3 ms·

The court is letting states decide that religious practice is non-essential or less essential as compared to some selected commercial activities. I don't think

The court is letting states decide that religious practice is non-essential or less essential as compared to some selected commercial activities. I don't think a state or the US should be allowed to make that determination. Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. This is not really something the state can reason about.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
> Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. Growing up in a Christian home I'd say allowing religious services to continue is more likely to cause harm to people. Still, it sounds like you think physical religious gatherings are some kind of human right.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate. The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church. For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store. On that note, I am going to go shopping.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.
      - pnw_hazor 6y ago
        The issue is that the government is putting more restrictions on the church than it does grocery stores. If California put the same restrictions on grocery stores, as it did churches they would be more consistent with US law. Otherwise, the government has to prove that the difference in restrictions is so important it outweighs the religious concerns raised by the plaintiffs. (This is a high bar to reach in the US.) The SCOTUS is being lazy by letting CA characterize a church similarly to a commercial movie theater. That is nonsense. A person can miss a movie without risking eternal damnation, but this may not be true for some church services for some Christians.
        paulryanrogers 6y ago
        People need food to survive. No one needs religion.
        colejohnson66 6y ago
        I take issue with that statement. Yes, people need food to survive, and yes, one can survive without religion, but that shouldn’t be the argument. It should be that one can worship from home; one doesn’t need to go to a religious building for worship.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      > But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.
      - pnw_hazor 6y ago
        A US government does not get to tell people how to practice religion beyond making a determination whether the belief system is a religion. And, making a determination if a particular practice is legal (to exclude harms like you mention). That is why I have been careful to describe protected religious practices using the term 'otherwise lawful religious practice'. The plaintiffs clearly practice a religion. Going to church is clearly a legal religious practice. Thus, the government needs to prove that shorter lines at grocery stores are more important than longer lines or less capacity at churches. The government can't prove that because it can't interpret (or weigh) the importance of going to church.
        paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Food > faith If you've known any religious people who successfully fasted all food for over a month then you may have seen the evidence for yourself. (Even as a once religious person I found it shocking.)
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    That hasn’t been decided one way or the other yet. This was just about what would happen while the litigation continues.
abhorrence 6y ago
Irreparable harm is a fairly flimsy rationale in the context of the shelter in place order. Nearly anything prevent by the order could be construed to cause irreparable harm -- and many are significantly more concrete than suspension of in person religious services, e.g. reduction in non-urgent healthcare.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Not everything is protected by the 1st Amd. Religious practices are not supposed to be singled out. That is why a neutral rule that did not exempt grocery stores would be more consistent with US law. I think the court was being lazy here because the covid rules are temporary rather than permanent. But the government cannot measure the harm that may be caused by missing church. You and I can say it is no big deal, but the government really can't say that without judging the merit/efficacy of the religious practice.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

> Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. Growing up in a Christian home I'd say allowing religious services to continue is more likely to cause harm to people. Still, it sounds like you think physical religious gatherings are some kind of human right.

zaroth 6y ago
Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate. The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church. For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store. On that note, I am going to go shopping.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      The issue is that the government is putting more restrictions on the church than it does grocery stores. If California put the same restrictions on grocery stores, as it did churches they would be more consistent with US law. Otherwise, the government has to prove that the difference in restrictions is so important it outweighs the religious concerns raised by the plaintiffs. (This is a high bar to reach in the US.) The SCOTUS is being lazy by letting CA characterize a church similarly to a commercial movie theater. That is nonsense. A person can miss a movie without risking eternal damnation, but this may not be true for some church services for some Christians.
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        People need food to survive. No one needs religion.
        colejohnson66 6y ago
        I take issue with that statement. Yes, people need food to survive, and yes, one can survive without religion, but that shouldn’t be the argument. It should be that one can worship from home; one doesn’t need to go to a religious building for worship.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    > But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      A US government does not get to tell people how to practice religion beyond making a determination whether the belief system is a religion. And, making a determination if a particular practice is legal (to exclude harms like you mention). That is why I have been careful to describe protected religious practices using the term 'otherwise lawful religious practice'. The plaintiffs clearly practice a religion. Going to church is clearly a legal religious practice. Thus, the government needs to prove that shorter lines at grocery stores are more important than longer lines or less capacity at churches. The government can't prove that because it can't interpret (or weigh) the importance of going to church.
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Food > faith If you've known any religious people who successfully fasted all food for over a month then you may have seen the evidence for yourself. (Even as a once religious person I found it shocking.)
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  That hasn’t been decided one way or the other yet. This was just about what would happen while the litigation continues.

abhorrence 6y ago

Irreparable harm is a fairly flimsy rationale in the context of the shelter in place order. Nearly anything prevent by the order could be construed to cause irreparable harm -- and many are significantly more concrete than suspension of in person religious services, e.g. reduction in non-urgent healthcare.

pnw_hazor 6y ago
Not everything is protected by the 1st Amd. Religious practices are not supposed to be singled out. That is why a neutral rule that did not exempt grocery stores would be more consistent with US law. I think the court was being lazy here because the covid rules are temporary rather than permanent. But the government cannot measure the harm that may be caused by missing church. You and I can say it is no big deal, but the government really can't say that without judging the merit/efficacy of the religious practice.