Supreme Courts rules in favor of churches

[hislegacy]

Supreme Court sides with church over state, rejects Andrew Cuomo’s coronavirus crackdown

The Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on attendance on religious services amid rising COVID-19 cases in the state.

Justice prevails, thank you Jesus!

 

[BobRyan]

Supreme Court sides with church over state, rejects Andrew Cuomo’s coronavirus crackdown

The Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on attendance on religious services amid rising COVID-19 cases in the state.

Justice prevails, thank you Jesus!

Your link says this "The ruling comes after the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn sued the Democratic governor over his executive actions restricting church attendance earlier this month. In their 5-4 decision, the majority struck down the regulations since they "cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”

 

[hislegacy]

Your link says this "The ruling comes after the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn sued the Democratic governor over his executive actions restricting church attendance earlier this month. In their 5-4 decision, the majority struck down the regulations since they "cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”

yup, it sure does!

It also says this:

The Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on attendance on religious services amid rising COVID-19 cases in the state.

“Just before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo from enforcing attendance limits at religious services,” wrote SCOTUSblog on Twitter. “The vote is 5-4, with Roberts and the three liberals dissenting.”
​

The action benefits all houses of faith, not just the ones who brought the action. That is wonderful!

​

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I notice John Roberts is revealing his true colours once more.

Anyway, excellent news for Churches in New York.

 

[Brightmoon]

Yep, Preventing people from coming down with a nasty disease is really harsh treatment . That’s right up there with the Dred Scott decision as far as blatant stupidity is concerned . They must want people to die . Thanks Supreme Court..... for nothing!

 

[Hank77]

yup, it sure does!

It also says this:

The Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on attendance on religious services amid rising COVID-19 cases in the state.

“Just before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo from enforcing attendance limits at religious services,” wrote SCOTUSblog on Twitter. “The vote is 5-4, with Roberts and the three liberals dissenting.”
​

The action benefits all houses of faith, not just the ones who brought the action. That is wonderful!

​

The reasons that the justices give for their decisions is all-important. By those decisions corrections can be made, in this case, attendance at churches should reflect the same attendance that is allowed at businesses such as were named in the decision written by Gorsuch.
I agree, with the decision by the way.

 

[paul1149]

Yep, Preventing people from coming down with a nasty disease is really harsh treatment . That’s right up there with the Dred Scott decision as far as blatant stupidity is concerned . They must want people to die . Thanks Supreme Court..... for nothing!

At one point attendance at St. Patrick's Cathedral was limited to 10 persons. I don't believe any such restriction was placed on liquor stores and abortion mills, both of which were deemed 'essential' by the governor. Even with this ruling the churches are limited to 50% capacity, so I don't think disease prevention is in jeopardy.

 

[pescador]

At one point attendance at St. Patrick's Cathedral was limited to 10 persons. I don't believe any such restriction was placed on liquor stores and abortion mills, both of which were deemed 'essential' by the governor. Even with this ruling the churches are limited to 50% capacity, so I don't think disease prevention is in jeopardy.

"Abortion mills"? What exactly are they? Do you mean ob/gyn offices?

 

[hislegacy]

"Abortion mills"? What exactly are they? Do you mean ob/gyn offices?

perhaps those places that 90% and above of their procedures end in the death of a child

 

[Brightmoon]

perhaps those places that 90% and above of their procedures end in the death of a child

if you’re one of those ridiculous anti-maskers , why should you care about the children and their families that you make sick or cause to die?

 

[Wolseley]

Yep, Preventing people from coming down with a nasty disease is really harsh treatment . That’s right up there with the Dred Scott decision as far as blatant stupidity is concerned . They must want people to die . Thanks Supreme Court..... for nothing!

A) Again, it must be pointed out that this disease has a 99% recovery rate. It is less lethal than plain old flu, but I don't see any restrictions being placed on people with flu. Further, hundreds of thousands of people die every year in automobile accidents, but I don't see any automobiles being banned. Don't they care about people dying in those mobile death traps?

B) Are you incapable of seeing the precedent it would set if the Court had sided with Comrade Cuomo? This virus will not last forever; but court decisions are usually around for a long, long time---and if a governor or a state can decide to suspend the first Amendment at their whim, even in the midst of a pandemic, then they can also do the same thing in the future, for whatever reason. So five years, ten years, fifteen years down the road, an atheist governor could ostensibly decide that houses of worship present a public nuisance (too much traffic, too much noise, inconvenient locations, whatever they wanted to dream up) and order them closed until he or she felt it was prudent to re-open them, if ever.

