Lawsuits Alleging Religious Discrimination - Covid 19

[CountValentine]

He did based on type of use.

So you don't take it as non-essential?

[aygart]

So you don't take it as non-essential?

No he very specifically write that it is

(i.e. assembly vs. passing business)

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/court-declines-to-lift-restrictions-on-crowds-at-church-services/
California (along with San Diego County) and Illinois urged the justices to deny the churches’ requests. They began by explaining that indoor worship services are different from retail stores or businesses because people are more likely to gather in close proximity for longer periods of time. Moreover, they added, the singing and speaking at worship services “increases the danger” that people who are infected with the COVID-19 virus will “project respiratory droplets that contain the virus,” passing the infection on to others. Indeed, they noted, there have been several examples of significant COVID-19 outbreaks linked to worship services.

....

Although the state treats activities like grocery stores and banks differently, Roberts continued, those activities are in fact different, because they do not involve large groups of people coming together in close proximity for extended periods of time. 

[CountValentine]

No he very specifically write that it is

Have a link? Can't find the whole decision.

[aygart]

Have a link? Can't find the whole decision.

See my edit above and

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/19A1044-Order.pdf

t. 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. 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.

[CountValentine]

See my edit above and

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/19A1044-Order.pdf

t. 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. 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.

Thanks. So there was no mention of essential or not?

[aygart]

Thanks. So there was no mention of essential or not?

I did not see it mentioned in either opinion. It was also not discussed by the stars from what I can see although I did not read through their briefs

[gozalim]

the state does not get to entangle in whether my worship is essential, they do get to apply lockdowns based on inherent danger (i.e. assembly vs. passing business)

I've been meaning to say this since the good count started throwing around "state says it's not essential" weeks ago. now Roberts finally clarified

[CountValentine]

I've been meaning to say this since the good count started throwing around "state says it's not essential" weeks ago. now Roberts finally clarified

Roberts clarified what?
ETA: In IL they tried to make the argument churches were essential like grocery stores. While not commenting on essential or not they lost there case. Basically telling you they are not essential.

[aygart]

Roberts clarified what?
ETA: In IL they tried to make the argument churches were essential like grocery stores. While not commenting on essential or not they lost there case. Basically telling you they are not essential.

Oh stop it. They very clearly said what their reasoning was. Just because it doesn't fit with what you were saying doesn't mean you get to make things up. They said exactly what @gozalim said.

1. I do not see anywhere where IL argues that religious services are not essential. Please show us where you are getting that from.
2. Even if they did make such an argument, that argument was REJECTED by SCOTUS unanimously. The court very clearly writes that it is solely due to the nature of the assembly.
3. If a state would now allow any sort of assembly which it woulf deem essential and then still not allow similar gatherings of religious nature, SCOTUS precedent is now to consider that UNCONSTITUTIONAL despite the ** that you are making up.

[Afrages6]

Oh stop it. They very clearly said what their reasoning was. Just because it doesn't fit with what you were saying doesn't mean you get to make things up. They said exactly what @gozalim said.

1. I do not see anywhere where IL argues that religious services are not essential. Please show us where you are getting that from.
2. Even if they did make such an argument, that argument was REJECTED by SCOTUS unanimously. The court very clearly writes that it is solely due to the nature of the assembly.
3. If a state would now allow any sort of assembly which it woulf deem essential and then still not allow similar gatherings of religious nature, SCOTUS precedent is now to consider that UNCONSTITUTIONAL despite the ** that you are making up.

Wouldn’t the protests that are being allowed be considered an assembly?

[aygart]

Wouldn’t the protests that are being allowed be considered an assembly?

The protests are illegal. They are also outdoors. THat they choose not to fully enforce the law regarding the protests can have all sorts of justifications.

[CountValentine]

Oh stop it. They very clearly said what their reasoning was. Just because it doesn't fit with what you were saying doesn't mean you get to make things up. They said exactly what @gozalim said.

Wait a minute. You said they never mentioned or ruled if churches were essential, no? How am I making things up?

[aygart]

Wait a minute. You said they never mentioned or ruled if churches were essential, no? How am I making things up?

That is correct. They very clearly stated that the sole reason was because all similar activity had the same rule. You made up that IL argued that religious is non-essential. You made up that SCOTUS was telling you that they are not essential. That is total **.

[CountValentine]

That is correct. They very clearly stated that the sole reason was because all similar activity had the same rule. You made up that IL argued that religious is non-essential. You made up that SCOTUS was telling you that they are not essential. That is total **.

I didn't make anything up. I see SCOTUS equating churches with non-essential situations and not essential situations. You are the one saying SCOTUS said exactly what another member said. They said no such thing and that is just your opinion. They have not ruled if churches are essential.

[aygart]

I didn't make anything up. I see SCOTUS equating churches with non-essential situations and not essential situations. You are the one saying SCOTUS said exactly what another member said. They said no such thing and that is just your opinion. They have not ruled if churches are essential.

I brought the exact quote. You only choose to ignore it. If you insist on blinding yourself any ignoring reality so be it. I can force you to face facts if you choose to keep yourself in alternate reality.
It is true that they did not rule whether or not they are essential. They ruled that the whole essential conversation is irrelevant. They ruled it is constitutional based on their have rules equivalent to similar activities. If you want to make up other stuff then go ahead, you can believe what you wish, but the SCOTUS was clear and ruled against your opinion.

See my edit above and

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/19A1044-Order.pdf

t. 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. 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.

[CountValentine]

I brought the exact quote. You only choose to ignore it. If you insist on blinding yourself any ignoring reality so be it. I can force you to face facts if you choose to keep yourself in alternate reality.
It is true that they did not rule whether or not they are essential. They ruled that the whole essential conversation is irrelevant. They ruled it is constitutional based on their have rules equivalent to similar activities. If you want to make up other stuff then go ahead, you can believe what you wish, but the SCOTUS was clear and ruled against your opinion.

We both agree they didn't rule if they were essential. My position is they are not essential. The rest is opinions on what their decision means. We look at it differently. Not sure why you keep saying I am making things up and am blinded.

[aygart]

We both agree they didn't rule if they were essential.

Basically telling you they are not essential.

[CountValentine]

The second part is my opinion. What's the issue?
 

[gozalim]

If the state, or Scotus, were to entangle itself in whether or not religious worship is more or less essential than other secular activities, it would be unconstitutional

[CountValentine]

If the state, or Scotus, were to entangle itself in whether or not religious worship is more or less essential than other secular activities, it would be unconstitutional

In context of this virus we disagree.