5 ms·

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

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)