| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Roberts joins liberals as Supreme Court rejects church challenge to CA virus restrictions |
| 2020-05-31 |
| [Gee, what a shocker. Roberts joins liberals.] [Just The News] In a rare late-night ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday voted 5-4 to reject an emergency appeal by a church that challenged California Gov. Newsom's limits on attendance at worship services designed to protect against the coronavirus. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, crossed over to join the court's four liberal justices as the deciding vote and to write the majority opinion. Newsom's restrictions permitting churches to operate with 25 percent of seats filled and no more than 100 worshipers at a time are consistent with the First Amendment because they treated other public venues like concerts, movies and sporting events similarly, Roberts wrote. "Although California's guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time," the chief justice wrote. "And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods," he added. The Supreme Court's ruling upheld lower courts in rejecting the argument from South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, Calif., that the restrictions on how many people can attend their services violate the Constitution's religious liberty protections. In a dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued the California restriction "discriminates against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses.".... |
| Posted by:Clem |
| #10 ..Karens |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-05-31 18:37 |
| #9 So who has been going into the Mosques, temples and Churches counting heads? |
| Posted by: Airandee 2020-05-31 16:45 |
| #8 #3 has it. Big box stores and "essential Businesses" get waivers from restrictions (*wink wink* Governor Wolf) especially if they're donors. Yet they aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Don't treat them better than the religions |
| Posted by: Frank G 2020-05-31 11:53 |
| #7 But, surely they are registered as "non-profit organizations" like the Clinton Foundation.... |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-31 11:38 |
| #6 Nonsense. The Constitution states that Congress will not make a law for the establishment of religion. I should think the Founding Fathers did not want another Church of England. Unfortunately, that horse is already out of the barn. |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-31 11:28 |
| #5 ..ah, yes, take that up with the SCOTUS holy 'Separation of Church and State' doctrine. Suddenly the state runs the church with state approved doctrines. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-05-31 10:41 |
| #4 If churches want to be treated the same, maybe they can start paying taxes. |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-31 10:36 |
| #3 rejecting the argument... that the restrictions on how many people can attend their services violate the Constitution's religious liberty protections. Not a lawyer, but I believe the argument was not restrictions per se, but that churches were being treated differently than businesses like restaurants. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2020-05-31 10:16 |
| #2 operate with 25 percent of seats filled Gee, 4 services instead of 1. How tough is that? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2020-05-31 10:13 |
| #1 See, if you are credentialed enough, you too can't read the Constitution too. Could you point out the 'suspension' clause for me in the text? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-05-31 07:20 |