Posted on 02/05/2021 10:31:23 PM PST by george76
The Supreme Court is telling California it can't enforce a ban on indoor church services because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The high court issued orders late Friday in two cases where churches had sued over coronavirus-related restrictions in the state.
The high court said that for now, California can't ban indoor worship in areas where virus cases are surging, but it can cap indoor services at 25% of a building's capacity. The justices also declined to stop the state from barring singing and chanting at services.
...
The court's action follows a decision in a case from New York late last year in which the justices split 5-4 in barring the state from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc7.com ...
They just make it up as they go along. 25% is needed why? Why not 10% or 33%?
F the scotus. Bunch of cowardly, anti American bastards. Every damn one of them.
Take the W.
This crushes Newsome and the commies. People will rise up more now.
PLEASE.
Cowards
JJ Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito wanted to grant full relief, but no other justices would go further. Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor dissented.
How about they just face facts and admit the virus was seized upon by the Democrats after impeachment failed to let their “activists” burn and destroy stuff and keep Americans locked up in their homes to allow mail-in voting that was easily corrupted and used to steal the election?
It’s SO much easier than concocting all these cover stories.
That was my immediate reaction too.
I don't think the Supreme Court came up with the number. That is a number which has been applied to non-religious establishments. The "law" in question (assuming it has the effect of law) is not a law "respecting an establishment of religion". It is a law protecting public health.
For example, I don't think churches would be allowed to ignore building codes.
I think the 25 percent is a match for the 25 percent for other “businesses.”
Since freedom of religion is an enumerated right it would seem to me the church should get more capacity not the same.
Also since chanting and singing aren’t banned in stores then they should not be banned in church either.
Does this same rule apply to rioters and protesters? To BLM, Antifa, Democrats...
Sis the court ever address riotin lootin and burnin ???
I’m in CA, and a churchgoer. I read the actual opinion and I think the decision is reasonable.
Really all CA churches should try to hold more services outside. Then we can pack in the people and sing all we want without worry. It’s practically impossible to catch the virus outside. We have great weather most of the time. The Supreme Court even suggested it—funny.
To maintain distance between households of around 6ft
Distances between people at 100% capacity is around 1-2 ft so 4X the empty space at 25% capacity
Staying away from people in enclosed areas is definitely more effective at reducing spread than masks
Did
I still need to send mine in.
Decrees from petty tyrants are not the law.
Now, where the heck can Christians sail to find a place that will allow us freedom of worship???
I was thinking this too about outdoor services. If ever there was a region that can pretty much hold outdoor services comfortably year round it coastal Southern California. Although I absolutely am happy to see the positives on indoor services with this opinion. I often wondered why more places did not hole weekly outdoor services. The singing outdoor itself would call to stray souls close and afar ;D.
They’re just dividing the baby. Not very wise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.