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

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
10,783
Reaction score
2,890
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.
25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.
Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.
WHich is what this was ruled on.
Then it's not a first amendment issue
Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.
Show me precedent where building capacity limits have been deemed unconstitutional. Not the unfair enforcement but the laws themselves.
I'm not interesting in arguments like this. No one argued or ruled that building capacity limits couldn't be enacted. It was argued they could not be unfairly enforced thereby restricting someone's rights.
Again the law itself is not unconstitutional.

So all that needs to be done is to put the same limits on all buildings open to the public. Problem solved.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,547
Points
215
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.
25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.
Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.
WHich is what this was ruled on.
Then it's not a first amendment issue
Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.
Show me precedent where building capacity limits have been deemed unconstitutional. Not the unfair enforcement but the laws themselves.
I'm not interesting in arguments like this. No one argued or ruled that building capacity limits couldn't be enacted. It was argued they could not be unfairly enforced thereby restricting someone's rights.
Again the law itself is not unconstitutional.

So all that needs to be done is to put the same limits on all buildings open to the public. Problem solved.
First of all, there is no law here to start with.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
10,783
Reaction score
2,890
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.
25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.
Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.
WHich is what this was ruled on.
Then it's not a first amendment issue
Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.
Show me precedent where building capacity limits have been deemed unconstitutional. Not the unfair enforcement but the laws themselves.
I'm not interesting in arguments like this. No one argued or ruled that building capacity limits couldn't be enacted. It was argued they could not be unfairly enforced thereby restricting someone's rights.
Again the law itself is not unconstitutional.

So all that needs to be done is to put the same limits on all buildings open to the public. Problem solved.
First of all, there is no law here to start with.
So substitute the word "rule" for the word "law".
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,547
Points
215
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.
25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.
Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.
WHich is what this was ruled on.
Then it's not a first amendment issue
Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.
Show me precedent where building capacity limits have been deemed unconstitutional. Not the unfair enforcement but the laws themselves.
I'm not interesting in arguments like this. No one argued or ruled that building capacity limits couldn't be enacted. It was argued they could not be unfairly enforced thereby restricting someone's rights.
Again the law itself is not unconstitutional.

So all that needs to be done is to put the same limits on all buildings open to the public. Problem solved.
First of all, there is no law here to start with.
So substitute the word "rule" for the word "law".
And the point becomes moot as it's never going to happen as that would cause a 70% unemployment rate. That would cause any politician that did that to lose their job, hence this ruling. A politician can't pick and choose who they will target especially when they are targeting a persons first amendment rights.
 

KarlMarxsPitBull

Active Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
103
Points
33
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.
Just as President Obama said, these troglodytes will bitterly cling to their "sky daddy" like snowflakes rather than use theri brains. Religion is one of the silly old traditions of mankind that we need to eradicate if we are ever going to find have true progress.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,547
Points
215

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
10,783
Reaction score
2,890
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.
25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.
Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.
WHich is what this was ruled on.
Then it's not a first amendment issue
Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.
Show me precedent where building capacity limits have been deemed unconstitutional. Not the unfair enforcement but the laws themselves.
I'm not interesting in arguments like this. No one argued or ruled that building capacity limits couldn't be enacted. It was argued they could not be unfairly enforced thereby restricting someone's rights.
Again the law itself is not unconstitutional.

So all that needs to be done is to put the same limits on all buildings open to the public. Problem solved.
First of all, there is no law here to start with.
So substitute the word "rule" for the word "law".
And the point becomes moot as it's never going to happen as that would cause a 70% unemployment rate. That would cause any politician that did that to lose their job, hence this ruling. A politician can't pick and choose who they will target especially when they are targeting a persons first amendment rights.
And once again I already conceded that point that the rule needs to be the same for all buildings open to the public.

If a restaurant is capped at X% indoor capacity then the church should be capped at X% as well.

The limit itself is not unconstitutional the disparity is the problem.
 

wamose

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
6,097
Points
2,015
Location
Pennsylvania
One of the biggest goals of totalitarian liberals is to destroy families and all organized religion. It's the communist way. Better dead than red.
 

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
6,332
Reaction score
4,709
Points
1,940
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.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
 

DBA

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
3,770
Points
1,940
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.
If under 50 with no significant pre-existing health conditions, they should be more concerned about getting hit by a bus. Heck, if healthy, there are still many more things to be more concerned with if you are between 50 and 70. Sheep will do as sheep do. This explains why evidently 80 million people voted for Biden. They believe all the nonsense(Russia) and hysteria(COVID) they have been spoon fed over the last 4 years. Baaaaaa
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
79,326
Reaction score
23,623
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
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.
If under 50 with no significant pre-existing health conditions, they should be more concerned about getting hit by a bus. Heck, if healthy, there are still many more things to be more concerned with if you are between 50 and 70. Sheep will do as sheep do. This explains why evidently 80 million people voted for Biden. They believe all the nonsense(Russia) and hysteria(COVID) they have been spoon fed over the last 4 years. Baaaaaa
And there ya go.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,547
Points
215
One of the biggest goals of totalitarian liberals is to destroy families and all organized religion. It's the communist way. Better dead than red.
Republican governors are enacting these same sort of rules. The "Conservative" justices have upheld all kinds of totalitarian laws.

EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows Massive Government Spying Program

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Key Surveillance Case
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,547
Points
215
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.
If under 50 with no significant pre-existing health conditions, they should be more concerned about getting hit by a bus. Heck, if healthy, there are still many more things to be more concerned with if you are between 50 and 70. Sheep will do as sheep do. This explains why evidently 80 million people voted for Biden. They believe all the nonsense(Russia) and hysteria(COVID) they have been spoon fed over the last 4 years. Baaaaaa
A friend of mine has covid. He's my age (late 50's). He also announced two people he regularly plays pool with (late 80's) have it and are in the hospital.

Not everything is or should be only about you.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
79,326
Reaction score
23,623
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
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.
If under 50 with no significant pre-existing health conditions, they should be more concerned about getting hit by a bus. Heck, if healthy, there are still many more things to be more concerned with if you are between 50 and 70. Sheep will do as sheep do. This explains why evidently 80 million people voted for Biden. They believe all the nonsense(Russia) and hysteria(COVID) they have been spoon fed over the last 4 years. Baaaaaa
A friend of mine has covid. He's my age (late 50's). He also announced two people he regularly plays pool with (late 80's) have it and are in the hospital.

Not everything is or should be only about you.
It's how they're conditioned. No one else matters.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
217,324
Reaction score
43,561
Points
2,190
At a time COVID is raging and we are looking at 2000 deaths a day, the Trump Court sells out America to pander to the religious right.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,242
Reaction score
9,305
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
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.
This is from the decision: Finally, it has not been shown that grant- ing the applications will harm the public. As noted, the State has not claimed that attendance at the applicants’ services has resulted in the spread of the disease. And the State has not shown that public health would be imperiled if less restrictive measures were imposed.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,547
Points
215
At a time COVID is raging and we are looking at 2000 deaths a day, the Trump Court sells out America to pander to the religious right.
No. There are negative aspects to every constitutional right. The alternative is worse. Once our rights start getting chipped away things really fall apart.

Enforce rules equally or not at all. I do not need rules to care about others.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
21,567
Reaction score
5,243
Points
290
So Barrett and the ultra right wingers ruled in favor of the virus.

wonderful
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,242
Reaction score
9,305
Points
2,070
Location
PNW

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top