The Court made precisely the right decision, looking past the immediate moment to how this decision might be applied in the long run:

Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the First Amendment still applies, even in “times of crisis.”

“Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis,” Gorsuch wrote. “At a minimum, that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities.”

I will never understand why people are so blithely willing to simply throw away every right they have, rights for which hundreds of thousands of American shed their blood to guarantee, because they are so afraid of a temporary disease that only kills 1% of the people it infects....and they are likewise so willing to run to the government to be their teddy bear and give them comfort and protection, when the people running that government at the current time have very little interest in the well-being of the People. It amazes me.

 

[hislegacy]

if you’re one of those ridiculous anti-maskers , why should you care about the children and their families that you make sick or cause to die?

two things.

That if is the key word.

first, I am not against the wearing of masks.

Second, I believe we should do everything in our power to protect the health and safety of children; in the home, schools, out in public, sports, regardless of the color of their skin, rich or poor in or out of the womb.

 

[hedrick]

I think the restrictions were unnecessary. The Court seems to allow for restrictions of churches, but they have to be based on reason, and be consistent with how other places are treated. I don’t think other states are doing what NY did, so I’m hoping the effect won’t be broad.

 

[Brightmoon]

two things.

That if is the key word.

first, I am not against the wearing of masks.

Second, I believe we should do everything in our power to protect the health and safety of children; in the home, schools, out in public, sports, regardless of the color of their skin, rich or poor in or out of the womb.

. Even if those “ children” cost the women their lives or health . That’s why the WOMEN who are pregnant have to choose, not YOU

 

[hislegacy]

. Even if those “ children” cost the women their lives or health . That’s why the WOMEN who are pregnant have to choose, not YOU

yes, in today’s world a woman does have a right to kill her child in the womb. Including the less than 2% who are raped and in a health situation.

But this thread really isn’t about that it it? For that reason I will suspend further off topic conversation.

 

[Brightmoon]

This virus being a Temporary issue ? How long did humans put up with polio ,or smallpox? Hundreds of centuries because no human populations ever developed herd immunity. We eventually eradicated them with vaccines and with smallpox a little luck . We mainly prevented them from spreading which is what the social distancing and masking do with Covid . Ignoramuses refuse to social distance or mask so that puts all of us in danger . This ISNT like a bad cold ! It attacks all organs including the heart, lungs and nervous system. And you can get reinfected and the second time it doesn’t play nice !

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I demand total lockdowns until there is a cure for death itself.

 

[Wolseley]

This virus being a Temporary issue ? How long did humans put up with polio ,or smallpox? Hundreds of centuries because no human populations ever developed herd immunity. We eventually eradicated them with vaccines and with smallpox a little luck . We mainly prevented them from spreading which is what the social distancing and masking do with Covid . Ignoramuses refuse to social distance or mask so that puts all of us in danger . This ISNT like a bad cold ! It attacks all organs including the heart, lungs and nervous system. And you can get reinfected and the second time it doesn’t play nice !

Mainstream media hysteria. Turn off Chicken Little on the TV and get some perspective.

 

[Brightmoon]

Mainstream media hysteria. Turn off Chicken Little on the TV and get some perspective.

I’ve got a biology degree I don’t get my science info from the news media .

 

[Redwingfan9]

Yep, Preventing people from coming down with a nasty disease is really harsh treatment . That’s right up there with the Dred Scott decision as far as blatant stupidity is concerned . They must want people to die . Thanks Supreme Court..... for nothing!

Government has no business controlling people or churches in the manner that they have. We live in a republic with freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. This is not a dictatorship where one person decides upon the law without regards for rights as laid out in the constitution.

This was the correct decision by the Court. The free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the 1st amendment and is applicable to the states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Banning religious gatherings requires a strict scrutiny review by the Court. These bans simply don't pass the strict scrutiny test.

People understand the risks, they choose to worship as God commands rather than stay at home. Stop trying to control people. Other people going to church has zero effect on you. They make their choices, you make yours. That is the essence of freedom.