Illegal worship ban in California ended by Supreme Court

[The Liturgist]

Supreme Court ruling in California case allows indoor religious services to resume -- with some limits

Unfortunately, the state is still allowed to restrict capacity to 25% and ban singing, but three justices opposed even that, which is a good sign that as infection numbers get under control, the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment will no longer be compromised (what would Patrick Henry say about these restrictions?).

I now intend to sue the state of California for violating my rights, by preventing me from visiting churches in California I greatly love when I travel to the Golden State.

 

[dqhall]

Supreme Court ruling in California case allows indoor religious services to resume -- with some limits

Unfortunately, the state is still allowed to restrict capacity to 25% and ban singing, but three justices opposed even that, which is a good sign that as infection numbers get under control, the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment will no longer be compromised (what would Patrick Henry say about these restrictions?).

I now intend to sue the state of California for violating my rights, by preventing me from visiting churches in California I greatly love when I travel to the Golden State.

Other people may want to sue churches for spreading the virus intentionally. I read a testimony about a Canadian couple visiting Florida for the winter like they usually do. They flew to Florida and went to their 55+ trailer park. They forgot to buy health insurance. The Canadian universal health system does not cover out of country medical expense. They purchased out of country insurance after they got to Florida and soon had COVID. The husband was in the hospital for two weeks, then he was taken by air ambulance to Canada. The insurance company argued they purchased health insurance after they were infected, thus the insurance company would not cover them. The bills were estimated at $300,000 USD.

I was able to find sermons and church service videos online for free. My freedom of religion was not denied. I would not want to attend such an unforgiving church as to sue a government interested in the welfare of its seniors anyway.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Oh, were we supposed to have stopped? We ignored those rules. We've been attending and singing, and if one church complies with the rules, then we go find another church.

I was able to find sermons and church service videos online for free. My freedom of religion was not denied.

My religion requires more than church service videos.

 

[dqhall]

Oh, were we supposed to have stopped? We ignored those rules. We've been attending and singing, and if one church complies with the rules, then we go find another church.



My religion requires more than church service videos.

You may sing until your heart is content. You may attend services day and night. When communist governments closed churches, people met in homes or forests. A Bible study in my area met on zoom during the pandemic. Faith is more than a building and a hallelujah choir. There is an offering that must be collected for such high overhead religion.

I have never sued or been sued. Other people might want to sue governments, hospitals, schools, police, businesses, motorists and churches. They even sue family members over division of inheritance. They sue spouses for division of property in divorce cases. They sue for child custody.

In Florida places are open. They suffer loss of business as people do not want hospital bills. Insurance does not cover everything. Two hours in the emergency room cost one person $14,000. With vaccinations the death and hospitalization rates are falling. People may look for work.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Supreme Court ruling in California case allows indoor religious services to resume -- with some limits

Unfortunately, the state is still allowed to restrict capacity to 25% and ban singing, but three justices opposed even that, which is a good sign that as infection numbers get under control, the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment will no longer be compromised (what would Patrick Henry say about these restrictions?).

I now intend to sue the state of California for violating my rights, by preventing me from visiting churches in California I greatly love when I travel to the Golden State.

I wonder how much that will help the Governor recall effort. My parents, brothers and a large chunk of my extended family lives in California. 14 years back they all did, but there has been a slow Exodus from the state, originally from crime, then from economics, which I think will continue because of state politics and the laws and regulations that come from it.

 

[Albion]

Other people may want to sue churches for spreading the virus intentionally.

There is one rationalization or another for attempting to negate just about every provision in the Constitution, but that doesn't justify doing so. Elsewise, there wouldn't be any point to writing these rights into the Constitution in the first place.

And that is especially true considering that the same people who come up with these infringements on Constitutional rights will simultaneously stand behind other ones--and doing that is almost a routine thing nowadays.

 

[NotreDame]

Supreme Court ruling in California case allows indoor religious services to resume -- with some limits

Unfortunately, the state is still allowed to restrict capacity to 25% and ban singing, but three justices opposed even that, which is a good sign that as infection numbers get under control, the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment will no longer be compromised (what would Patrick Henry say about these restrictions?).

There’s no point speculating what Patrick would say. If Patrick’s thoughts could be known today, one man from the past doesn’t determine what the Constitution says.

SCOTUS allowing those specific restrictions isn’t only rational, but consistent with the 1st Amendment Free Exercise of Religion clause. Churches aren’t immune from the burdens other entities must taste in an effort to abate the spread of a very infectious virus. Rather, it is a matter of consistency, where inconsistent application of a ban/restrictions to identical, parallel, similarly situated entities in relation to churches, synagogues, mosques, which can violate the no discrimination against religion/religious principle of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There is one rationalization or another for attempting to negate just about every provision in the Constitution, but that doesn't justify doing so. Elsewise, there wouldn't be any point to writing these rights into the Constitution in the first place.

