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
83 visitors
Overreach by California?
Big time! It’s about time our leaders got called out on it.
Indoor worship... the most pointless thing of all time?
Not to literally BILLIONS of people the world over.
Then BILLIONS of people are fucking idiots. Does their god/goddess REALLY care if they worship beneath a specific ceiling? OR under one at all?
Wow, you seem real tolerant.
So everyone who believes in a God is a fucking idiot to you, got it.
That may be the single most idiotic thing I have ever heard.
I have no desire to converse with anyone so intolerant.
I do find it amusing that you think Biden is a fucking idiot.
If billions of people think that an omniscient, omnipotent deity cares whether or not they bow and scrape to it (which presents its own set of problems) indoors or outdoors, then they are, and say it with me now, FUCKING IDIOTS.
Pretty much, some dumber than others.
Why?
You mean you have no defense for your positions that won't sound incredibly stupid?
In this regard, yes.
Your opinion is duly noted. Meh.
Because most people don't display such blatant bigotry, and even fewer seem to be so proud and public about it.
I said what I meant. Try arguing that instead of shit you just make up. Be honest, at least.
Why would an all powerful, all knowing being care where you worshiped it? Why would it desire your worship at all? That sounds INSANELY arrogant on our part to assume that such a deity would really care about us at all.
That was only 1/3 of my comment...
I would rather have the suspension than the deletion.
So I guess I will make it up.
No, but if it's cold, raining, or snowing outside, it might be kind of important to the humans.
I didn't claim God would care. That isn't the question here.
I didn't claim God desires anything.
You can explain it however you want.
that was another 1/3, and ehh fuck it I don't remember/care enough to put the energy into the rest. Basically [removed] his god arguments are fucking trash.
So do it at home? Am I fucking insane?
So in other words you are saying we should just do dumb shit for... reasons.
No, because most people realize how being so blatantly bigoted makes them look to everyone else.
Not my style or preference, dude, but you be you.
And yet he/she/it give a shit about indoor worship. Okay.
So then there is actually no need to pray or go to church to begin with.
With pleasure
Seriously, what are you reading?
[removed]
If you like. But if you can do it with your community in a safe way, do that. That's the problem with the straight up ban. It doesn't consider that maybe it can be done safely.
I keep getting this weird feeling that you haven't got a clue what the article is about, and this God hang-up you seem to have is really taking a toll on you. This article isn't about God.
Well, here is a brilliant idea for you----Don't go to church or pray, okay? Does that seem hard to you or something? And what makes you think you get to decide for others? You decide for YOU.
.
My question is does it really need to be done at all?
My sincere hope is that tomorrow or the next day you will read while sober what you have written here.
Well, you got me. I am so lost without gawd an jeeebus.
Please heal me awwwwlmightyyy lawwwd!!! Ohhh I feel something, I feel it in deep in my body.... no... not my body, a bull's body.... and it just shit.
Just admit the god thing id a bullshit cover for your own birgotry and political agenda and we will call it even. We both know it is, you are the only one pretending.
Stop with the copy/paste.
Does anything need to be done? Why does church need a good reason, but everything else we try to do in person as much as possible?
I am not trying to convert you or convince you that God exists. That's for you to decide for you.
Also, it isn't what the article is about..
Don't try to pin your blatant display of bigotry on me now when you seemed so proud of it earlier.
Oooh.
Complete sentence man.
lol did you just give yourself props?
Those were questions and they were complete sentences. To clarify, why is it ok to go to the indoor mall, get your hair and nails done, or ride a bus, but you can't go to church inside?
Sorry, the complete sentences was a mistake, I misread. My humble aopoligies.
And question, does your god care?
To borrow your comments for a simile, why do we have sports bars? Does your favorite teams really care if you root for them under a specific ceiling?
No, of course they don't. We have sports bars because it's enjoyable to gather with people who have similar beliefs and desires and to join together to support the team(s) you all root for.
Your commentary seems to equate going to church as punching in on a time clock, as if you must have X number of hours in church worshiping God. Going to church is as much about fellowship and community as it is about worshiping God. It's a very human thing to gather together in support of a shared belief or desire, no matter if it's a church or your favorite sports team. With occupancy conditions, people all over the country are allowed to go shopping, go to restaurants and bars, go to sporting events.. If going to church can be done safely why are you so dead-set against that?
Yup, agreed, fucking idiots.
No. I'm not claiming God cares. I have not claimed that anywhere. As I said above, the people care. They have a right to worship as they choose so long as it does not violate generally applicable laws. That right is being violated and they are being treated unequally by the government.
A government that prefers to keep them alive and out of hospitals.
Oh My! Perish the thought.
Perhaps they should pass out cigarettes in church too? Probably more effective than masks?
A government that doesn't treat all equally or fairly.
Puerile.
Then close the malls. Shut down bus lines.
Close the casinos! The casinos are open , but we can't have church? Is that seriously ok?
Sounds a little like govt. over-reach.
Treating churches differently than other institutions regarding pandemic protocols seems mean-spirited and actually illegal, according to the Court.
That's a Utopian wish.
Why? Isn't there a case to be made for breathing air through a 900 degree heat source?
It would be reasonable to assume that no virus could survive that.
Equal treatment from the government is also the law, and a cornerstone of what America is supposed to be about.
