7 ms·

The ruling wasn’t about whether churches should abide by restrictions. And it is ridiculous to frame it that way. A case like this probably would never make it

The ruling wasn’t about whether churches should abide by restrictions. And it is ridiculous to frame it that way. A case like this probably would never make it to the Supreme Court. The question was whether it is discriminatory to open some non-essential businesses but keep churches closed.

aspenmayer 6y ago
It’s arguable that churches conduct essentially business per se, but they do provide a venue to conduct Constitutionally-protected activity.
- gumby 6y ago
  They take in revenues and provide services — is that not the very definition of a business? A food bank does the same and is a business.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    I agree with the spirit of what you are saying but disagree on the letter when it comes to matters of law. When church service is on, or the church is otherwise open to the public, it is “open for business” in common parlance. However, I disagree that it “does business” in the same way that any other kind of public place does. That is because the First Amendment is clear: 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 to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It’s just not equal in the eyes of the courts, the law, or in legal standing. You don’t need a business license to open a church, to my knowledge. Even if you did, that doesn’t change their tax exemption status and other exemptions and differences in operation and interfacing with other legal and zoning entities. They are not treated equally under the law as other institutions. In some ways they are legally similar to schools and other higher learning institutions in the regulations which apply to church property; firearm regulations, for instance, apply to schools and religious places of worship differently than your home, or in your car, or on the street or sidewalk. You can’t equivocate because religious places of worship are not equal to places of business. In the eyes of many churches, the congregation is the church proper, not the building, so if you ban the gathering, you have banned the exercise of another’s religious beliefs in a real, meaningful way. That is the part which is unconstitutional, which is where we disagree on the letter of the law.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  We should be distinguishing between "essential" activities and "constitutionally-protected" activities. They are different axes with only some overlap. Not everything that is constitutionally-protected is essential, and not everything that is essential is constitutionally protected. For example, the right to food is not guaranteed by the constitution but we can probably agree that stores providing food to the public are essential, because without food we die. While freedom to believe in a religion is constitutionally protected, I think it can be strongly argued that congregating shoulder-to-shoulder in a confined space while shouting and singing is not an essential activity and should be restricted during a deadly global pandemic. Freedom of speech is protected too, but we don't see libraries in a rush to open up.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I just find it weird that nobody is bringing up Matthew 6:5. I can hardly imagine any example of "praying to be seen by men" purer than the politicization of opening churches right now. I have this feeling like, surely the cognitive dissonance will hit any minute now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5
    - Noos 6y ago
      You are forgetting Matthew 18, 19-20: "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." There is also the idea of Communion, which is a religious gathering instituted by Jesus himself, in Luke 22. Paul also exhorts believers not to "forsake the assembling of themselves" in Hebrews 10. Communal gathering as a church is actually a religious doctrine. The details of how one should do so is really a thorny issue, and the state saying "only so many may do so" is perilously close to breaching separation. It has nothing to do with praying loud to appear religious in public to get praise from men.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        I won't debate your interpretation of scripture, but it's not relevant to your last sentence which seems disconnected and unsupported to me. And palpably absurd. Trying to convince me is definitely not worth your effort. To act like you care what I think is an indictment itself.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  > they do provide a venue to conduct Constitutionally-protected activity So does virtually everywhere in the country (speech)
gumby 6y ago
I disagree. In CA (this case was about a california rule) certain non-essential businesses are opened under heavy restrictions which include contact and congregation rules. Churches are not given an exception to those rules, which still bar similar things like concerts. And cases like that most definitely have and do reach the Supreme Court: consider hobby lobby or this year’s rulings on teachers at religious schools.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  I edited my comment to say "some non-essential businesses" to avoid implication that all non-essential businesses were opened which I didn't intend. >Churches are not given an exception to those rules, which still bar similar things like concerts. This was the decision of the Supreme Court. The Pentecostal Church and the dissenting judges think differently. >And cases like that most definitely have and do reach the Supreme Court: consider hobby lobby or this year’s rulings on teachers at religious schools. These are cases on nuanced applications of the law. The idea that churches have to follow building codes, labor laws and health laws is a settled matter.
  - gumby 6y ago
    Based on this reply I now can't tell if you agree with me or not.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    Also hobby lobby was not granted a stay as far as I’m aware, they had to wait for the final ruling.
lmkg 6y ago
But churches are open, subject to certain restrictions which also apply to secular businesses. The question is which set of restrictions they should be subject to: those for concerts and movie theaters, or those for grocery stores.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  The churches were opened mid-process as I understand.

