SCOTUS Rules Against Cuomo's 10 Person Cap at Churches/Synagogues

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
3,079
Points
335
SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CUOMO’S 10 PERSON CAP AT CHURCHES/SYNAGOUGES. “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.

The regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.1 In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.

The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit. These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest.

Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services. The District Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread of the disease. It found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] has rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.”


AMY!
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
18,952
Reaction score
3,382
Points
290
SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CUOMO’S 10 PERSON CAP AT CHURCHES/SYNAGOUGES. “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.

The regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.1 In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.

The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit. These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest.

Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services. The District Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread of the disease. It found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] has rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.”


AMY!
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law. None of this is true. Clearly they are legislatting from the bench. The Constitution does recognize emergencies and as it does when it allows a President to suspend habeas corpus.
 

Gracie

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
63,446
Reaction score
22,002
Points
2,290
Location
Wandering Nomad
SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CUOMO’S 10 PERSON CAP AT CHURCHES/SYNAGOUGES. “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.

The regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.1 In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.

The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit. These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest.

Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services. The District Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread of the disease. It found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] has rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.”


AMY!
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law. None of this is true. Clearly they are legislatting from the bench. The Constitution does recognize emergencies and as it does when it allows a President to suspend habeas corpus.
Moron. Try doing a bit of investigating before opening your flappy mouth.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,645
Reaction score
5,541
Points
215
I said awhile ago that what was happening was raising Constitutional questions. I've not taken a side because I didn't know what the right answer was but the ruling here IMO does fall along Constitutional lines.

I've also noted many times that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Our rights allow for us to do things I still don't support. Such as participate in a KKK rally in the courthouse square.

Our church shut down voluntarily out of concern for others.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
18,952
Reaction score
3,382
Points
290
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.
It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.
No one is preventing any worship. Only the form of it is being regulated. Churches have become super spreaders of the coronavirus.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
18,952
Reaction score
3,382
Points
290
SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CUOMO’S 10 PERSON CAP AT CHURCHES/SYNAGOUGES. “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.

The regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.1 In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.

The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit. These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest.

Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services. The District Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread of the disease. It found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] has rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.”


AMY!
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law. None of this is true. Clearly they are legislatting from the bench. The Constitution does recognize emergencies and as it does when it allows a President to suspend habeas corpus.
Moron. Try doing a bit of investigating before opening your flappy mouth.
You are the moron. You clearly are doing no investigation.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
85,438
Reaction score
24,332
Points
2,180
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.
It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.
No one is preventing any worship. Only the form of it is being regulated. Churches have become super spreaders of the coronavirus.

Moron..........

No one is preventing freedom of the press when only the government is allowed to operate news agencies, just the form of it is being regulated.....

Do you see how stupid your point is?
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
79,239
Reaction score
23,516
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
It's all but impossible to stop the spread of a once-in-a-lifetime, highly contagious, deadly virus when around 30% of your population doesn't even believe it's real.

So, in a free society like ours, many lives are simply going to be sacrificed and destroyed at the altar of pure, raw, arrogant ignorance.

"Altar", pun intended.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
18,952
Reaction score
3,382
Points
290
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law
What we have are godless libs in positions of power who hate Christians and practicing religious Jews
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You are a piece of shit that thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is godless. Protecting people's lives is more important. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. You honor God by living your life by God's word. Going to church does not show any commitment to God.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
18,952
Reaction score
3,382
Points
290
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.
It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.
No one is preventing any worship. Only the form of it is being regulated. Churches have become super spreaders of the coronavirus.

Moron..........

No one is preventing freedom of the press when only the government is allowed to operate news agencies, just the form of it is being regulated.....

Do you see how stupid your point is?
Your point is stupid. No one is preventing on-line worship so no one is banning freedom of religion.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,645
Reaction score
5,541
Points
215
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law
What we have are godless libs in positions of power who hate Christians and practicing religious Jews
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You are a piece of shit that thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is godless. Protecting people's lives is more important. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. You honor God by living your life by God's word. Going to church does not show any commitment to God.
But using the Caesar thing in the way you are using it here can also mean you abide by the top law of the land, the Constitution.

As I noted, our church shut down voluntarily. There is no law or rule where I live shutting churches down. I have long had a problem with the idea of shutting a church down while allowing a business to stay open.

When we first did all of this I had a problem with not allowing a farmers market but allowing Wal Mart to stay open.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
85,438
Reaction score
24,332
Points
2,180
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.
It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.
No one is preventing any worship. Only the form of it is being regulated. Churches have become super spreaders of the coronavirus.

Moron..........

No one is preventing freedom of the press when only the government is allowed to operate news agencies, just the form of it is being regulated.....

Do you see how stupid your point is?
Your point is stupid. No one is preventing on-line worship so no one is banning freedom of religion.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say "Freedom of religion as specified by the government." If any business is allowed to have more than 10 people, then you can't deny the same ability to churches, you doofus.........
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
21,256
Reaction score
14,721
Points
1,365
You are a piece of shit that thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is godless. Protecting people's lives is more important
Lives are not important enough to godless libs or they would end the riots that take place in democrat run cities across America

the fact is that liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth.

gov newsome tells californians to cancel Thanksgiving because it reminds the left of God

but then he attends a mask-less banquet for one of his moneybag fundraisers
 

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,143
Reaction score
8,273
Points
900
I was just reading through this anti-Christ thread on twitter about the decision and it occurred to me that anti's should go start their own cult country somewhere and leave ours which has a foundation based on inalienable God given rights written into the constitution and bill of rights.

 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
10,753
Reaction score
2,885
Points
195
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.
It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.
People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,645
Reaction score
5,541
Points
215
Interesting out of Roberts. I really dislike his reasoning more than one I might agree with. He is arguing that since the particular rules being ruled on are not in place right now no judgement can be granted.

I disagree completely with that line of ruling. Rule on the Constitutionality of the rules, Roberts. Don't make people do it all again.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top