meet, worship, infect, die, bye, amen.
All Texan has to do is admit it and I will stop. Like the Pharoah, he is bringing this all on himself.
Not jesus stuff?
Their favourite hymn should be "Nearer my God to thee", since they're trying so hard to get there. Hey, IMO, let them. Crowd together, cough on each other, hug and kiss and don't hide behind a mask.
It's a real "Christmas Carol" thing - "If they would rather die," said Scrooge , "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population ."
Does anyone remember the scene from the movie Titanic, the musicians playing while the ship was sinking? That's what they played.
Here is a really lovely rendition of the song for everyone's enjoyment, expecially for those who are trying so hard to get there as soon as possible....
The essence of the ruling is that the city/state can't discriminate against or abridge freedom of religion.
Yes Greg, that's what keeps them on the run. Imagine the 3 progressive Justices think it's ok!
You know...that is a good observation. I remember not that long ago when Trump was appointing justices to the SC, libs were screaming that they were put there to protect him, etc, etc, etc....all bullshit. More than one time since then, Barrett and Kavanaugh have voted against him.
However, we never saw the leftist loon justices Sotomayor or Kagan vote in favor of anything positive Trump. They are doing what they were put there to do. To be activist justices for the left.
Not sure why this source was chosen as there are far more in depth articles on the matter.
This seems obvious to me. Churches are nothing special. So we apply the exact same precautions on churches that we would on any similar venue. They should have capacity limits to enable proper social distancing. Masks indoors should be mandatory. The pews, etc. should be cleaned prior to each service. The services should strive to minimize the projection of particles by minimizing public chanting, singing, etc. Basic stuff.
Churches are similar to bars, small concert halls, etc. The fact that they are religious is irrelevant. The precautions should be based on the building and human interaction therein.
Meanwhile, another liberal democrat broke chinese virus restriction rules over the summer. And it doesn’t seem to matter to democrats.
LOL. Yes, "China" virus, followed by 450,000 death AMERICAN INCOMPETENCE. You proud?
Care to compare incarceration rates?
.
The Chinese tend to want to eliminate their prisoners instead of hold them in a jail cell.
Going to post proof of that, bugsy? I'm waiting to see it.
Here ya go...
There are far more links than what the CCP allows you to see.
Thank you, bugsy, for a long but interesting read. I must say that it didn't erase my skepticism when the title ended with a question mark and the sub-head of the article was "... raising suspicions of widespread organ harvesting." Perhaps links to less reputable souces might not have done that. At least the article did include credible opinions from BOTH sides of the issue. If anyone should learn a lesson from the article, it is one I've known already for a long time, and that is to not be a Falun Gong adherent. It was only more recently that I became aware that it was a mistake to be a Uighur separatist terrorist.
In my years here, I've come to know many Muslims, who live and pray and practise their professions and carry on their businesses freely all over China - and in fact there happen to be about 30 million of them so how come only about 1.5 million, who are Uighur, have been required to be reeducated? By the way, who decides what is ethical and what isn't - there are many different societies in the world with different customs and traditions, so who makes the rules, and especially, who makes the rules requiring OTHERS to follow? Personally, I see nothing wrong with harvesting the organs of executed prisoners, provided that they weren't executed only for the purpose of taking their organs. Although I've not signed an organ donation permission, I consider that I would have positively contributed to save someone's vision or life if they were to take my organs once I'm dead.