Texas pastors demand a “religious liberty” exemption to coronavirus stay-at-home orders

[essentialsaltes]

That restriction on in-person worship services has sparked a lawsuit, filed by three Texas pastors and Steven Hotze, a medical doctor and anti-LGBT Republican activist whose political action committee was labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. These four men ask the Texas Supreme Court to strike down Hidalgo’s order, claiming, among other things, that it violates the “religious liberty” of pastors who wish to gather their parishioners together during a pandemic.

The case is named In re Hotze.

 

[expos4ever]

Evolution by natural selection......

 

[dzheremi]

When all the established Christian churches (i.e., Catholic, Orthodox, mainline Protestants) have followed their own bishops' good counsel in listening to medical professionals and decided to livestream only small gatherings (from what I've seen from my own Church, generally just a priest/bishop, deacon, and cantor) and minister to the world in that way, it is painfully obvious that the leaders of these more fringe sects are not exhibiting wisdom in keeping with guarding their flocks wisely. I honestly worry for any people who might try to gather with them, and of course the wider society that they could then come into contact with.

In other words, this just screams "LOOK AT ME! LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!", which is really bad form from Christians at a time like this (or ever). Whatever happened to "All things are are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful"? I'm pretty sure their Bibles have 1 Corinthians, too.

 

[ananda]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

And yet the fire marshal can set maximum occupancy limits for rooms in the interests of public safety. Similarly, in the case of the current health emergency, the government can infringe rights if there is a compelling interest.

 

[Jamdoc]

Quarantine is a BIBLICAL principle.
I don't see how this is hard for some pastors to grasp, they did read Leviticus right?

 

[Ophiolite]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Assembling in a such a manner as is likely to lead to illness and death is not peaceable.

 

[timothyu]

Are the congregants less likely to hand over cash online?

 

[ananda]

And yet the fire marshal can set maximum occupancy limits for rooms in the interests of public safety. Similarly, in the case of the current health emergency, the government can infringe rights if there is a compelling interest.

IMO such rules are unconstitutional.

 

[ananda]

Assembling in a such a manner as is likely to lead to illness and death is not peaceable.

That's a slippery slope. Anything can be argued as leading to illness and death.

 

[loveofourlord]

IMO such rules are unconstitutional.

Your beliefs on the matter are meaningless, a church doesn't have the right to spread disease and risk other peoples lives. I would think a church would NOT want to do that anyway.

 

[Desk trauma]

Give them their waver, so long as they sign another that places them at the bottom of any triage list should they fall ill and require care for the virus they are helping spread.

 

[timothyu]

Your beliefs on the matter are meaningless, a church doesn't have the right to spread disease and risk other peoples lives. I would think a church would NOT want to do that anyway.

Perhaps if they put a sign on the door 'Pass the plate and hold the virus".

 

[timothyu]

Perhaps all these pastors should sit among the people instead of safely onstage. Set the example.

 

[ananda]

Your beliefs on the matter are meaningless, a church doesn't have the right to spread disease and risk other peoples lives. I would think a church would NOT want to do that anyway.

The foundation of the united States republic is based on innocence until guilt is proven, rather than guilt presumed (infected) before proving innocence (health).

 

[essentialsaltes]

IMO such rules are unconstitutional.

Supreme Court disagrees and they outrank you.

 

[ananda]

Supreme Court disagrees and they outrank you.

Do you believe the Supreme Court and their decisions can ever be wrong? De facto power does not equal de jure law.

 

[variant]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Freedom of assembly like every other right is contextual and non-absolute.

 

[loveofourlord]

The foundation of the united States republic is based on innocence until guilt is proven, rather than guilt presumed (infected) before proving innocence (health).

The pandemic doesn't care about such things, with good chance you can be sick and not know and spread, you don't get such rights.

 

[variant]

Do you believe the Supreme Court and their decisions can ever be wrong? De facto power does not equal de jure law.

I take their opinion over yours for instance.

 

[variant]

The foundation of the united States republic is based on innocence until guilt is proven, rather than guilt presumed (infected) before proving innocence (health).

And the public health and thus a public health emergency is one of the core reasons governments exist.

Protecting your liberties is also a core reason but when these two conflict we have to make decisions on what trumps what so to speak.