aspenmayer 6y ago

It’s arguable that churches conduct essentially business per se, but they do provide a venue to conduct Constitutionally-protected activity.

gumby 6y ago
They take in revenues and provide services — is that not the very definition of a business? A food bank does the same and is a business.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  I agree with the spirit of what you are saying but disagree on the letter when it comes to matters of law. When church service is on, or the church is otherwise open to the public, it is “open for business” in common parlance. However, I disagree that it “does business” in the same way that any other kind of public place does. That is because the First Amendment is clear: 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 to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It’s just not equal in the eyes of the courts, the law, or in legal standing. You don’t need a business license to open a church, to my knowledge. Even if you did, that doesn’t change their tax exemption status and other exemptions and differences in operation and interfacing with other legal and zoning entities. They are not treated equally under the law as other institutions. In some ways they are legally similar to schools and other higher learning institutions in the regulations which apply to church property; firearm regulations, for instance, apply to schools and religious places of worship differently than your home, or in your car, or on the street or sidewalk. You can’t equivocate because religious places of worship are not equal to places of business. In the eyes of many churches, the congregation is the church proper, not the building, so if you ban the gathering, you have banned the exercise of another’s religious beliefs in a real, meaningful way. That is the part which is unconstitutional, which is where we disagree on the letter of the law.
ryandrake 6y ago
We should be distinguishing between "essential" activities and "constitutionally-protected" activities. They are different axes with only some overlap. Not everything that is constitutionally-protected is essential, and not everything that is essential is constitutionally protected. For example, the right to food is not guaranteed by the constitution but we can probably agree that stores providing food to the public are essential, because without food we die. While freedom to believe in a religion is constitutionally protected, I think it can be strongly argued that congregating shoulder-to-shoulder in a confined space while shouting and singing is not an essential activity and should be restricted during a deadly global pandemic. Freedom of speech is protected too, but we don't see libraries in a rush to open up.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I just find it weird that nobody is bringing up Matthew 6:5. I can hardly imagine any example of "praying to be seen by men" purer than the politicization of opening churches right now. I have this feeling like, surely the cognitive dissonance will hit any minute now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5
  - Noos 6y ago
    You are forgetting Matthew 18, 19-20: "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." There is also the idea of Communion, which is a religious gathering instituted by Jesus himself, in Luke 22. Paul also exhorts believers not to "forsake the assembling of themselves" in Hebrews 10. Communal gathering as a church is actually a religious doctrine. The details of how one should do so is really a thorny issue, and the state saying "only so many may do so" is perilously close to breaching separation. It has nothing to do with praying loud to appear religious in public to get praise from men.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I won't debate your interpretation of scripture, but it's not relevant to your last sentence which seems disconnected and unsupported to me. And palpably absurd. Trying to convince me is definitely not worth your effort. To act like you care what I think is an indictment itself.
bradleyjg 6y ago
> they do provide a venue to conduct Constitutionally-protected activity So does virtually everywhere in the country (speech)

gumby 6y ago

I disagree. In CA (this case was about a california rule) certain non-essential businesses are opened under heavy restrictions which include contact and congregation rules. Churches are not given an exception to those rules, which still bar similar things like concerts. And cases like that most definitely have and do reach the Supreme Court: consider hobby lobby or this year’s rulings on teachers at religious schools.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
I edited my comment to say "some non-essential businesses" to avoid implication that all non-essential businesses were opened which I didn't intend. >Churches are not given an exception to those rules, which still bar similar things like concerts. This was the decision of the Supreme Court. The Pentecostal Church and the dissenting judges think differently. >And cases like that most definitely have and do reach the Supreme Court: consider hobby lobby or this year’s rulings on teachers at religious schools. These are cases on nuanced applications of the law. The idea that churches have to follow building codes, labor laws and health laws is a settled matter.
- gumby 6y ago
  Based on this reply I now can't tell if you agree with me or not.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  Also hobby lobby was not granted a stay as far as I’m aware, they had to wait for the final ruling.

lmkg 6y ago

But churches are open, subject to certain restrictions which also apply to secular businesses. The question is which set of restrictions they should be subject to: those for concerts and movie theaters, or those for grocery stores.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
The churches were opened mid-process as I understand.