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

[Blues Man]

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]

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]

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".

 

[Blues Man]

There is nothing about enforcement mentioned in this article

Supreme Court Blocks Covid Limits on New York Churches, Synagogues

 

[pknopp]

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]

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.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

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]

There is nothing about enforcement mentioned in this article

Supreme Court Blocks Covid Limits on New York Churches, Synagogues

The Supreme Court majority said the rules “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment,” imposing tighter restrictions on them than on acupuncture facilities and garages.

You already agreed this was a valid argument. So we are done here.

 

[Blues Man]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So Barrett and the ultra right wingers ruled in favor of the virus.

wonderful

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

How would Catholics have communion?