4 ms·

The government can't really measure the harm caused by interfering with otherwise lawful religious practice. You and I can have our opinions but legally it isn'

The government can't really measure the harm caused by interfering with otherwise lawful religious practice. You and I can have our opinions but legally it isn't within the power of the government to do so. How could it? What if the interference delays a child's baptism and the child dies during the delay. For some religions this may be an irreparable eternal harm. From the dissent: "As a general matter, the “government may not use religion as a basis of classification for the imposition of duties, penalties, privileges or benefits."" "What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification. The Church has agreed to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses. That raises important questions: “Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?”" "The Church would suffer irreparable harm from not being able to hold services on Pentecost Sunday in a way that comparable secular businesses and persons can conduct their activities"

kmonsen 6y ago
"The Church would suffer irreparable harm from not being able to hold services on Pentecost Sunday in a way that comparable secular businesses and persons can conduct their activities" This is the key to get an emergency stay of the stay at home order until the supreme court can actually handle the case. This is extremely rare. I don't see any evidence here, he is just stating it as a fact when it is clearly not.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  That's the point of the 1st Amd., you do not need to justify your otherwise legal religious practice to the government. This is because one person's grave sin that leads to eternal damnation may be another person's minor inconvenience. The importance or merit of a particular otherwise legal religious practice is not determinable by a US government. For example, the US government is not in the business of interpreting the bible and telling Christians how to practice their religion. The government only goes as far as determining if a person's belief system is a religion (broadly interpreted), and if the religious practice in question is otherwise legal (to exclude obvious overreaches such as child marriage, and such). Plaintiffs do not need to prove a restriction of a religious practice causes irreparable harm because there is no way to prove it, they just declare it. E.g., Prisons have to honor the religious dietary restrictions of inmates. The government can't say it is not important, here eat your ham sandwich like everyone else.

kmonsen 6y ago

"The Church would suffer irreparable harm from not being able to hold services on Pentecost Sunday in a way that comparable secular businesses and persons can conduct their activities" This is the key to get an emergency stay of the stay at home order until the supreme court can actually handle the case. This is extremely rare. I don't see any evidence here, he is just stating it as a fact when it is clearly not.

pnw_hazor 6y ago
That's the point of the 1st Amd., you do not need to justify your otherwise legal religious practice to the government. This is because one person's grave sin that leads to eternal damnation may be another person's minor inconvenience. The importance or merit of a particular otherwise legal religious practice is not determinable by a US government. For example, the US government is not in the business of interpreting the bible and telling Christians how to practice their religion. The government only goes as far as determining if a person's belief system is a religion (broadly interpreted), and if the religious practice in question is otherwise legal (to exclude obvious overreaches such as child marriage, and such). Plaintiffs do not need to prove a restriction of a religious practice causes irreparable harm because there is no way to prove it, they just declare it. E.g., Prisons have to honor the religious dietary restrictions of inmates. The government can't say it is not important, here eat your ham sandwich like everyone else.