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

[pknopp]

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.

HNJo one is abridging our Constitution. Churches can have virtual masses. There is no regulation on that. Churches are not above the state. You have to be able to buy food somewhere.

You can have food delivered to you.

Stores have been limited in how man people can attend. Stores have not been super spreaders unlike churches.

That's hardly in evidence. It was argued before the courts and accepted that these churches did not have spreads.

Out numbers are growing daily, it's not because of people going to church.

 

[busybee01]

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.

The First Amendment couldn't be any clearer on this matter. In America, government has no business whatsoever closing down places of worship.

In other words churches are above the law. That is not what the 1st Amendment says.

 

[wamose]

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.

There is no pandering, this is a Constitutional issue. The forefathers realized that people not only needed to healthy physically but also mentally and spiritually.

This church has been well ahead of the curve when it has come to Covid-19 and currently had no cases stemming from the church. So no one is “selling out”, they are being reasonable and are using the Constitution to guide them. Religious freedom is a basic right in our country.

Protecting the health and well being of the people is well within the realm of the Constitution.

People are free to exercise their religion without gathering in Spreader Events.
The Trump Court should know the difference

Roberts knew it.

Roberts is an idiot. He's as bad as the neocon elitist that nominated him.

 

[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.

That is not necessarily true. Many jobs are being done online.

Some are which does not make my statement untrue. Many churches are not holding in person services also.

 

[busybee01]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

No. The Constitution also deals with state governments also. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional whether it's a federal or state law. State laws are overturned all the time.

The laws on building capacity are not unconstitutional.

No. Unfairly enforcing them are.

There is nothing unfair. That only existsw in the minds of Taliban Christians.

 

[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.

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

The First Amendment couldn't be any clearer on this matter. In America, government has no business whatsoever closing down places of worship.

In other words churches are above the law. That is not what the 1st Amendment says.

As I noted earlier, these are not laws.

 

[busybee01]

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.

HNJo one is abridging our Constitution. Churches can have virtual masses. There is no regulation on that. Churches are not above the state. You have to be able to buy food somewhere.

You can have food delivered to you.

Stores have been limited in how man people can attend. Stores have not been super spreaders unlike churches.

That's hardly in evidence. It was argued before the courts and accepted that these churches did not have spreads.

Out numbers are growing daily, it's not because of people going to church.

Numerous outbreaks have occurred in churches.

 

[pknopp]

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.

HNJo one is abridging our Constitution. Churches can have virtual masses. There is no regulation on that. Churches are not above the state. You have to be able to buy food somewhere.

You can have food delivered to you.

Stores have been limited in how man people can attend. Stores have not been super spreaders unlike churches.

That's hardly in evidence. It was argued before the courts and accepted that these churches did not have spreads.

Out numbers are growing daily, it's not because of people going to church.

Numerous outbreaks have occurred in churches.

As they have at businesses. Even at that, look at how many sporting events have had outbreaks and yet they will go on.

 

[busybee01]

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."

No one is prohibiting the esercise. Only the form.

 

[busybee01]

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.

HNJo one is abridging our Constitution. Churches can have virtual masses. There is no regulation on that. Churches are not above the state. You have to be able to buy food somewhere.

You can have food delivered to you.

Stores have been limited in how man people can attend. Stores have not been super spreaders unlike churches.

That's hardly in evidence. It was argued before the courts and accepted that these churches did not have spreads.

Out numbers are growing daily, it's not because of people going to church.

Numerous outbreaks have occurred in churches.

As they have at businesses. Even at that, look at how many sporting events have had outbreaks and yet they will go on.

The number of people in the building have been severely limited if they are let in at all.

 

[Mac-7]

Churches are not above the state.

The state is not above the Constitution, which protects churches from the state

 

[pknopp]

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.

HNJo one is abridging our Constitution. Churches can have virtual masses. There is no regulation on that. Churches are not above the state. You have to be able to buy food somewhere.

You can have food delivered to you.

Stores have been limited in how man people can attend. Stores have not been super spreaders unlike churches.

That's hardly in evidence. It was argued before the courts and accepted that these churches did not have spreads.

Out numbers are growing daily, it's not because of people going to church.

Numerous outbreaks have occurred in churches.

As they have at businesses. Even at that, look at how many sporting events have had outbreaks and yet they will go on.

The number of people in the building have been severely limited if they are let in at all.

Your generalization is worthless.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

So freedom of association is the right you want taken away.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Cuomo doesn't have the power to write laws, Dummy.

Trump's Supreme Court just bitchslapped the Hitler Wannabe.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Moron. Try doing a bit of investigating before opening your flappy mouth.

You are the moron. You clearly are doing no investigation.

Nope. You would be the moron.

The ruling was on an edict from GOV Cuomo. You bleated about the President being able to suspend habeas corpus, which has nothing to do with this case, idiot.

 

[theHawk]

ACB made the difference. Of course turn coat Roberts sided with the socialists.

In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services.

www.cnn.com

Poor statists. They’ll have to “pack” the Supreme Court if they want to get their way now.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Apparently you don't know what "FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" means.

 

[theHawk]

 

[Nostra]

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.

That wasn't congress acting.

Link us up to the part of the Constitution that says a Governor isn't bound by it, Simpleton.

 

[pknopp]

Roberts ruled that because these particular rules are no longer in place the courts had no standing to over turn them. It's common for courts to rule that one not harmed can not bring a lawsuit. I disagree with that line of thinking but it's pretty common.

He stated that he might vote to overturn a current rule that was in place.

P.S. and the mods should move this to the thread already started.