4 ms·
> Here is the ACLU statement in opposition the SCOTUS rulings that the new york ban on church gatherings was unconstitutional If I'm remembering correctly, the
by joshuamorton 5y ago
> Here is the ACLU statement in opposition the SCOTUS rulings that the new york ban on church gatherings was unconstitutional
If I'm remembering correctly, the ACLU statement here is correct. Religious gatherings were given more leeway than other large gatherings. While obviously the 1a is important, I generally agree with the ACLU that the courts approach to religion is a bit ridiculous in terms of how much deference particularly Christianity gets. Ones religion shouldn't result in getting special treatment under the law, either bad or good.
> example, in CA the governor claimed to have the power to bar healthy people leaving their house and visiting the private homes of their lovers, friends, and family.
No he didn't. (Or at least not in any way that came with threat of government force. If I'm wrong here you should be able to find someone who faced a fine for having a party on their home).
- s1artibartfast 5y agoYou can read the Supreme Court ruling yourself. The court found that it was religious discrimination specifically because other types of activities and gatherings were permitted. Regarding the California mandate, this language is this certainly in the mandate (I believe December 2020) . Sheriff and counties were empowered and tasked with executing the mandates, and you are correct that they largely do not enforce this part. This does not change the fact that it was part of the executive action, in both language and intent. https://www.kake.com/story/41973801/from-a-25000-fine-to-a-warning-how-are-states-enforcing-the-coronavirus-stay-at-home-orders https://www.kake.com/story/41973801/from-a-25000-fine-to-a-w...