Casinos are open 24/7 and highly regulated for distance between available slots. My casino shut down blackjack, baccarat, roulette and poker games 6 months ago.
As Kathleen suggested elsewhere, the churches are generally standing empty most of the time except Sunday mornings.
Open them up for lots of multiple services with limited designated seating.
Pastors should be all for the more personal engagement.
Not in this particular case, as evidenced by the SCOTUS ruling.
Not a sane case or one with any merit whatsoever.
The court simply said the state, county, city can’t apply a different standard to religious in person worship than is set for any secular gathering indoors for any secular purpose. That limit is 25% in the areas of the churches in question. So, if blue areas want to limit religious indoor worship to less than 25% they can limit every secular gathering of any kind to less than 25% and risk killing the rest of their economy to further restrict religious gatherings.
Not for you to decide for anyone but you!
So you feel churches should be taxed by the government, like everyone else?
So they can be treated differently for any other reason, just not for pandemic protocols?
So you also feel churches should be taxed, like everyone else. Cool, that's 2 today.
oh. man. did you read the SCOTUS decision?
do you understand it?
Oh god! I actually agree with you.
Churches should have the same standards as restaurants. 25% of max capacity and should remained masked at all times unless eating human flesh or drinking human blood, figuratively speaking.
SCOTUS decided that churches CAN be treated differently, just not in this case.
Mainly because it would effect the church's income.
nothing to do with income, everything to do with religious freedom
What does a church have to do with your religious freedom?
you may have heard that many people worship in a church.
or maybe not.
But their religion says not to.
Matthew 6:5
Matthew 6:6
gee, I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but there exists in the world today religions that do not use the Bible.
you need to do better than THAT!
Correct, but christian churches are the ones being addressed in this article.
all your post does is demonstrate that you either didn't read the article or that you didn't understand it.
not one mention of this legal ruling affecting only Christian churches.
don't make stuff up!!!
Does it mention tabernacles?
Does it mention mosques?
Does it mention mandirs?
Does it mention Buddharupas?
Does it mention synagogues?
those are considered churches
Considered by who? While all those on my list are "houses of worship" churches are Christian, deal with it.
Nothing for me to deal with.
SCOTUS ruled and that's that--no matter how much you don't like it!
Do you think California meant it was ok for Muslims to worship at a mosques, or Jews at a tabernacle, but only banned Christian churches from gathering indoors?
If you do (and I doubt you really do), then that would be ample proof that the state singled out Christian churches in violation of law--as noted by SCOTUS.
Does it hurt when you spin that much? You must be dizzy for days.
Ah--doing what you do best!
Deflecting when the questions get a little too tough, I see!
PLEASE tell me that you realize that when California placed the restrictions that it included mosques and tabernacles!
I don't know if I can stand it if you actually believed that California singled Christianity out in violation of law.
I couldn't stand it, but I could believe it!
Here is some information you can surely use:
About COVID-19 restrictions - Coronavirus COVID-19 Response (ca.gov)
I certainly hope that this information clears things up for you.
Please DO note that NO religion is specifically mentioned and do note that mosques, temples and synagogues ARE mentioned.
Since you are not quoting the SCOTUS ruling itself, it tells me that I was correct. Thanks for that.
Sorry. but I can't understand it for you
did you even bother to notice i supplied you with the info from California AFTER they changed it because of the ruling??
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.
I hope you take time to read the article, understand the article, and then discuss the article.
Not jesus stuff?
That would lead one to believe you didn't read the article.
Jesus isn't even mentioned, nor does the Court's ruling affect ONLY Christian churches. The ruling is for ALL religions.
Do you know what the article is about?
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....
Do you know what the topic is?
Well, it has to do with the fact that worship in churches, being an indoor space where people sit together, and congregate (hence the term "congregation") cannot be banned according to court decree, although the numbers can be limited. Do I win a prize for being able to answer your question?
Oh, and I think that the last paragraph in the article that you posted is spam, or directs readers to spam, and should be deleted. If you don't delete it I will consider deleting the whole article.
It also has to do with religious discrimination:
"Roberts wrote that California’s determination “that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”
In addition to Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett also wrote to explain their views. Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas would have kept California from enforcing its singing ban. Barrett, the court’s newest justice, disagreed. Writing for herself and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she said it wasn’t clear at this point whether the singing ban was being applied “across the board.”
She wrote that “if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral,” triggering a stricter review by courts. The justices said the churches who sued can submit new evidence to a lower court that the singing ban is not being applied generally."
Never mind, I deleted the spam myself. I realized it would not be right to have deleted your whole article since at this time there are 50 comments on it. However, you did take a chance by ignoring my warning.
Thank you for the background, although the article that is posted said nothing about religious discrimination.
That is the whole point. You can't treat the church differently than you choose anything else.
No prize, but I am surprised you knew what the topic is, which makes your comment all the more puzzling since you DO know what the topic is.
Do what you feel is appropriate. I didn't know you had the power to delete articles. Good to know!
Did you not read this comment?
And yes, I have the authority to delete spam, and the membership of spammers.
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.
So these churches like to hold superspreader events. Too bad they then spread it around their communities.
Not sure why this source was chosen as there are far more in depth articles on the matter.
Feel free to post an article from a source more to your personal liking.
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?
Simply unbelievable. I should seed the article about Chinese genocide against ethnic and religious minorities in their oh so wonderful country
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.
No
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.