Posted on 02/06/2021 5:23:08 PM PST by marshmallow
CV NEWS FEED // The Supreme Court issued a ruling late Friday night that California must immediately allow churches to reopen at 25% of occupancy — ending the state’s ban on indoor worship.
The court’s splintered ruling leaves in place some of California’s restrictions, like a ban on singing during worship.
Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that California favors its movie industry more than religious believers. “But if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”
Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas would have ruled to effectively end all Covid-19 restrictions on worship. Justice Sam Alito would have granted California 30 days to prove that remaining restrictions were necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicvote.org ...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of more than 75% thereof...
How exciting the government will allow 75% to suck the whirlwind AFTER 25% elite are mandated to comply with masking, vitals and boundaries.
FOAD Babylonian system. Your days are numbered.
This country will be just much more harshly that Tyre and Sidon or Sodom and Gomnorrah.
More BS from the Supreme Court. Living in California, I have no problem walking into a supermarket or Costco or Sam’s Club or Walmart but God forbid I try to attend church services. How nice, we can worship God inside His building instead of having to sit outside in the cold to attend services. However, both outside and now inside are limited to 25%, and God forbid we dare to say the Our Father out loud. What a crock.
Absolutely pathetic. Supposedly free people, having to beg, hat in hand, to be allowed, sort of, to worship God.
PATHETIC! To hell with the COVID tyrants.
State constitutions need to be amended to put time limits on quarantines.
State constitutions also need to be amended to make state health officials elected by popular vote.
Constitutionally time-limited lockdowns need to automatically trigger special recall elections for governors, mayors and health officials who order quarantines, also state lawmakers.
Finally, constitutions need to require people planning to run for state and local offices to escrow a refundable "recall deposit" before becoming a candidate, the deposit fully paying in advance for their possible recall elections if they are elected, amounts determined by law.
Also concerning lockdowns, either recall Newsom web site below is OK. Mailing address on downloadable form.
Recall Newsom form (already 70% 80% signatures, deadline March 10, possibly March 17)
And all Government officials get no pay during the lockdown.
It’s not clear what Kavanagh and Barrett had to say about this issue.
Same here in PA, the Walmart stores are open and no longer counting people at the door. There’s no n-percent capacity rules. They don’t even enforce mask rule, or 6-ft distance. They are special.
Older I get the worse my typing. Gavin Newsom would plant his face in the Holy of Holies if there were a temple in Cartelfornia
At least one of those clowns can read.
It appears what they ruled against was that it was a facility where people gather and it cannot be treated differently than other venues where people gather. That is what California was doing - the Church was singled out. They did not actually rule specifically that they can reopen at 25%. They ruled if other venues can reopen at 25% then Churches cannot be singled out and not allowed to do the same.
The merits of this decision are obviously debatable - but the headline sort of presents a false impression as to what the ruling actually was.
It was a 6-3 decision.
The three liberals - Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan ruled that California can in fact single out churches to have greater restrictions than other facilities.
Funny! Gavin Newsom actually caring about a Supreme Court ruling.
Whew, so we only lost 75% of our God-given rights.
We need to relocate our Supreme Court to Montana.
That is one of the big ones for me. All these governors, health officials, etc. Tell you just stay home for two weeks, just shut of your business, just run your restaurant at 25%, etc. Have not lost a single paycheck. If they want to have restrictions like that in place they should not get paid and forfeit said pay until they Remove all restrictions.
I believe the law should be the governor may declare an executive order type health emergency but it cannot last for more than 30 days. If they wish to extend it past that 30 day period, you must go before the state legislature and they must justify everything they want to do and require a public hearing before any vote may be taken. That extension should not last more than another 15 or 30 days, thereby making the governor Go before the legislature every 15 to 30 days to extend it.
Also need to include worrying that prevents the governor from essentially re-issuing the exact same thing if they don’t get their way.
Other venues and the comparisons with stores and bars and such, imo, are beside the point. The percentages are irrelevant. Freedom of religion stands on its own right.
Why not 24% or 26% ?
While the SC is trying to look like the good guys they are really just part of the corruption and the march to communism. This decision is all about optics.
The decision was 6-3 agreeing that California may not place an outright ban on religious worship while allowing other sectors of the economy to stay open, even though limited, because it puts an undue burden on religion, so it must at least allow the 25% capacity imposed on businesses, etc. (Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh & Roberts voted in agreement on that standard; Breyer, Kagan & Sotamayor opposed)
Beyond that, the opinions were broken into 4 different general opinions agreeing on some things & disagreeing on others:
***Thomas, Gorsuch & Alito felt it was a first amendment violation & that any ban should be viewed as a full constitutional violation of people’s freedom of religion. They felt that there was no circumstance where the government could prevent religious services or public singing.
***Barrett & Kavanaugh, though essentially agreeing with that view, felt that in the event of a pandemic or health emergency, the government might be allowed very narrow & temporary restrictions under the most extreme circumstances- but it could only happen temporarily & it would have to be some applied across all sectors of society evenly- not just to churches. California’s policy is 25% capacity on other parts of the economy but an outright ban on religious services. They felt that religious institutions had to be allowed 25% capacity as well & that it was a violation of freedom of religion. Their view was slight less expansive than the first opinion. They will allow the ban on public singing temporarily for 30 days, until California can justify that policy & a lower court hears it.
***Roberts agreed they must allow 25% capacity like the rest of the economy & that religion was unduly by the policy. He didn’t believe it was a clear violation of freedom of religion. He felt that the government should be given wide latitude during health crises, but their policy must be applied equally. He was fine with the ban on singing due to health.
***Breyer, Kagan & Sotomayor felt that the government should be given free reign to ban anything they wanted during health emergencies. They also felt they should be allowed to apply the law unequally if they see fit. They opposed any arguments about constitutionality. They also supported the ban on singing.
I hope this helps 😉😃
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.