And that is especially true considering that the same people who come up with these infringements on Constitutional rights will simultaneously stand behind other ones--and doing that is almost a routine thing nowadays.

It drives me nuts when I hear liberals, especially folks on the open boards where non-Christians post use various canards and strawmen like "Freedom of Speech is not an absolute". Just about all sane people recognize the minimal regulation of speech that this country has for obvious common sense reasons. But these people tend to do that because they want the same kind of regulation of speech and freedom that takes place in Europe, Canada etc. (and quite often it is such people from those actual lands lobbying for that regulation here!)

 

[The Liturgist]

I was able to find sermons and church service videos online for free. My freedom of religion was not denied.

My faith requires in person attendance to partake of the Holy Eucharist, and while in California, I was prevented from doing this

I would not want to attend such an unforgiving church as to sue a government interested in the welfare of its seniors anyway.

Although I am the minister of a liturgical and theologically conservative Congregational church (although we may seek admission into another denomination due to the small size of the traditional Congregational community, and liturgical, Eucharistic churches being an even smaller subset), my church was not harmed by the actions of California as it is located elsewhere. And unlike a major mainline church that spent more than $40 million suing traditional parishes that wanted to leave, I don’t believe in using the church treasury to sue people.

I plan on suing California rather in my capacity as a private citizen of liturgical Christian faith.

 

[The Liturgist]

You may sing until your heart is content. You may attend services day and night. When communist governments closed churches, people met in homes or forests. A Bible study in my area met on zoom during the pandemic. Faith is more than a building and a hallelujah choir. There is an offering that must be collected for such high overhead religion.

I have never sued or been sued. Other people might want to sue governments, hospitals, schools, police, businesses, motorists and churches. They even sue family members over division of inheritance. They sue spouses for division of property in divorce cases. They sue for child custody.

In Florida places are open. They suffer loss of business as people do not want hospital bills. Insurance does not cover everything. Two hours in the emergency room cost one person $14,000. With vaccinations the death and hospitalization rates are falling. People may look for work.

I sued a retailer when food purchased there, contaminated with e.coli bacteria, gave us severe food poisoning requiring hospitalization, and settled for a good sum of money; it was worth it, and such lawsuits are paid by the insurance companies, who in turn put pressure on retailers to improve food handling safety.

 

[dqhall]

There is one rationalization or another for attempting to negate just about every provision in the Constitution, but that doesn't justify doing so. Elsewise, there wouldn't be any point to writing these rights into the Constitution in the first place.

And that is especially true considering that the same people who come up with these infringements on Constitutional rights will simultaneously stand behind other ones--and doing that is almost a routine thing nowadays.

Some people may claim they have a constitutional right to attend the super bowl in person. Even that is closed for public safety concerns. It is not like places of worship are being singled out for unfair treatment.

There are 50 states and Puerto Rico to chose from in America.

Years ago there was a saying: “This is America, love it or leave it.” The airports for open for those who think they can find a better nation to accept them. There are worse places to be. I am grateful I do not live in a worse place.

 

[NotreDame]

There is one rationalization or another for attempting to negate just about every provision in the Constitution, but that doesn't justify doing so. Elsewise, there wouldn't be any point to writing these rights into the Constitution in the first place.

And that is especially true considering that the same people who come up with these infringements on Constitutional rights will simultaneously stand behind other ones--and doing that is almost a routine thing nowadays.

The issue is whether these restrictions are infringements on religious freedom in the 1st Amendment. The fact religious freedom is protected in the 1st Amendment doesn’t render some specific limitation as an infringement. Rights aren’t absolute.

Restrictions imposed on religious practices aren’t new in the U.S., and they have been lawful. Bigamy and polygamy have been lawfully prohibited, despite the religious belief for one or both. Use of peyote as a religious sacrament in a religious ritual has been lawfully prohibited. Human sacrifice isn’t allowed as a religious practice. The sacrifice of animals has been and can be lawfully prohibited as a religious practice, especially when done in a manner which is unsanitary. Prohibiting the underage consumption of alcohol, where alcohol is part of a religious ritual, is lawful.

Constitutionally, in this context, the legality is a matter of consistency. The disagreement has been over consistent application to entities parallel, similarly situated, or identical to religious entities. This is what Gorsuch and others have focused upon in these orders, whether the state has consistently applied its restrictions to religious entities to similarly situated, identical, or parallel entities.

 

[Albion]

Some people may claim they have a constitutional right to attend the super bowl in person.

Maybe so, but I didn't agree with that.

It is not like places of worship are being singled out for unfair treatment.

Actually, it appears that they are.

