3 ms·
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 sto
by 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 agoPeople need food to survive. No one needs religion.
- colejohnson66 6y agoI 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.