I don't know how much you are aware of all the restrictions involved in the case of churches but not similar institutions, so I won't comment further here.

 

[NotreDame]

It drives me nuts when I hear liberals, especially folks on the open boards where non-Christians post use various canards and strawmen like "Freedom of Speech is not an absolute". Just about all sane people recognize the minimal regulation of speech that this country has for obvious common sense reasons. But these people tend to do that because they want the same kind of regulation of speech and freedom that takes place in Europe, Canada etc. (and quite often it is such people from those actual lands lobbying for that regulation here!)

Okay. Ignoring these specific deplorables, with alleged sinister motives, there still remains the question whether the restrictions are not only rational but lawful. The fact some group of people want to use the restrictions with sinister motives doesn’t render the restriction as irrational or unlawful within a specific, factual context, such as a highly contagious, mutating virus, that has killed over 400,000 Americans in one year.

And there are many people who support these restrictions, not only of churches, but other entities, because of a legitimate desire to abate the spread of the virus. The pursuit of abating the spread of the virus isn’t hijakced as nefarious on the basis of some people having sinister motives when the facts/context supports the restrictions.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Supreme Court ruling in California case allows indoor religious services to resume -- with some limits

Unfortunately, the state is still allowed to restrict capacity to 25% and ban singing, but three justices opposed even that, which is a good sign that as infection numbers get under control, the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment will no longer be compromised (what would Patrick Henry say about these restrictions?).

I now intend to sue the state of California for violating my rights, by preventing me from visiting churches in California I greatly love when I travel to the Golden State.

Churches are not above the law. We must obey what our heath officials deem necessary to protect our brothers and sisters from a potentially deadly disease. Why is that so hard to understand???

 

[Albion]

Churches are not above the law. We must obey what our heath officials deem necessary to protect our brothers and sisters from a potentially deadly disease. Why is that so hard to understand???

Why "it is so hard to understand" is that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution. If it can just be set aside arbitrarily--and make no mistake about it, that is what these decrees from state officials amount to--then there is, in fact, no freedom of religion. The excuse that is used does not change anything, especially when the rules imposed upon churches are stricter than they are for other institutions/gatherings.

 

[topher694]

Other people may want to sue churches for spreading the virus intentionally. I read a testimony about a Canadian couple visiting Florida for the winter like they usually do. They flew to Florida and went to their 55+ trailer park. They forgot to buy health insurance. The Canadian universal health system does not cover out of country medical expense. They purchased out of country insurance after they got to Florida and soon had COVID. The husband was in the hospital for two weeks, then he was taken by air ambulance to Canada. The insurance company argued they purchased health insurance after they were infected, thus the insurance company would not cover them. The bills were estimated at $300,000 USD.

I was able to find sermons and church service videos online for free. My freedom of religion was not denied. I would not want to attend such an unforgiving church as to sue a government interested in the welfare of its seniors anyway.

Intentionally? Give me a break. Garbage like that only makes things worse.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Why "it is so hard to understand" is that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution. If it can just be set aside arbitrarily--and make no mistake about it, that is what these decrees from state officials amount to--then there is, in fact, no freedom of religion. The excuse that is used does not change anything, especially when the rules imposed upon churches are stricter than they are for other institutions/gatherings.

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it. We are free to believe in our Lord, read His words and spread His Good News. Many pastors have seen the error of their ways as congregants die from their non compliance. This fight to congregate is deadly. Soon it will change when more people get vaccinated.
I contracted Covid twice and three family members have died. I take this seriously as the health and well being of others is as loving as it gets. Be blessed.

 

[NotreDame]

Why "it is so hard to understand" is that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution. If it can just be set aside arbitrarily--and make no mistake about it, that is what these decrees from state officials amount to--then there is, in fact, no freedom of religion. The excuse that is used does not change anything, especially when the rules imposed upon churches are stricter than they are for other institutions/gatherings.

The use of exaggeration to express the doom and gloom of “in fact, no freedom of religion.” These pandemic restrictions are not resulting in a “no freedom of religion” in the U.S. Rather, the restrictions result in a narrow, specific loss of “freedom of religion.”

And the theme of being targeted victims is dubious, as other businesses have noted they aren’t treated the same as other similarly situated entities. This isn’t some pursuit to oppress the church and religious. A persistent complaint during the pandemic has been the unequal treatment of entities, not just churches.

If I’d didn’t know better, I’d think this was Rome, under the rule of Nero, with the manner in which Christians are characterizing as the Great Tribulation like treatment of the church.

 

[topher694]

Many pastors have seen the error of their ways as congregants die from their non compliance.

Also part of the problem, not the solution. People died from the virus. No one has ever died from non compliance. Villainizing and basically accusing people of manslaughter for wanting to worship God only makes it worse.